Matching Adjustment Thread

[Tigers (prev. Redbirds Amy)]

I'm kind of indifferent on the topic. But I think the RFA shouldn't get crowded with this debate, it's a thread for matching or declining RFA. So I suggest moving the discussion here.

[Javelinas GM (Scott)]

Personally don't care if it's ruled one way or the other. I do believe the intent was to allow the tag owner the option to change the years at same AAS as long as it was within the years guidelines for the tag holder. Intent being the key word.

[Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad)]

From previous thread:

"Brad, I would agree that this contradicts the rule. However, it's obvious to me that this was accidentally copied and pasted from a different league and somehow didn't get edited. It states "Pursuant to rule 12...." Well rule 12 has nothing to do with this process. A simple edit of "total contract amount no less" to "AAS no less".

It was acknowledged at some point long ago that the rules were in large part copied and pasted from a similar league and then edited to fit this league. Jimmy just needs to clarify and/or edit."

Okay, but who's to say which cut and pasted rule trumps which. I would be way more comfortable changing the language this way:

"Now the holder of the tag has to match (and can exceed) the AAS and has to match the total value of the contract. They do not have to match the years - they have the option to shorten the length of the contract - and can rearrange the salaries as they see fit for their team, as long as they are following the rules for salary spread."

This still allows the holding team to manipulate a contract in a favorable way without completely altering it's value. The Ortiz match, as currently structured, is about $15M less in total value than the bid. Is that really the intent? On the face of it, that seems like a ridiculous advantage to the tag-holder. Like some sort of bastardized reserve clause/free agency mistake.

And given the contradictory statements in the rules, why would we go with the unfair version? Let's change the language, to be sure, but let's not keep a rule that let's owners 'match' while not really matching

[Deleted]

That.

[Javelinas GM (Scott)]

Again, as Blue Sox points out, AAS has always been the key and not total value oft he contract. The tags have always been intended to favor the holder. It's designed that way to help teams retain some of their players. I don't see it as unfair at all, since all owners have the same option.

The driving intent is to make it easier for owners to retain some of their players. If that wasn't the intent, then why bother having tags at all, just let everyone be UFA and let the old owner bid like everyone else to retain their player.

[Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad)]

BlueSox, on previous thread, states:

"I agree with Scott and Tim. This was a simple mistake with the verbiage that hadn't come to light because this is the first RFA for this league. As Scott pointed out, I thought the various charts within the rule made it very straightforward that the owner of RFA had the opportunity to decrease the number of years as long as the AAS was the same. AAS has always been the key to determining the players value in this league."

One point. AAS and contract length are the keys to determining the players value. Joe Mauer is grossly overpaid in 2015 at $23M. But the contract becomes a complete albatross at $23M through 2018. Contract length, and thus total value, are a huge factor in determining a player's worth.

This Ortiz case is a really great example of that. The bidder was pushing the envelope by bidding way into Papi's 40's at $8.9M per. The matching GM just gets to match the AAS, shave off two years of commitment, and pay around $15M less overall? Wow, that is a ridiculous advantage.

I'm arguing against my best interests here as well. I have three RFA pitchers coming up and it would be amazing to be able to restructure for the short term like this but it hardly seems fair.

[Javelinas GM (Scott)]

The Ortiz case is also a good example from the perspective that this LM and board have made it clear their intent is to keep ridiculous contracts off of teams by having stiff penalties, as evidenced by the change in waiver penalty. They seek to discourage owners from giving crazy contracts. Allowing tag holders to reduce years is one mechanism to limit 40 year olds from being given 5 year contracts.

Would seem allowing Ortiz to be reduced fits in with that intent as well.

[Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad)]

Well I don't think I can, or probably should, state my opinion more. I'm fine either way but I am looking for clarification.

[Javelinas GM (Scott)]

Jan 18, 2015 11:44:56 GMT -5 Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad) said:

Well I don't think I can, or probably should, state my opinion more. I'm fine either way but I am looking for clarification.

I think we can agree on this.

[Rawhide GM (Jimmy-LM)]

Jan 18, 2015 11:34:08 GMT -5 Javelinas GM (Scott) said:

Again, as Blue Sox points out, AAS has always been the key and not total value oft he contract. The tags have always been intended to favor the holder. It's designed that way to help teams retain some of their players. I don't see it as unfair at all, since all owners have the same option.

The driving intent is to make it easier for owners to retain some of their players. If that wasn't the intent, then why bother having tags at all, just let everyone be UFA and let the old owner bid like everyone else to retain their player.

Okay lets end this real quick:

first, Gnats has done everything exactly as the rule is intended, so his contract is perfectly fine.

Matt is right, AAS is the determining factor. Just like UFA, if Team A signs a player to a 1 year 15mil contract (AAS) and Team B signs a player to a 3 year $30 mil contract (AAS)... Even though Team B is giving more total money, team A values the players production more on a per/season basis, which is the true determining factor of a players value in this league. (in real life, different players may choose the longer contract, but its the best method we can use from value standpoint).

Remember, the tag holder still owns the player. The RFA process is used to determine what the market value of the player is, and the GM can then decide whether to retain the player at that value, or to release him and accept compensation. The tag is intended to give the GM every possible ability to retain a player they own, and that's why there is flexibility to shorten/lengthen (within reason) the contract, while still maintaining the market value of the player. This is also intended to help with players at all stages/ages of their career, Veteran players like Ortiz and younger players like Heyward, its the best system to use overall.

[Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad)]

Thanks for the clarification. Would suggest we modify or remove the following sentence from the RFA rules. This is the root of my confusion:
"Since the bidding is for a RFA, then pursuant to Rule 12, the GM who held the restricted player has 48 hours to match the winning bid, and may restructure that bid for a total contract amount no less and a term no longer than that of the "winning" bid."

[Deleted]

Copy from RFA rules:
Here are the numbers you must follow when offering a contract to a restricted free agent:

If AAS <= $3M, then any length can be given
If AAS > $3M, then MINIMUM 2 yr deal
If AAS > $6M, then MINIMUM 3 yr deal
If AAS > $9M, then MINIMUM 4 yr deal
If AAS > $12M, then MINIMUM 5 yr deal
If AAS > $15M, then a 6 yr deal

Now the holder of the tag only has to match the AAS, they do not have to match the years and can rearrange the salaries as they see fit for their team, as long as they are following the rules for salary spread.

Here are the guidelines for the tag holder on deciding the years of the contract.

If AAS <= $3M, 1 - 6 years.
If the offer is 400k - 749k you can only keep them for a maximum of 3 years at this salary, but you have the option to raise it to 750k and keep them 4-6 years
If AAS > $3M, 2 - 6 years
If AAS > $6M, 2 - 6 years
If AAS > $9M, 3 - 6 years
If AAS > $12M, 3 - 6 years
If AAS > $15M, 4 - 6 years
....................................................................................................................

So my question is:
If I give player A 6 years $150M
AAS $25M
So the original owner can match the offer only for 4 years for AAS at $25M
............................................................................................................

[Javelinas GM (Scott)]

Yes, Serge

[Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad)]

Also, if I owned an RFA who received a 4yr/$20M bid, $5M AAS, and I just loved the guy, I could give him a 6yr/$30M contract, $5M AAS?

[Javelinas GM (Scott)]

Yep.

[Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad)]

That sentence really needs to go, then.