RFA

[Dodgers GM]

Sept 23, 2021 17:24:48 GMT -5 Red Sox GM said:

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.

So mixed QO / RFA, team designates 1 player as RFA, can choose to match any final offer, if they choose not to match they receive the signing team's pick (round determined based on where the player landed in the player rater)?

[Red Sox GM]

Sept 23, 2021 18:18:26 GMT -5 Dodgers GM said:

Sept 23, 2021 17:24:48 GMT -5 Red Sox GM said:

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.

So mixed QO / RFA, team designates 1 player as RFA, can choose to match any final offer, if they choose not to match they receive the signing team's pick (round determined based on where the player landed in the player rater)?

yes, that is what i think is the best way for all. It won't dilute any of the current picks by adding additional picks and the signing team has something to lose if they bid on them.

[Cubs]

And the original owning team only gets to keep them one additional year?

[Dodgers GM]

Sept 23, 2021 18:33:28 GMT -5 Cubs said:

And the original owning team only gets to keep them one additional year?

I would say they match whatever the winning bid - if it's 1 year then sure, if it's 5 years x 20 mill they get them for the full length

[mannybeingmanny]

We have a major limitation as well that if a player is designated with QO/RFA not many teams will be able to bid because they traded picks away etc. I feel like people can game the system here to a certain extent where as in normal free agency everyone has a shot and now if you don’t have picks you are eliminated from bidding. Most of the time the weaker teams have cash to spend and they traded picks away for multiple reasons. It hurts teams rebuilding as well why would they give up a very high first? it makes it seem like if you have a top pick you don’t want to sign a QO/RFA. I think the rich will get richer. Also what happens if you stock pile picks are you able to get multiple QO/RFA players? I think implementing this will hurt the weaker teams after thinking more about it.

[Padres Alan GM]

I do not believe the rich get richer in this case it makes picks more valuable. You have to be smart with your picks as your money. I just don’t see the point in just making up picks. I like Shane’s idea

[Dodgers GM]

Sept 23, 2021 22:46:03 GMT -5 mannybeingmanny said:

We have a major limitation as well that if a player is designated with QO/RFA not many teams will be able to bid because they traded picks away etc. I feel like people can game the system here to a certain extent where as in normal free agency everyone has a shot and now if you don’t have picks you are eliminated from bidding. Most of the time the weaker teams have cash to spend and they traded picks away for multiple reasons. It hurts teams rebuilding as well why would they give up a very high first? it makes it seem like if you have a top pick you don’t want to sign a QO/RFA. I think the rich will get richer. Also what happens if you stock pile picks are you able to get multiple QO/RFA players? I think implementing this will hurt the weaker teams after thinking more about it.

I don’t think it’ll necessarily help / hurt teams, I think it’ll add a bunch of new wrinkles and teams can decide how they want to go ahead with it. Plus we’re not talking about instituting it until next offseason since this years / next years picks have already been dealt in some cases, meaning teams have a full year to prep what they want to do with their 2023 picks.

By new wrinkles I’m thinking:
- at trade deadlines, teams now have the ability to designate RFAs so they could say “well I don’t want to give up player X because I could keep him as RFA so you need to give me at least Pick X to make it worth it”
- in free agent bidding teams could keep their player / match and not get a pick, or agree to get a pick (if they think it’ll be a high pick in the next draft), or could match and trade for more than what they’d get from RFA compensation
- to your point, yes absolutely you can stockpile a bunch of picks in order to sign RFAs and trading for picks can take teams out of the running for the player(s) you’re bidding on. I don’t see how that hurts a team - either they get assets for their own picks if they trade them away, or they give up assets to get more picks to sign specific players

All up to the managers in the end, if they think “I’m 1-2 players away and I need to give up a pick? Sure why not” that’s entirely their decision and there’s no way of knowing if it’s right or wrong until the games are actually played

[Padres Alan GM]

Well said Taylor

[Giants GM]

Taylor, let me get this straight, are you saying we wait till the trade deadline to designate our "RFA"?

[Red Sox GM]

I think what Taylor is saying is that when the trade deadline rolls around, Team A may be reluctant to move a player on an expiring contract because he might designate him an RFA so you would need to make it worth it to make me want to deal that player.