Last 2 tiers

[Padres GM (Amy)]

Why does the 2nd to last tier have 15 mil more than the last tier but the same exact tags? This needs to change IMO. There's no reason for it.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I've got to agree with Amy. Doesn't make any sense.

You could switch it to 2 Franchise tags and 1 RFA for the 3rd tier.

In Victor's Moneyball league there are 3 tiers. They go 2 RFA and no franchise tag for the top tier. 1 Franchise and 1 RFA for the middle tier and 2 Franchise no RFA for the 3rd. Making it 2 Fran and 1 RFA here is pretty much the same idea.

[Deleted]

Oct 26, 2013 5:22:24 GMT -8 Padres GM (Amy) said:

Why does the 2nd to last tier have 15 mil more than the last tier but the same exact tags? This needs to change IMO. There's no reason for it.

Agreed!

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

As a large market team, I agree also. However, I'd highly prefer to keep a franchise tag. I'd rather have the tags work like this:

1 Tier: 1 Franchise, 1 Restricted
2 Tier: 1 Franchise, 2 Restricted
3 Tier: 2 Franchise, 1 Restricted

I figure there has to be a handful of fellow math geeks in here. If we can figure out the value of each type of tag, then you could set the tiered salary caps properly spaced.

[Padres GM (Amy)]

Nov 1, 2013 16:32:18 GMT -8 Cubs GM (Beau) said:

As a large market team, I agree also. However, I'd highly prefer to keep a franchise tag. I'd rather have the tags work like this:

1 Tier: 1 Franchise, 1 Restricted
2 Tier: 1 Franchise, 2 Restricted
3 Tier: 2 Franchise, 1 Restricted

I figure there has to be a handful of fellow math geeks in here. If we can figure out the value of each type of tag, then you could set the tiered salary caps properly spaced.

I agree with this set up.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Nov 1, 2013 17:14:21 GMT -8 Padres GM (Amy) said:

Nov 1, 2013 16:32:18 GMT -8 Cubs GM (Beau) said:

As a large market team, I agree also. However, I'd highly prefer to keep a franchise tag. I'd rather have the tags work like this:

1 Tier: 1 Franchise, 1 Restricted
2 Tier: 1 Franchise, 2 Restricted
3 Tier: 2 Franchise, 1 Restricted

I figure there has to be a handful of fellow math geeks in here. If we can figure out the value of each type of tag, then you could set the tiered salary caps properly spaced.

I agree with this set up.

As a small market team, I personally place more value on the restricted tag than I do on the franchise tag. Agreed that we do need to change something here, though.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I would rather restricted tag as well.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

The eventual idea is to have all of the tiers eventually even out. Does the lowest tier get an additional tag in the mean time? As a lower tiered team, I prefer the additional restricted tag like others have pointed out.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

I know I am a larger market team, but I see the tag values opposite. If you look back and see what RFA agent bids go for, there is no way they are beneficial for small market teams. Teams with a lot of cap room or since we are allowed to back load contracts here, can make the bids much to high for small market teams to afford. With a franchise tag, there is no competing with other teams for the services of your free agent player. Yes, sometimes the contracts get a little bit to large but for the most part they are always much better than what gets handed out in RF agency here. You can always trade those franchised players to larger market teams and get cheaper talent. That was my look at the tags when I set up my league.

[Padres GM (Amy)]

Why would the people who said they'd rather restricted tags feel that way?

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Nov 2, 2013 16:00:41 GMT -8 Padres GM (Amy) said:

Why would the people who said they'd rather restricted tags feel that way?

I greatly prefer the flexibility offered me by the additional restricted tag over being locked in to a specific salary via a franchise tag.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I see the point these other teams are making about preferring the RFA tag, but disagree. There are potentially advantages (additional draft picks or bargain contracts to name two that leap to mind) that RFA's offer for rebuilding teams. To me though, the Franchise tag is a certain thing and the RFA speculative. I'll go with the known quantity and vote for an additional Franchise tag.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

We could also bypass the whole argument. Top tier gets 2 tags (1 Fran, 1 RFA). 2nd tier gets 3 (1 Fran, 2 RFA). 3rd tier gets 4 (2 Fran, 2 RFA).

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

I would def disagree with giving the lowest tier so many extra tags. I really feel that everyone should have the same amount of tags, but to give 2 extra tags than another tier isnt good. Im ok with 1 extra but 2 extra begins to limit the free agent pool as well.

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I think the Twins suggestion is the best. As a small market team, I don't mind the money inequality but give me something to work with, if you don't like the number of tags going up then even out the salaries. The gap is an actual competitive difference, and while many small market teams have adjusted it makes our work that much harder to try and keep and develop talent.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

The only problem I see (as a big market team) is that those tags very well may be more valuable than the corresponding salaries for the players that get tagged. That is why I keep asking, how much are they worth? 20 Million? If they are then I could see something like this:

Tier One: $140M and 2 tags
Tier Two: $120M and 3 tags
Tier Three: $100M and 4 tags

But again the major con is the amount of FAs being taken out of the market: 90 every year. That will leave some slim pickins. But that is kind of how real MLB is right now anyways.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I think those gaps are far too wide, especially since the idea is to eventually reach equality.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

In fact, the previous 5 tier structure did give the bottom tier 2 Fran and 2 RFA. There needs to be something given here. As written tier 3 is just tier 2 with $15M less. The more I think about it, the more I believe 4 tags is the most reasonable.

For the sake of argument, another option would to be give the third tier 3 "open" tags. These could be used as each individual owner saw fit, either as a Franchise tag or an RFA tag.

My vote is still for 2 and 2 though.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

The talk about tags will be impacted by the future salary cap structure as we move away from a tiered system. Please see pbfantasybaseball.proboards.com/thread/8746/salary-cap-year-future

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

The new tier plans looks great. I'd be fine with either of the first two options, but option 1 appeals to me the most as it seems to offer the most balanced transition. Plan 3 isn't a deal breaker for me, but it is the most abrupt. As such, it might pose a problem both to maxed out upper tier teams and potentially to us bottom feeders as well. The fear would be that there would be a price escalation run on the quality FA with more available $ which would reduce the relative value of the the $ bump. Also new owners might be tempted to spend too large chunks of their money in one place. (see Nick Swisher, eeesh)