In-Season FAAB Proposal to Replace In-Season Free Agency

[Astros GM (Will)]

This season there was quite a bit of debate and displeasure about lack of access to ineligible players and abnormally high prices and long contracts for some free agents during the season. Here are some examples of issues that we have or have tried to fix but the best proposal thus far didn't resolve all of these issues in an acceptable way:

- Alexis Diaz became CIN closer for a time before reaching the relief appearance threshold (valuable RP wasted)
- Joey Meneses didn't reach the 130 AB threshold until after the playoffs started (valuable 1B/OF hitting points wasted)
- Marcell Ozuna was cut and resigned by a second team for what could be considered a team friendly deal at 3 years, $3.2 + option (no competition in bidding)
- A few years back, Phil Gosselin was signed for ~$10 in season.

There are probably more examples, these are just ones i could think of right away. The previous best proposal from Alex planned to solve the Ozuna-type issue only (not signing released players), while not really addressing productive rookies being unrostered or high prices for FA's. I also think this seemed too vindictive depending on your opinion/concern over tanking or not being able to compete with teams who have excessive FA budget during the season. 

Last Proposal: baseknock.proboards.com/thread/10723/proposal-post-trade-deadline-agency

---

Here is my rule proposal. For those unfamiliar with the term, FAAB stands for free agent acquisition budget and is very prevalent in fantasy football and is also used in man high level fantasy baseball leagues.

Quick list of change proposals:

• Offseason free agency is split from in-season free agency and is otherwise completely unaffected.
  
• Offseason free agency starts January 2nd and ends the day before the regular season starts
  
• Each team is given 25 FAAB points to use in our normal auction style bidding for In-Season Free Agency.
  
• Any unowned player is eligible as long as they have at least 1 GP (games played).
• FAAB increments are by 1, are public, and have a 24 hour clock for someone to best the current highest bid.
• Winning FAAB bids will have FAAB points deducted, and awarded the player with a 1 year, $1.0 contract.
• Under Contract type (which may include Arb Year details), the player will be listed as 'FAAB'.
• Any FAAB contracts will not be eligible for Franchise or Restricted tags. 
• During Roster Decisions, FAAB contracted players will re-enter the offseason free agency pool or the draft pool depending on their playing time eligibility.
• All winning FAAB bids will be logged in the BK Rosters document for reference and bookkeeping.
• In-Season Free Agency closes on the final day of the regular season.

Rule Change Proposal (4.1 - rename to Offseason Free Agency)

OFFSEASON FREE AGENCY DETAILS:

Offseason free agency will occur every year in the off-season starting on January 2. Offseason Free Agency will close on the day before the first regular season game. Any players released or cut during this time period will not be available to be bid on until the regular winter Free agency begins.

Players in offseason free agency include: unowned players who have had 130 AB or 50 IP, 10 GS, or 20 RA in a season and players who did not receive a team extension, had their team option declined, or were declined arbitration by their teams going into the off-season.

Free Agents can be posted by any member of the league.

---

BIDDING RULES & CONTRACT POINTS

A player is signed to a team when that team's offer has remained unbeaten for 48 hours. The time is extended to 72 hours during the first week of free agency to give teams more time to survey the players. The time is reduced to 24 hours during the regular season to speed up signings so teams can get players on the field.

All other rules regarding auction bidding would be unchanged for the offseason. If the idea passes, I can write the In-Season Free Agency rule proposal roughly following my bulleted points above.

EXAMPLE:

Here is what it would look like using Marcell Ozuna as an example (in this example, assume Caleb won the bid with 10 FAAB points). 

- Contract Type is labeled FAAB. Player is not eligible for tags, similar to Type B Arb.
- Remaining FAAB points are listed next to cap space.

---

Feedback gathering, including my own comments:

Pros (my own opinion):
- remaining cap space cannot be used to such an advantage during the season, further encouraging FA activity during the offseason.
- productive rookies can be better taken advantage of without gifting anyone with a long term contract
- FAAB spending can still be competitive for highly sought after players and rewards players for budgeting their FAAB points
- FAAB players will become available to everyone for normal drafting or FA during the next offseason, no long term advantages
- Encourages more activity during the season to optimize lineups.

Cons:
- Not sure if $1 is the appropriate contract amount
- Should players still be tag eligible?

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

I like the idea... have to think about it for a bit being it's a larger change. We'd have to iron out what the value would be, but otherwise it sounds like a beneficial addition to the league.

[Marlins GM (Travis)]

I don't care for it. If you have the CAP, you should be able to bid on FAs, regardless of if you have FAAB points left or not. Our ability to bid on players depends on our CAP space and shouldn't be dependent on anything else.

[Astros GM (Will)]

Oct 12, 2022 17:17:54 GMT -5 Marlins GM (Travis) said:

I don't care for it. If you have the CAP, you should be able to bid on FAs, regardless of if you have FAAB points left or not. Our ability to bid on players depends on our CAP space and shouldn't be dependent on anything else.

You still need to use cap in order to sign the player, it's just a set amount.

[Astros GM (Will)]

Oct 12, 2022 17:25:03 GMT -5 Marlins GM (Travis) said:

So we bid FAAB points, and not money? All contracts are 1 year 1 mil, as long as I win the FAAB bid?

I opened up the floor to debate the contract amount, though I feel 1 year is the correct length.

[Marlins GM (Travis)]

We should be able to tag them if we want, my opinion. If this was to be implemented. I'm against it

[Astros GM (Will)]

Oct 12, 2022 17:28:17 GMT -5 Marlins GM (Travis) said:

We should be able to tag them if we want, my opinion. If this was to be implemented. I'm against it

Great, you should choose yes, with fine tuning and raise this discussion point. I felt like the main complaints were that people were reaping long term rewards by not spending during offseason FA, so I wanted to make it so no player was eligible to be re-signed, but I'm sure there is some room for nuance.

[White Sox GM (Caleb)]

I just don't really understand what problem you're trying to fix with this.


To my understanding the main thing you're trying to address are teams with the more cap having  higher chances to sign players in season. How is that an issue that requires invoking a whole in season FA process overhaul? You and many others GMs killed me and called me a bad GM for not spending any money in FA (fair opinion), but then when a positive from that arises we must now create a rule?  


To me all this does is create a larger gap between the contenders and the rebuilders.  If I choose not to tie any money up in mediocre players on mediocre contracts in the off-season I should not be punished because I have more money to spend in season when the demand is worse.  We all have the same amount of cap to use to fill out a roster, if someone has more of it and is willing to spend more of it to grab a player that makes sense to me.   

[Cardinals GM (Nik)]

I voted no for pure simplicity reasons. This seems somewhat complex and I kill too many brain cells when I drink to try and process this. I appreciate the time and effort put into this though.

[Astros GM (Will)]

Oct 12, 2022 19:01:42 GMT -5 White Sox GM (Caleb) said:

I just don't really understand what problem you're trying to fix with this.


To my understanding the main thing you're trying to address are teams with the more cap having  higher chances to sign players in season. How is that an issue that requires invoking a whole in season FA process overhaul? You and many others GMs killed me and called me a bad GM for not spending any money in FA (fair opinion), but then when a positive from that arises we must now create a rule?  


To me all this does is create a larger gap between the contenders and the rebuilders.  If I choose not to tie any money up in mediocre players on mediocre contracts in the off-season I should not be punished because I have more money to spend in season when the demand is worse.  We all have the same amount of cap to use to fill out a roster, if someone has more of it and is willing to spend more of it to grab a player that makes sense to me.   

You have a good argument against one half of this. The other half would still be an improvement as it would vastly shorten the time it takes to sign productive rookies in season

[Astros GM (Will)]

Oct 12, 2022 20:18:42 GMT -5 Cardinals GM (Nik) said:

I voted no for pure simplicity reasons. This seems somewhat complex and I kill too many brain cells when I drink to try and process this. I appreciate the time and effort put into this though.

Is it really all that complex though? I assume more than half the league has experience with FAAB. The bullet points were many just to lay the groundwork for a rule change but the concept is straightforward

[White Sox GM (Caleb)]

Oct 12, 2022 20:32:55 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

Oct 12, 2022 19:01:42 GMT -5 White Sox GM (Caleb) said:

I just don't really understand what problem you're trying to fix with this.


To my understanding the main thing you're trying to address are teams with the more cap having  higher chances to sign players in season. How is that an issue that requires invoking a whole in season FA process overhaul? You and many others GMs killed me and called me a bad GM for not spending any money in FA (fair opinion), but then when a positive from that arises we must now create a rule?  


To me all this does is create a larger gap between the contenders and the rebuilders.  If I choose not to tie any money up in mediocre players on mediocre contracts in the off-season I should not be punished because I have more money to spend in season when the demand is worse.  We all have the same amount of cap to use to fill out a roster, if someone has more of it and is willing to spend more of it to grab a player that makes sense to me.   

You have a good argument against one half of this. The other half would still be an improvement as it would vastly shorten the time it takes to sign productive rookies in season

I do agree with that part for sure, just don’t think this proposal is the best way to address that. I may be missing something but to me the best way to address this is just to allow players to be bid on as soon as they hit an AB or IP. Why was that rule implemented in the first place?

[Astros GM (Will)]

How many fantasy leagues are you in where nobody can sign a closer because he has too few innings pitched? For me, it’s just this one. Bigger player pool is more fun.

[Cardinals GM (Nik)]

How many dynasty fantasy baseball leagues are you in with 30 teams and full MLB / MiL rosters with salary cap and all the other intricacies as this one and yet it’s still so well run? This is a complex league as it is.

[Cardinals GM (Nik)]

I’m honestly excited to hear you defend this in your interview with Kyle

[Marlins GM (Travis)]

Oct 12, 2022 20:38:54 GMT -5 White Sox GM (Caleb) said:

Oct 12, 2022 20:32:55 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

You have a good argument against one half of this. The other half would still be an improvement as it would vastly shorten the time it takes to sign productive rookies in season

I do agree with that part for sure, just don’t think this proposal is the best way to address that. I may be missing something but to me the best way to address this is just to allow players to be bid on as soon as they hit an AB or IP. Why was that rule implemented in the first place?

I was also wondering this.

[Das (Former Giants GM)]

I voted yes, I want to see all players that could score points be in the game. In terms of simplicity and getting players in the game that can score points, have it be a signing bonus, using cap, then the player comes in as a prospect and progresses the same as every other rookie would in the league. Have minimum bids be $100k and have it be an auction style like we already have in place?

[Rockies GM (Alex)]

Oct 12, 2022 22:19:41 GMT -5 Cardinals GM (Nik) said:

How many dynasty fantasy baseball leagues are you in with 30 teams and full MLB / MiL rosters with salary cap and all the other intricacies as this one and yet it’s still so well run? This is a complex league as it is.

This makes me happy.  

[Royals GM (Bill)]

I voted no. This seems to me to be another way to keep the elite teams elite by printing new money for them as arbitration salaries kick in. Teams that don’t blow cap on ridiculous contracts should be able to take advantage of their stronger cap position to get better. Conversely teams signing players to exorbitant contracts are often doing this because cap loses it’s value after off season FA.

I think in season acquisition should favor those with cap.

[Astros GM (Will)]

Oct 13, 2022 14:39:05 GMT -5 Royals GM (Bill) said:

I voted no. This seems to me to be another way to keep the elite teams elite by printing new money for them as arbitration salaries kick in. Teams that don’t blow cap on ridiculous contracts should be able to take advantage of their stronger cap position to get better. Conversely teams signing players to exorbitant contracts are often doing this because cap loses it’s value after off season FA.

I think in season acquisition should favor those with cap.

Any suggestion for opening up productive rookies to be signed?

The thought that ‘elite’ teams are the only teams who would benefit from this is a little confusing. Rebuilding teams take on contracts and have their cap reduced as well and the proposal said nothing about making these players ineligible to be traded

[Marlins GM (Travis)]

Oct 13, 2022 15:46:03 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

Oct 13, 2022 14:39:05 GMT -5 Royals GM (Bill) said:

I voted no. This seems to me to be another way to keep the elite teams elite by printing new money for them as arbitration salaries kick in. Teams that don’t blow cap on ridiculous contracts should be able to take advantage of their stronger cap position to get better. Conversely teams signing players to exorbitant contracts are often doing this because cap loses it’s value after off season FA.

I think in season acquisition should favor those with cap.

Any suggestion for opening up productive rookies to be signed?

The thought that ‘elite’ teams are the only teams who would benefit from this is a little confusing. Rebuilding teams take on contracts and have their cap reduced as well and the proposal said nothing about making these players ineligible to be traded

Ya, after they accumulate enough innings or ABs. 😶 seems fine to me

[Royals GM (Bill)]

I think Travis is spot on for signing promising rookies.

As far as elite teams benefiting goes, I would think that would be pretty intuitive. Rebuilding teams have more cap space with which to acquire talent to improve their respective teams. They wouldn’t need help with cap to chase available talent. Creating a new currency to compete with them mutes this advantage while disproportionately helping teams that have no cap….either because they have a lot of talent getting paid, or because they’ve signed bad contracts. Loaded teams shouldn’t get a handout to stay loaded and teams that sign ridiculous contracts…well stupid should hurt.

Just my opinion of course.

[Guardians GM (Thomas)]

I like the idea for rookies not yet reaching limits, but not on the released players side. I think GMs shouldn’t be penalized for holding onto cap space going into the regular season. It’s a legitimate strategy, so I would be against that side of the rule.

With the draft moving all to the off-season going forward, I do think the rookie side of this is valuable. I don’t think it should be the only in season FA type though. If GMs want to wait on a player to reach limits because they’re more valuable as a multi year signing I think that’s perfectly fine. I think it adds a bit more strategy to add this and keep regular free agency as well so a team with lesser cap available could grab someone on a one year, or if everyone wants a shot at the bidding war, everyone could wait.

Sorry if this doesn’t really make a lot of sense, I haven’t had any coffee yet this morning.