Club Options when Franchising Players

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

I dont remember if we ever started a thread about this but think its about time it is revisited and given serious thought. I still dont understand why we as clubs/owners of our teams are not allowed to pick up Club options when we franchise a player if the option is available in their posted contracts on COTs. I dont think we should be allowed to do this at the end of every year if a player has multiple options, but if you franchise a player and say they have a 7yr contract with 3yrs being club options, shouldnt we be allowed to decide at that time if we want to pick up those options? I dont think we should be able to go back later and pick them up if we decline them but if we decide, yes, I want to gamble and pick up all the players club options, I think that should be ok. If we arent, can we get a significant explanation against it other than its "always been in the rules" explanation that I seem to get when I mention this flaw.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

Given the structure of contracts in the majors, I would like to revisit this as a rule change as well. I like the suggestion that when franchising you must declare what options are picked up. Those options would become a guaranteed part of the contract even if they are not picked up in real life.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

In addition, piggybacking off this, but slightly different. I'd like to see the franchise tag cover all remaining arbitration years. Again, it's a risk for the owner here, but the RL club has control of a player until those arbitration years run out, so why don't we? Especially when building a young team, which many here seem to be doing, it very much (needlessly, in my opinion) complicates matters.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

The other side is.

When most of the clubs voting are the winning teams, sure it makes sense, a winning club gets to keep their team together longer. This decreases the availability of quality players in FA for rebuilding teams and works against Parity.

People have also talked about expanding rosters, it works against parity as well.

Yes, Everyone would like it if you got to keep your best players til they no longer are worth anything.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Oct 20, 2017 2:22:20 GMT -8 Rockies GM (Dan) said:

In addition, piggybacking off this, but slightly different. I'd like to see the franchise tag cover all remaining arbitration years. Again, it's a risk for the owner here, but the RL club has control of a player until those arbitration years run out, so why don't we? Especially when building a young team, which many here seem to be doing, it very much (needlessly, in my opinion) complicates matters.

How many players are getting tagged as FA that didn't go through PP?

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Oct 20, 2017 12:23:21 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

The other side is.

When most of the clubs voting are the winning teams, sure it makes sense, a winning club gets to keep their team together longer. This decreases the availability of quality players in FA for rebuilding teams and works against Parity.

People have also talked about expanding rosters, it works against parity as well.

Yes, Everyone would like it if you got to keep your best players til they no longer are worth anything.

This is an important point to this good (and worthy) debate. The first league I was in originally only allowed three years of protection, which was obviously far too low since players hardly establish themselves before everyone can have a crack at them. We chose 5 as a bit of a middle ground to ensure extended protection while still creating difficult decisions and ensuring a healthy free agent pool. We still have two tags (we did have more before) to help teams hold on to their best free agents. Personally, I don't think tags should apply to arbitration years for this reason; our rules on protection also differ from the pros (even if only a little bit, there's still a difference). I also struggle with the option election for similar reasons, though I can get behind that quicker.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

Oct 20, 2017 12:23:21 GMT -8 Former Angels GM (Mike C.) said:

The other side is.

When most of the clubs voting are the winning teams, sure it makes sense, a winning club gets to keep their team together longer. This decreases the availability of quality players in FA for rebuilding teams and works against Parity.

People have also talked about expanding rosters, it works against parity as well.

Yes, Everyone would like it if you got to keep your best players til they no longer are worth anything.

You don't have to agree with me, but don't create a straw man where there isn't one. How many players, especially stars, are "worth nothing" once they've exhausted their arbitration years in the MLB? There's been times when someone finishes a contract in this league and then has two years left of arbitration. It's ridiculous IMO that you as an owner are solely dependent on the actions of the MLB franchise. Some teams extend through arbitration as a rule where others largely ride out arbitration or sign year-to-year deals, and you have ZERO control over that.

If I suggested arbitration years plus another five, then you'd have an argument. As I said, feel free to disagree with me. Just don't put words in my mouth or interpret my actions to anything they aren't.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

[/quote]You don't have to agree with me, but don't create a straw man where there isn't one. How many players, especially stars, are "worth nothing" once they've exhausted their arbitration years in the MLB? There's been times when someone finishes a contract in this league and then has two years left of arbitration. It's ridiculous IMO that you as an owner are solely dependent on the actions of the MLB franchise. Some teams extend through arbitration as a rule where others largely ride out arbitration or sign year-to-year deals, and you have ZERO control over that. this is exactly what's it about, control, you want more control over your players, everyone in the league does, everything else we both are saying is fluff.

If I suggested arbitration years plus another five, then you'd have an argument. As I said, feel free to disagree with me. Just don't put words in my mouth or interpret my actions to anything they aren't.[/quote]

Your really working to get in a rule that obviously has come up with a player, maybe even two. We all could suggest a rule change based on one of our players situations, the rule book will have rule changes every year, if that's the way the league wants to go. I was told to play by the rules when I entered this league, I said fine I will if everyone else does, every year for 6 years rules have changed annually. Many have not played by the rules I was told to follow. Plenty have created straw man, there is a field of them in here.

Not creating anything, a rule is being created to work against Parity in the league.

can list Matt Cain, Tim Lincecum, Ubaldo Jimenez, recent ones without researching at all, Mike Hampton for the old guys, I am not going to research all the examples. That's not the main point of this. Some make it some don't.

Locking up more players for longer years, works against rebuilding and new teams getting better players to create more parity.

It only matter if your for Parity or for the Have's to Have longer is the basis of this. If you don't want Parity, I would agree to the rule, absolutely, will improve my team. It won't improve the league.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

I wasnt trying to open Pandora's box when I posted this. I agree with Dan about the protection as it seems there are a ton of players that seem to exhaust the 5yrs of player protection before they hit 1yr of ARB and then you are left trying to tag that player year after year and losing other key players because of it. That I have just dealt with, and continued to build knowing that is what is going to happen. I dont like it a ton, but it does keep parity which I think is important to help all teams to compete year after year. I just wanted to be able to pick up CLUB options on contracts when we use a franchise tag. There are lot of contracts out there that are posted on COTs and but a lot of the final 3yrs or more are club options. I just think we should be given the chance at the time we place a Franchise tag on said player to pick those options up. Once they are picked up and finalized on board, no going back.

OR say at same time, said player has 7yr contract and final 3yrs are club options, you decline when you tag the player at end of year 4, you will have to Franchise him again if you want to pick up those 3yrs again or just 2yrs if you so chose. It just gives club owners more flexibility with players they have scouted and drafted over time and maybe got good contract extensions with their RL clubs.

I never thought this was a huge deal so hoped if it was brought up again we could get it instituted as I thought many were in favor in it after discussions with other owners via trade talks.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

I get the thought process on the idea and you have a valid point, everyone has a valid point on every rule change offer, they all could be passed and used, I have seen the issue come up with my team, but seeing the full effect of each rule change. The pro and the con, is important for the league over the individual teams. Coming up with a rule for each situation that arises, it's like watching a dog chase its tail. They are NEVER ending and keep a league in flux.

In two other dynasty leagues that have been around both for over 15 years. Turnover is usually for real life reasons and rare. I honestly don't know the last rule change in either, both don't have a trade committee, we all just play by the current rules as is, good/bad/indifferent, everyone just gets to play and focus on fantasy baseball fun, with no issues. But its rare to have rule changers, stay in our long standing leagues very long, they get frustrated and bail, experienced fantasy owners stay because we all went through these processes at some time as well. In our 20's, when we were just as passionately into it as some are in here, we made rule changes and had veto committees all the time it. Just makes it more like work and much less fun but we thought we always were making it better, those leagues died, mostly because the teams NOT as into it would bail because of rule changes and vetoes hassels, and it was more work to keep replacing teams. Seeing the actual results/stats of rule changes and trade committee votes proved to be less effective that we, at the time truly, thought their worth was.

Overall, a overwhelming majority of fantasy players, even perceived great players, just want to play the game without having to deal with new, minor, rule changes that mostly truly impact the top teams that are extremely into it and watching every detail. This just isn't new issues at all that haven't had tried and true results attached to them.

I wish we would have had someone tell us this in our 20's, and saved us all the pointless work that we thought had a point, but we wouldn't have listened either, we thought we were revolutionizing fantasy baseball leagues, especially because it was OUR leagues. The league that have stood the test of time, set the rules, as is, like an objective commish and let us play by them, not letting individual teams adjust them every year to suit their team.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Honestly a great example is Madison Bumgarner, he has two 1 year club controlled years right now.

If a team that owns him gets to keep him for those 2 years, automatically, it removes the decision to have to franchise him both years. You would get to use franchise tag on ANOTHER great player and a 2nd the following season. Eliminating 2 great players to the possible FA pool. Where as currently if he is RFAed or released in to FA. Another team rebuilding can have a chance to get him before his contract value is lost after those 2 seasons. If he isn't a matt cain, tim lincecum or many great short term pitchers. Where his value could taken sooner.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

Don’t want his to get lost in all the trade fury. So is this something we can make happen this offseason?

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Changes never happen this quickly so if there are any changes, they would likely start next offseason.