RFA

[Padres Alan GM]

I like that

[Giants GM]

As part of our rules committee, here is what we based our RFA rules after.

MLB rule:

If your team received revenue sharing last year and the departing player signed a contract worth more than $50 million guaranteed, the former team will receive a compensatory draft pick from the sandwich round between Rounds 1 and 2. ( We didn't go by salary, this would be your Player rater 1 - 20.) ** note: all our teams would receive revenue sharing because we have a salary cap **

If the player signs for less than $50 million, the compensation pick for those teams would come after Competitive Balance Round B, which follows the second round. ( Once again, no salary ... this would be your next 20 players, and so on. )


The example that comes to my mind ... when Arizona signed Bumgarner from my Giants, Arizona didn't lose a pick, they gained a pitcher. Giants lost a pitcher, but gained a comp. pick that year.

We have been going for 7 years, I have been there 5 and we started RFA my 1st year. I was the "new" voice on the committee. It passed with not a single no vote. It's worked well for us, but it may not be right for this league.

[Red Sox GM]

i personally think that the draft pick should be coming from the team that wins the RFA, that way it does not water down the picks we already own, such as if 8 RFA are won that means 8 more draft picks added between rounds 1 and 2 which makes the 2nd round picks less valuable overall. So my vote will be the picks need to come from the team winning since they chose to bid on the player.

[Padres Alan GM]

Agree

[Giants GM]

My vote would be do neither ... I haven't used my RFA in a couple of years, probably won't use it here either if its passed. I just threw it out there because its what we do, as another option. They are fanatics about staying as close to MLB as possible, lol.

[Cubs]

Sounds like Red Sox and Padres want our Qualifying Option then, instead of RFA.

[Padres Alan GM]

Just trying to make it better ……

[Giants GM]

I agree Cubs, it would be a QO instead of RFA, but it's ok with me ... I don't use it very often. Remember the old contract year limits, that still confuses the best of them, haha!

[mannybeingmanny]

If you really want that free agent be willing to give up your own picks. If you do not have a pick it is the owners fault for including that pick in another deal and not thinking about the future. Making up picks devalues them and hurts teams who invest a lot into prospects. We can vote on this instead of going back and forth.

[Red Sox GM]

What i am proposing is a mixture of both. In this case there is no qualifying offer, what i am thinking is this:

Team A designates a player as an RFA
Team B bids and wins the player
Team A can either match the offer or based off the player rater, Team B would have to send that corresponding pick to Team A as compensation for winning that player.

So we have made it RFA but instead of getting a competitive balance pick between rounds and devaluing our current picks, the other team would have to give up one of there own picks.