+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 139
  1. #51

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by MrFortune3 View Post
    They are not playing around with new cap. Damn.
    I'm confused. So, if the Yankees go on another IFS spending spree in 2019, the penalty is they only get 1/2 their pool to spend in each of 2020 and 2021? How is that worse than the two years after 2014? Did they spend over 2.4MM in 2015 or 2016?

    Tee up a 2019 or 2020 spending spree

  2. #52
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusto View Post
    I'm confused. So, if the Yankees go on another IFS spending spree in 2019, the penalty is they only get 1/2 their pool to spend in each of 2020 and 2021? How is that worse than the two years after 2014? Did they spend over 2.4MM in 2015 or 2016?

    Tee up a 2019 or 2020 spending spree
    It's simple. There are no more sprees. You only get your pool, which is around 5m (likely lower for us due to revenue). I think 4.75m. You can't spend more than that. End of story.

    You can trade/sell all of your pool, but you can only acquire an additional 75% of your pool. So if we have a 5m pool for a year, we can only bump to 8.75m on the year via trade.

  3. #53
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Badler just put on a piece explaining everything better than I.

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/inter...wk0ZkUH2i56.97

  4. #54

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by ClownPickle View Post
    It's simple. There are no more sprees. You only get your pool, which is around 5m (likely lower for us due to revenue). I think 4.75m. You can't spend more than that. End of story.

    You can trade/sell all of your pool, but you can only acquire an additional 75% of your pool. So if we have a 5m pool for a year, we can only bump to 8.75m on the year via trade.
    So why the penalty language? Void contracts and lose 50% in future?

    Edit: Here's the penalty language I'm talking about:

    Per Passan, MLB can penalize up to 50 percent of a team’s international bonus money through the 2021 season if it is found to be in violation of the new international signing rules.

  5. #55
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Turn my headphones up

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusto View Post
    So why the penalty language? Void contracts and lose 50% in future?

    Edit: Here's the penalty language I'm talking about:
    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/0...gning-ban.html

    The penalties are not for going over the cap (which is impossible), it's for doing shady accounting that makes it look like you stayed under the cap (or any other system-circumventing rule breaking). Like the Red Sox.

  6. #56
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusto View Post
    So why the penalty language? Void contracts and lose 50% in future?

    Edit: Here's the penalty language I'm talking about:
    That penalty isn't for going over the cap, you simply can't. It's for cheating, like the Red Sox did recently. Making their signings look less than they actually were.

  7. #57
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    There is one good thing in this. This is where our facilities down there should help.

    Signing bonuses of $10,000 or less will continue to be exempt from the bonus pools.
    http://www.baseballamerica.com/inter...Qd212wIu2i4.99

  8. #58

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by ClownPickle View Post
    That penalty isn't for going over the cap, you simply can't. It's for cheating, like the Red Sox did recently. Making their signings look less than they actually were.
    Ah, its becoming clearer now. Thanks.

  9. #59
    NYYF Legend

    Donnybaseball72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Proud Yankee fan in Red Sox Nation

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Why is the MLBPA union so dead set against an International Draft? What do they care?
    http://vimel.ru/e6748

  10. #60
    crescat scientia awy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHugeUnit2 View Post
    They weren't allowed to sign anyone this year and their prospects contracts were voided out.
    they were restricted anyway and their penalty was basically a rewind. slap on the wrist
    always reasonable

    Aaron Judge Career Homer #8
    http://m.mlb.com/video/v1294788283/s...-to-deep-right

  11. #61
    NYYF Legend

    kan_t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    To teams which invest heavily there, the hard cap is a lot better than a draft. It's not only about the exempted small bonus signings. The hard cap forces teams not to go insane for particular players. The academy and agent relationship become even more important.

  12. #62

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by Donnybaseball72 View Post
    Why is the MLBPA union so dead set against an International Draft? What do they care?
    Because some of the best players in the game came over via international FA and while the MLBPA does not really care about international born amateurs, it's members feel that any restriction you allow the owners to have will be strengthened at a later date.

  13. #63
    NYYF Legend

    kan_t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Quote Originally Posted by MrFortune3 View Post
    Because some of the best players in the game came over via international FA and while the MLBPA does not really care about international born amateurs, it's members feel that any restriction you allow the owners to have will be strengthened at a later date.
    A hard cap is even worse if they concern about restriction.

  14. #64
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Orange County

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by kan_t View Post
    A hard cap is even worse if they concern about restriction.
    Agreed...

  15. #65
    NYYF Legend

    Donnybaseball72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Proud Yankee fan in Red Sox Nation

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by MrFortune3 View Post
    Because some of the best players in the game came over via international FA and while the MLBPA does not really care about international born amateurs, it's members feel that any restriction you allow the owners to have will be strengthened at a later date.
    But they allowed the owners to cap the bonus pool for draftees only to watch the Cubans and Dominican amateurs make far more money. Seems like they care less about the American born players subject to the draft.
    http://vimel.ru/e6748

  16. #66
    NYYF Legend

    NelsonMuntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Alexandria, VA

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by Donnybaseball72 View Post
    But they allowed the owners to cap the bonus pool for draftees only to watch the Cubans and Dominican amateurs make far more money. Seems like they care less about the American born players subject to the draft.
    I'm with you. It doesn't make sense to me why the MLBPA is so opposed to an international draft. The alternative that they just agreed to seems much worse, IMO.
    David Ortiz tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2003.

  17. #67
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Orange County

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
    I'm with you. It doesn't make sense to me why the MLBPA is so opposed to an international draft. The alternative that they just agreed to seems much worse, IMO.
    So strange but so true. What is the thought process here? A kid in the MLB draft is controlled to a higher degree for the most part.

  18. #68

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by kan_t View Post
    A hard cap is even worse if they concern about restriction.
    A draft would essentially force a non competitive marketplace, granted the undertakings and logistics of it would be a mess.
    Even with the cap, teams can still sign good players and the 10K bonus is still not accounted for in that 4.75-6 mil number.

    As much as it seems to be a bad idea, just like with the amateur draft, it forces more money into the veteran players pockets. Owners are going to spend money, the MLBPA much like with the NFLPA want that money going into the hands of their respective veteran players.

    The draft pick compensation changes ensure that, that was one of the primary goals for the MLBPA to begin with, a truer form of free agency and more money going into the pool for veteran players. Less restrictions.

    While they have little care in dealing away the rights of non union members, they do not want to fully eliminate free market deals for those players.

    Now, where the messed up badly on was the 25 year age restriction, Otani & Fujinami are guys they should want in the MLB as soon as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Donnybaseball72 View Post
    But they allowed the owners to cap the bonus pool for draftees only to watch the Cubans and Dominican amateurs make far more money. Seems like they care less about the American born players subject to the draft.
    That was more designed to force players into signing and having less drama. Similar to the NFL agreeing to the rookie scale.
    Too many players were having insane bonus demands and essentially forcing their way out of certain teams taking them.

  19. #69
    NYYF Legend

    kan_t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Just because they have a cap on IFA, it doesn't mean that the owners have to spend more to the veterans. It is not NFL CBA. They don't have to share guarantee revenue percentage.

    And makes it even worse, the luxury tax cap doesn't raise enough to match with the revenue growth.

    The IFA draft is for the owners to get cost certainty. Now the union gives them a even better proposal to get the cost certainty and open the flood gate to any form of hard cap in the future.

    Clark messed up badly.

  20. #70

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Quote Originally Posted by kan_t View Post
    Just because they have a cap on IFA, it doesn't mean that the owners have to spend more to the veterans. It is not NFL CBA. They don't have to share guarantee revenue percentage.

    And makes it even worse, the luxury tax cap doesn't raise enough to match with the revenue growth.

    The IFA draft is for the owners to get cost certainty. Now the union gives them a even better proposal to get the cost certainty and open the flood gate to any form of hard cap in the future.

    Clark messed up badly.
    Outside of a few teams that attempt to utilize their club for profit instead of being actively competitive, most owners are going to spend money on vets if it's available.
    You see it in the contracts that are handed out in FA, the only thing that has stopped them from spending more has been the qualifying offer penalties and that was only with certain players.

    Now instead of spending 7 mil on a IFA prospect or forking over a major deal for a 23-24 year old outside of the bonus structure, now that money is likely to go back into the ML side and get spent that way.

  21. #71
    NYYF Legend

    kan_t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Quote Originally Posted by MrFortune3 View Post
    Outside of a few teams that attempt to utilize their club for profit instead of being actively competitive, most owners are going to spend money on vets if it's available.
    You see it in the contracts that are handed out in FA, the only thing that has stopped them from spending more has been the qualifying offer penalties and that was only with certain players.

    Now instead of spending 7 mil on a IFA prospect or forking over a major deal for a 23-24 year old outside of the bonus structure, now that money is likely to go back into the ML side and get spent that way.
    I don't see any evidence of it. It doesn't stop them from spending on veterans under the previous system. In 2015 only 8 teams spent more than $5M and 3 of them spent less than $6M. The top spending teams were Red Sox, the Cubs and the Dodgers. You can add the Rangers and the Yankees which were restricted. The IFA cap are not going to affect those teams. And most of the owners won't spend more just because there is a cap. Majority of the owners didn't spend that much on IFA anyway.

    If Clark is sold that the owners would spend more because of the cap, it just shows how incompetent he is.

  22. #72
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    As expected. Such bullshi*.

    $5.75 Million
    Arizona Diamondbacks
    Baltimore Orioles
    Cleveland Indians
    Colorado Rockies
    Kansas City Royals
    Pittsburgh Pirates
    St. Louis Cardinals
    San Diego Padres
    $5.25 Million
    Cincinnati Reds
    Miami Marlins
    Milwaukee Brewers
    Minnesota Twins
    Oakland Athletics
    Tampa Bay Rays
    $4.75 Million
    Atlanta Braves
    Boston Red Sox
    Chicago Cubs
    Chicago White Sox
    Detroit Tigers
    Houston Astros
    Los Angeles Angels
    Los Angeles Dodgers
    New York Mets
    New York Yankees
    Philadelphia Phillies
    San Francisco Giants
    Seattle Mariners
    Texas Rangers
    Toronto Blue Jays
    Washington Nationals

    http://www.baseballamerica.com/inter...l-bonus-pools/

  23. #73

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    Why is Baltimore in with the poverty teams?
    Don't tease me, you know what I do for a living.

  24. #74
    NYYF Legend

    Snatch Catch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    CA

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    I've always loved how Oakland is considered small market.
    Jaret Wright's 2005 Cy Young Season: 20-3, 3.04 ERA

  25. #75
    "The Barrel" ClownPickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego

    Re: 2017 International Free Agency

    I wonder what the international pools are going to be worth on the open market. What's a couple million get you?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts