'Expired' Contracts/Franchise players

[Deleted]

I had said I was not going to revisit this right now, but the list of franchisable players is compelling. There are a fair number of players who would be great franchise candidates who can't be franchised by their current teams either because the team has multiple options or they already have a franchise player signed. The most obvious example is Aaron Judge on the Sounders(formerly Trojan Man and currently our one open team). That team already has DeGrom franchised so Judge would go into the free agent pool and go for the max salary, quite likely. The team would get a 1st round comp pick, but having the ability to trade him and his 8M salary would garner him quite a bit more, if that were allowed. There are other examples. 

We ran this up the flagpole last season and there was not enough sentiment to make a change. It does seem that it would create options for lesser teams to rebuild while also allowing owners to lock up a good player at a lower salary, thus freeing cap space for other players and making the entire free agent process more competitive. 

Along those lines, is there any appetite to revisit the franchise rules? Allow more than one at a time? An escalating salary over the three year term? Other thoughts?

[Deleted]

I think we should be able to trade franchise players. It would greatly help teams rebuild if the wheels fall off as well.

[SLC Bums]

Dec 3, 2022 0:05:45 GMT -5 @frugalscott said:

I had said I was not going to revisit this right now, but the list of franchisable players is compelling. There are a fair number of players who would be great franchise candidates who can't be franchised by their current teams either because the team has multiple options or they already have a franchise player signed. The most obvious example is Aaron Judge on the Sounders(formerly Trojan Man and currently our one open team). That team already has DeGrom franchised so Judge would go into the free agent pool and go for the max salary, quite likely. The team would get a 1st round comp pick, but having the ability to trade him and his 8M salary would garner him quite a bit more, if that were allowed. There are other examples. 

We ran this up the flagpole last season and there was not enough sentiment to make a change. It does seem that it would create options for lesser teams to rebuild while also allowing owners to lock up a good player at a lower salary, thus freeing cap space for other players and making the entire free agent process more competitive. 

Along those lines, is there any appetite to revisit the franchise rules? Allow more than one at a time? An escalating salary over the three year term? Other thoughts?

This is a Free Agency Killer! Taking a guy out of Free Agency and putting him under 10 mil for life. A franchise player should be a reward for keeping your player as he grew. It should be a reward for drafting him. It's a guy that should never be traded period. If your allowed to trade him then he really isn't a franchise player.

[Glenside Gladiators]

I think if you tag him you should keep him. Not sure why Judge can't be traded if he has not been tagged at this point. Of course I might be missing something as I don't think I have ever used the Franchise tag.

[SLC Bums]

the thing is the last day of the season a y2y6 contact has expired or any other contract as designated, I can't see how we can trade a guy that's no longer under contract.

[New Haven New Boys]

I see it as trading the right to match the contract. Is that the case?

[Ohio Spiders]

I am not in favor of trading Franchise players. This is a reward to get a guy under market value for 3 years. I think the rule works well. You get one player you can chose to franchise and get the hometown discount on. We call it Franchise but it's really resigning a player for a hometown discount so you don't have to pay market value. So no you shouldn't be able to trade that away. The strategy of when and who to franchise is part of the decision you have to make when making that decision. I can say I made a mistake at one point and franchised the wrong guy a few years ago but that's the risk/reward.

I also don't support being able to trade expired contracts to another team just so they can franchise them. Again, that team didn't draft or sign that player they are just getting the rights to the player and shouldn't get franchise discount.

When a team loses a player they get a comp pick anyway so it's not like they get nothing for losing someone to free agency.

So count me in the no to revising the current rule(s) on trading franchise players or being able to trade expired contracts.

[Deleted]

As expected, this is the area where there is the most passionate and entrenched opinion. It was never on the table to make any changes in this area for 2023 unless there had been an overwhelming response that was all in one direction. I do want to make a few clarifications, though. I don't think anyone ever suggested trading franchise players after they were tagged. That's not really on the table. My understanding is that we are only considering trading the option.

There is also a feeling that these are expired contracts and if they are expired there is nothing to trade. Common sense tells us, though, that when there is an option remaining on a contract, the contract isn't completely expired. This seems especially true of the y2y6 guys. Every y2y contract expires unless the next option is picked up. We allow those options to be routinely traded. It's hard to see how the option after y2y6 is all that different.

Some have the idea of a franchise player as one who is drafted and 'developed' by a team and the franchise designation is the reward for that. I know that many of the players who have been franchised were not franchised by the team that drafted them. I could have franchised Jesus Aguilar who I traded for. My plan right now is to eventually franchise Max Fried who I traded for. If we said that only guys who are still with their original, drafting team after y2y6 can be franchised, that would at least make the idea of not being able to trade the option more defensible.

It was pointed out that Aaron Judge would bring back a 1st round comp pick. That's true, but the team that has him needs a lot of help and trading the ability to franchise him would bring back a LOT more than a late first round pick. It's simply another asset guys can use to help their teams, especially when it's not possible to franchise them.

If there is an appetite to continue this discussion, we can do so over the next season. We should also consider whether we might like to reconsider the franchise salary. As it now stands, a team can franchise a guy for his 7-9th seasons, but the rules don't say you can't refranchise so you could technically refranchise that same guy for 9.6M for years 10-12 and again for 11.52M in years 13-15. You can keep a guy for 15 seasons and never have to pay as much as 12M in a season for him. That seems extreme to me, but it fits the idea of a 'hometown discount', I guess. We might think about the franchise salary escalating each season, maybe 8M, 9M and 10M for years 7-9?

Also and especially if this is a reward for keeping a player, do we want to allow more than one per team? If so, how many?

No one's opinion is wrong here. I want to be clear about that. I know this league spun off from Painting the Black and drew a lot of its rules from there. There are still a fair number of guys who have been here from the start so that is what they know and are comfortable with. I play in a total of 10 leagues and five have some sort of y2y contract designation. Only this one and PTB don't allow trading of the option beyond the last y2y deal so there are a lot of different ways to look at it.

[Ohio Spiders]

Wasn't trying to imply that you can only franchise someone you draft. You're correct you can franchise someone you traded for. The franchise tag isn't just for y2y6 contracts though. You can franchise any player based on the rules. The rules say you can franchise a player with an expiring contract and it will be 120% of the current contract or $8M, whichever is greater.

So the discussion of franchise being an option after y2y6 as extension or option of the y2y system isn't accurate. If you allow this trading of rights to franchise, you're allowing the trading of expiring contract rights.

[Deleted]

Dec 15, 2022 23:25:08 GMT -5 Ohio Spiders said:

Wasn't trying to imply that you can only franchise someone you draft. You're correct you can franchise someone you traded for. The franchise tag isn't just for y2y6 contracts though. You can franchise any player based on the rules. The rules say you can franchise a player with an expiring contract and it will be 120% of the current contract or $8M, whichever is greater.

So the discussion of franchise being an option after y2y6 as extension or option of the y2y system isn't accurate. If you allow this trading of rights to franchise, you're allowing the trading of expiring contract rights.

I don't want to go around and around on this, really. I do want to make sure everyone understands both sides of the coin, though. I do understand the rules and I know that any contract has a franchise option attached to it, potentially. My point wasn't to say that only y2y6 contracts could be franchised. I was trying to show that to be able to trade those players would simply be a logical extension of what we do with all y2y contracts before that level.

And yes, I do understand that allowing trades after y2y6 would also be allowing the trading of any other contract with a franchise option. 

There won't be any changes this season and I'm not going to put this on the table again, but there were comments in the thread from owners who believe those contracts should be tradeable. If the league wants to reconsider this, we will do it when that comes up.