|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Feb 19, 2008 12:10:31 GMT -5
I don't think it is right to treat re-signed PFA's as reg. FA's in regards to trading. Say a team has 7 PFA's re-signs all 7 and then signs 5 FA's off FA. That means he is limited to only being able to move half of his ML team. I think that PFA's extending their contract should not have any restrictions on being traded.
|
|
|
Post by John Kruk on Feb 19, 2008 12:12:06 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Jose Canseco on Feb 19, 2008 12:20:01 GMT -5
cant happen b/c you can't resign 100% of your PFA's...
also this would give the rich teams another way to succeed...they would then have the option of sign and trades...so instead of having to let players walk(which would help the awful unbalance) they would be allowed to reap a benifit...
im not saying the bad teams couldnt do this too...but most likely the bad teams wouldnt have much anyone would want to do a sign and trade for...
I disagree
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Feb 19, 2008 12:41:14 GMT -5
as it is the good teams can still do that they just have to wait, and it CAN happen cause you can sign 7 of your 10 PFA's and it is possible cause I have done it before.
The way it works now it is just hurting teams that sign PFA's both rich and poor. If a team that is a contender wants a player from a team that isn't a contender they can't trade for that player and the same vice versa.
Say a team wants to contend and isn't right now, and they want a guy like Mark Teixeira who I would like to move to make room for Focker, they can't trade for him because he has to stay with me until the ASB.
This rule would not benefit any team more than another(and no I don't expect it to be put in this year) It just doesn't make sense that a PFA can't be traded until the same time a reg. FA can be for the following reasons:
1: The PFA signed his contract around mid season or slightly later while the FA signed his during offseason. The FA has to wait a few sims to be traded while the PFA can't be traded for almost the equivelant of a full season.
2: PFA's signed their contracts to AVOID being FA's, but they get to be treated as if they were anyway?
3: If the team didn't plan on keeping the option of trading the PFA they would have offered him a NTC.
|
|
|
Post by reggiewayne on Feb 19, 2008 12:48:59 GMT -5
I disagree. A player (player X) who has just been signed or resigned SHOULD have their value maxed out and therefore has no value, because if another team wanted player X that badly they would have given him an extra $100k. That value can change if player X does well in his half season in the MLB so I think the deadline is a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Feb 19, 2008 12:58:25 GMT -5
I disagree. A player (player X) who has just been signed or resigned SHOULD have their value maxed out and therefore has no value, because if another team wanted player X that badly they would have given him an extra $100k. That value can change if player X does well in his half season in the MLB so I think the deadline is a good one. value maxed out? maybe player X was re-signed early in the prev. season and improved during the rest of the season and started off good in the beginning of the season? I just don't see how a PFA's value can be maxed out or how that matters? I had the player, I re-signed the player but then decided that I would rather have minor league players than him at the ML's... alot of things change during the offseason and the prev. regular season that can change how you feel about the PFA you signed. Doesn't effect your value of him but it affects whether you need him anymore
|
|
|
Post by Bill Buckner on Feb 19, 2008 18:19:57 GMT -5
I agree with this being implemented. You shouldn't have to wait until ASB in order to trade one of your players. I think this should also be used for imports. I mean, lets put a scenario this way. Let us say that Team A wants a player from Team B, and Team B wants one of the imports, except he can't pay for the import. Team A bids for the import since he has enough money for the import, and he gets the import. Team B, since he probably couldn't pay for the SB in order to get the import, get to trade for the import for the player that Team A wants. Now of course people are going to reply to this and say, "this is cheating" or "this shouldn't be allowed", but honestly I don't see a problem with it. It is neither cheating nor unfair to anyone. If someone doesn't bid as high as Team A, then tough shit, Team A is willing to take a hit by giving up money in the SB in order to get the prospect or player that he wants. Of course, If one team, who is amazingly good and has money up the ass (COL), bids for all the imports and gets all the imports and then plans on trading them all away, THAT would be unfair. What I also suggest we should implement is 1 team only allowing to get 1 import (if we don't have that already, I don't think we do). I mean if some team bid for all of the imports and is the highest bidder on all of them, let him pick which one he wants, then the other imports go to the next highest bidder.
As for the PFA's, I see no reason not to use this.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Feb 19, 2008 18:48:15 GMT -5
I agree with this being implemented. You shouldn't have to wait until ASB in order to trade one of your players. I think this should also be used for imports. I mean, lets put a scenario this way. Let us say that Team A wants a player from Team B, and Team B wants one of the imports, except he can't pay for the import. Team A bids for the import since he has enough money for the import, and he gets the import. Team B, since he probably couldn't pay for the SB in order to get the import, get to trade for the import for the player that Team A wants. Now of course people are going to reply to this and say, "this is cheating" or "this shouldn't be allowed", but honestly I don't see a problem with it. It is neither cheating nor unfair to anyone. If someone doesn't bid as high as Team A, then tough shit, Team A is willing to take a hit by giving up money in the SB in order to get the prospect or player that he wants. Of course, If one team, who is amazingly good and has money up the ass (COL), bids for all the imports and gets all the imports and then plans on trading them all away, THAT would be unfair. What I also suggest we should implement is 1 team only allowing to get 1 import (if we don't have that already, I don't think we do). I mean if some team bid for all of the imports and is the highest bidder on all of them, let him pick which one he wants, then the other imports go to the next highest bidder. As for the PFA's, I see no reason not to use this. I disagree with the import thing. for 1 they are just like FA's so they shouldn't be traded until the ASB and for 2 if they can afford imports they should be able to sign as many as they can.
|
|