Free Agency Contract

[LA Angels (kennymoniz)]

So just a question, what would people think of instead of doing free agency in the way who can sign the player to the highest amount of salary per year, and then whoever wins that, they get to choose how many years they want that player.
I was thinking we should do free agency by who can offer the most amount of guaranteed money. So then the offer on years would matter, so a 500k contract for 2 years would beat out a 750k for one year. 

[Miami Marlins (John)]

I like the idea, but I'm fine with it either way. As long as the rules are the same for everyone, noone is at a disadvantage. You just have to adapt to whatever rules are in place.

[Deleted]

I personally prefer total money on the contract. Makes it more realistic, mainly because a real life player would never take a 1 year 20M deal over a 5 year 18M/year deal.

[Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog)]

I stated what I thought on fantrax for those that what to read my fill opinion but I think we should keep it the way the rules state already. Keep it simple while we bid by just bidding by AAS or average annual salary NO years.

We will be bidding on many players at once and it prevents Someone for instance getting stuck for 4 long term contracts when they were really trying to win one player. Again see my point on fantrax for further understanding

[Deleted]

It's impossible to follow that train of reasoning in a chat transcript if you're not reading it real-time. Bidding years/salary as a total is pretty much the standard in 30 team leagues. I'm only in one where it's not, and it's still a variant on that. If you can't manage your bids and salary situation, it's your own problem.

Really all it does is give you a get out of jail free card when you get caught running up the bid on a player you don't really want.  34M/yr on Cano?  Oh, I just wanted to do that for a year.  Otherwise you really should be capable of planning when you're making your bids for farther into the future than the current year.  

[Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog)]

Don't agree when you got 30 owners all bidding for over 100 players at the same time.

Easy fix to the "get out of jail free card" is to say any bid over a certain amount, say 15m has to have a minimum of a 3 year contract. Any successful bid under that you can chose however long you want.

[St. Louis Cardinals]

I do like the minimum length idea for high bids, simply because in our other league I feel like ppl who feel they are just a player away can throw their entire cap at one guy and just sign him to one year and free up all that cap in the following year. Not realistic. This has already happened a few times in out other league. However either way is cool w me. As mentioned above, just have to adapt, we're all playing by the same rules.

[Deleted]

I guess I just don't see why you think the managers in this league are not capable of managing their salary cap while making their bids while at the same time it works perfectly fine in all 7 of my other 30 team leagues. It's something they have to manage in real life as a GM, and I agree that throwing all salary on one year is not realistic.

Also, what will happen is the top 40-50 guys will be on a bunch of 1 year deals by year 6 because it's just sensible to want to mitigate your risk in paying a large % of your cap to one player for a long period of time. This also defeats the purpose of making this a dynasty league, IMO, since your best players after that point will be on short term deals.