Expansion Discussion

Topic: Expansion Discussion (Read 42194 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #45 – October 29, 2017, 11:48:49 AM

If I had a player that is a 2018 contract and a minor league promotion I would have chose already not to extend. There was only one yearly option, ICE available.

Will this group of players be eligible for arbitration?

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #46 – October 29, 2017, 06:59:14 PM

Quote from: FRANNY77 – on October 29, 2017, 11:48:49 AM

If I had a player that is a 2018 contract and a minor league promotion I would have chose already not to extend. There was only one yearly option, ICE available.

Will this group of players be eligible for arbitration?

Our intention is to allow arbitration going forward with everyone, including players currently on their 4 year rookies contracts. In the short term, it allows you to get an extra year out of them (since we still had the bonus year in effect for those players), but it is the easiest way to implement and still requires you to accept a higher salary if you want to extend.

EDIT: Darrell pointed out that my reference to "extra year" is misleading. What I meant is that under our new rules, that player should have been promoted a year earlier than they were (since we have eliminated the bonus year before promotion). So it's not an extra year of time on your team, but rather an extra year of MLB experience under their belt before you lose them (provided you keep them for 6 years). Going forward, that won't be the case.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #47 – October 29, 2017, 07:57:30 PM

Quote from: dsj421 – on October 29, 2017, 06:59:14 PM

Our intention is to allow arbitration going forward with everyone, including players currently on their 4 year rookies contracts. In the short term, it allows you to get an extra year out of them (since we still had the bonus year in effect for those players), but it is the easiest way to implement and still requires you to accept a higher salary if you want to extend.

Sorry to have another question. If the 2018 players are eligible for arbitration, would that be viewed as year five? I only ask this because of the different structure levels between year four and years five and six.

FYI, I don't have any 2018 players that would be arbitration eligible, but I do feel I have a good feeling for what is going on.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #48 – October 29, 2017, 10:04:15 PM

Quote from: FRANNY77 – on October 29, 2017, 07:57:30 PM

Sorry to have another question. If the 2018 players are eligible for arbitration, would that be viewed as year five? I only ask this because of the different structure levels between year four and years five and six.

FYI, I don't have any 2018 players that would be arbitration eligible, but I do feel I have a good feeling for what is going on.

Brent, there are two types of players with 2018 contracts - those that are on their original 4 year, $250K contract and those that were ICEd two offseasons ago and are on the final year of a 5 year, $250K/$250K/$2M/$2M/$2M contract. Players in the first group can be offered arbitration as if the upcoming year is year four of their contract (which it actually is). I would note that it appears that Leonys Martin on your team is arbitration eligible based upon that.

For the players in the second group, it's unclear what we are going to do. It's a different scenario than that previously presented by Kyle about Dellin Betances who is actually in year 4 of a 5 year contract. And there are only 6 players that are included in this second group - 4 of whom are under contract to teams run by the CO. Given that, allowing those six players to enter arbitration primarily benefits the same group of guys making the decision. So we may not allow it for that reason.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #49 – October 30, 2017, 01:24:37 PM

Sorry if I'm slow but real life examples might help me understand the arbitration rule. Looking at my roster, I have three players with a 2018 contract that were promoted in 2015. These players are Nick Castellanos, David Peralta and Kyle Hendricks. As I understand the rule, I can either keep these guys for one final year at $250k or I can offer them arbitration. If I offer them arbitration, their 2018 salary would be based on 2017 WAR as follows:
* Nick Castellanos - $1M (2017 WAR = .7)
* David Peralta - $2M (2017 WAR = 2.5)
* Kyle Hendricks - $2.5M (2017 WAR = 3.5)

Going further down the road, If I offer any of these guys arbitration for their 2018 contract year, I could also offer them arbitration in 2019 and 2020 (Years 5 and 6) and their salary would be increased by their 2018 and 2019 WAR. Or I could cut them in either of those years by not offering arbitration.

Is that correct?

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #50 – October 30, 2017, 01:38:32 PM

Quote

Sorry if I'm slow but real life examples might help me understand the arbitration rule. Looking at my roster, I have three players with a 2018 contract that were promoted in 2015. These players are Nick Castellanos, David Peralta and Kyle Hendricks. As I understand the rule, I can either keep these guys for one final year at $250k or I can offer them arbitration. If I offer them arbitration, their 2018 salary would be based on 2017 WAR as follows:
* Nick Castellanos - $1M (2017 WAR = .7)
* David Peralta - $2M (2017 WAR = 2.5)
* Kyle Hendricks - $2.5M (2017 WAR = 3.5)

Going further down the road, If I offer any of these guys arbitration for their 2018 contract year, I could also offer them arbitration in 2019 and 2020 (Years 5 and 6) and their salary would be increased by their 2018 and 2019 WAR. Or I could cut them in either of those years by not offering arbitration.

Is that correct?

I didn't look at your roster to verify that these players are in fact at the end of their 3rd year, but if they are then yes you are 100% correct.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #51 – October 30, 2017, 01:40:11 PM

Dan, you've got it. You basically need to ask yourself is whether any of those guys are good enough that you may want to keep them for up to an extra two years and, if so, are they going to fetch significantly more money on the FA market? At a minimum, in the case of Hendricks, the answer is most likely a resounding yes.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #52 – October 30, 2017, 08:58:58 PM

Quote from: scubadan – on October 30, 2017, 01:24:37 PM

Sorry if I'm slow but real life examples might help me understand the arbitration rule. Looking at my roster, I have three players with a 2018 contract that were promoted in 2015. These players are Nick Castellanos, David Peralta and Kyle Hendricks. As I understand the rule, I can either keep these guys for one final year at $250k or I can offer them arbitration. If I offer them arbitration, their 2018 salary would be based on 2017 WAR as follows:
* Nick Castellanos - $1M (2017 WAR = .7)
* David Peralta - $2M (2017 WAR = 2.5)
* Kyle Hendricks - $2.5M (2017 WAR = 3.5)

Going further down the road, If I offer any of these guys arbitration for their 2018 contract year, I could also offer them arbitration in 2019 and 2020 (Years 5 and 6) and their salary would be increased by their 2018 and 2019 WAR. Or I could cut them in either of those years by not offering arbitration.

Is that correct?

Not sure I have kicked myself enough for letting Hendricks go so cheaply to you, Dan. Just did it again, as I'm sure I'm deficient.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #53 – October 31, 2017, 08:47:10 AM

Quote from: monsooner – on October 30, 2017, 08:58:58 PM

Not sure I have kicked myself enough for letting Hendricks go so cheaply to you, Dan. Just did it again, as I'm sure I'm deficient.

Do you recall the specifics of that deal?

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #54 – October 31, 2017, 11:30:05 AM

Quote from: scubadan – on October 31, 2017, 08:47:10 AM

Do you recall the specifics of that deal?

The trades are noted in the roster spreadsheet:

1/18/2016 The Asterisks send Ian Kennedy (2016/$2.25M) and Kyle Hendricks ($250K/2018) to the Kraken for JP Howell (2016/$2.75M) and Kike Hernandez ($350K/2017).

Quote from: monsooner – on October 30, 2017, 08:58:58 PM

Not sure I have kicked myself enough for letting Hendricks go so cheaply to you, Dan. Just did it again, as I'm sure I'm deficient.

Yes, you pretty much got worked over on this deal.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #55 – November 04, 2017, 10:07:09 PM

Quote from: scubadan – on October 31, 2017, 08:47:10 AM

Do you recall the specifics of that deal?

\I think David keeps that in the excel file somewhere. But all I remember is that I personally considered Hendricks somewhat of a "throw-in" at the time.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #56 – November 08, 2017, 08:42:08 AM

Even though I will be losing some players I would much rather keep, I'm a sucker for a draft!

I'm excited to see this thing play out.

I'm excited to see the tactics and strategies teams employ as they begin to shape the foundations of their new franchises. .

And I'm curious to see what holes I'll need to plug.

So when's this draft going to take place? Are we thinking over the weekend? To soon?

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #57 – November 08, 2017, 12:01:55 PM

I agree with Matt, even as a spectator.

Something I thought of that I wanted to bring up. As an existing owner, we are able to use the HTD for players who have been on our franchise for three seasons.

I would like to propose to waive this for any expansion team that would have a player with an expiring 2018 or 2019 contract from the expansion draft only. This wouldn't apply to any player that is traded for during the next two seasons.

I didn't know which forum to bring this up to, but I think it fits into the Expansion discussion.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #58 – November 08, 2017, 03:06:31 PM

Quote from: FRANNY77 – on November 08, 2017, 12:01:55 PM

I agree with Matt, even as a spectator.

Something I thought of that I wanted to bring up. As an existing owner, we are able to use the HTD for players who have been on our franchise for three seasons.

I would like to propose to waive this for any expansion team that would have a player with an expiring 2018 or 2019 contract from the expansion draft only. This wouldn't apply to any player that is traded for during the next two seasons.

I didn't know which forum to bring this up to, but I think it fits into the Expansion discussion.

So you're proposing expansion teams would be allowed the HTD on players we draft with 2018 and 2019 contracts?

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #59 – November 08, 2017, 03:11:10 PM

Also will repost this question from another thread: I would appreciate a clarification on arbitration rules for players selected in the expansion draft. I am assuming the expansion teams will have arbitration rights to any player we select that would be eligible?

Further question would be, is there a quick reference somewhere for us to know whether a player we are thinking of selecting is eligible for arbitration or not?

Example; If I were to draft Ken Giles (2018 contract / $250K) who I am assuming is on the third year of his rookie contract, would I have the option to bringing him to arbitration to extend him past 2018?