Picks for money

[Deleted]

Stock up on 2021s and sell them next year. I stocked up on 2020 rule Vs to flip. Once you go through a full cycle of a season you start understanding the supply and demand. For instance someone offered me short money for 2020 Rule V 3rds the other day and I'd rather wait until closer to when we actually draft Rule V thirds to sell them for more money. Same goes with the FYPD..... I myself am not a fan of free agency and putting my money there. Always a few new guys having their first crack at free agency and players get overpaid. Happens every season. Just an opinion though. I'd rather trade for an existing salary or asset than to overpay in FA.

As far as the better teams paying down money that's the name of the game. If I didnt collect Rule Vs to sell for cash then I'd be selling prospects right now to help free up some cap. There will always be an asset that someone wants to move for money....

I traded 1st overall a few years ago for 20+ million.

The international free agents were not part of rule V a few years ago, hundreds of players would be signed in the old system. Now the Rule V is 4 rounds(up from 2 rounds) with IFA included. So we had hundreds of IFAs being signed for 100k a peice in most cases. That system was done away with and now Rule V is combined with available players and IFA in 4 rounds of drafting. So you had 100s of players being signed as opposed to now only 120 players.

That makes rule Vs even though we added two more rounds, waaaaay more valuable being tied to IFA and significantly lowering the number of players who can be picked up. My advice if you are in this league for the long haul is to stock up on future picks in either draft as the market dictates.

Yes I agree IFA are potentially 6 years out but most teams real life team top 30 prospect lists there are anywhere from 1 to a half dozen players on each team who can be picked up who arent 16 years old.

If you are not contending you probably should be trading veterans and freeing up cap to buy Picks and Prospects with cash and not being in on Mookie Betts in free agency but that's just an opinion again.

[Deleted]

I think maybe I didn’t explain well enough initially.

I 100% understand why everyone is doing what they’re doing. Everyone keeps explaining why they are doing the process they’re doing and it’s understandable given the current rules.

I was trying to get a debate going on whether or not there should be tweaks to the cash for picks system as I do believe it creates an inequality.

My concern is this isn’t the big leagues. Will enough owners see through a 6 to 8 year rebuild to get to a competitive point or are you left with half a dozen competitive teams that run over the league?

I don’t have the history of the league being new but there’s quite a few extremely gutted teams and a few extremely strong teams.

Again, the strategy makes sense and I get why people are doing it. I think there should maybe just be some more control to it so that there’s more balance.

To me it just seems strange we have a cap of 110m but is able to be circumvented by getting 10% more cap space per pick basically?

[Red Sox GM (Mike)]

The following is not endorsed by the Boston Red Sox or any of it's affiliates.

Seems to be more the ramblings of a madman or Papa found the bottle again, more likely the latter.

Goal 30 competitive teams. Realistically 75% maybe 20 - 25 teams could be competitive with the rest in some state of rebuild. MLB talent, pp, $, need to be distributed somewhat evenly. To address the $ disparities perhaps a cap on % of obligations that could be externally paid say 20%, not allow picks to be sold period or have a structured price point for ea. type rd etc... I guess ideally the top teams would be up against the cap and lessor teams would have more $ and therefore greater access to FA .
Then on the other end you would need to enforce a 15 or ? minimum mlb players
on the 40 man to the lessor teams and perhaps max cap the qty of pp so you still have enough flexibility to build through the minors but also have to make decisions on your major league roster which would affect my team because right now I'm just sitting around attaining picks and prospects through purchasing debt for the hope of fielding a team in 2022 and not really addressing the 40-man which I should be forced to do somehow.
I know this is radical but if some or all of these things were in place I would have to attack this thing differently or more likely just find another loophole to exploit. Ha!

[Cardinals GM (Wood)]

Personally I understand all sides of this, but if I am rebuilding I for one am not to going to invest a great amount of effort into FA knowing they prices you have to deal with not to mention the overpays and if your not competing why would you even care when your going to have to in the end pay some of that contract to move him, I know this wont always be the case but it ends up happening more often than not. Only teams you see that are rebuilding focus around FA will be GM's who dont deal with prospects or dont know anything about them.

Just my 2 cents on the matter, I would rather focus on building a sturdy foundation for the future as a rebuilding team, than deal with FA. Cap goes up ever so often eventually yes like what was stated we could look into regulating Cap trades in the future, I would just like to see it not take away from rebuilding with picks

"There is no limit to what can be accomplished when nobody cares who gets the credit."

[Braves GM (Brandon)]

FA by nature means that you overpay, because the winner of any/all FA's is the one team that is willing to spend more than the rest of the market perceives that player's value to be.

What the teams like myself are doing are building a foundation of cheap talent so that if you have to venture into FA's to fill a gap, that overpay is not so egregious because you're (if you have a lot of good decisions/outcomes for your MILB) underpaying so much of the rest of your roster.

As long as mediocrity is punished (just like real life), there's always going to be pronounced differences between the haves and have-nots in here.  It's really two different competitions:  championship and then the race to the first overall pick.  It's cheap to go to the first overall pick because in theory you don't have to pay much to have bad players.  Bad news I guess if you don't have a good roster, no cap space AND you are in that race to the bottom (where I started).  There is nothing as harshly punished as being the first team out of the playoffs in this kind of system, which means that teams that question whether or not they can compete are typically best served in terms of acquiring new talent for future runs is going to be to sell off your MLB assets and acquire picks/prospects/open cap space.

Leagues that I've been in that attempt to pose some sort of limit on what you can spend in cap space for picks/prospects run into gigantic cans of worms, a couple of which ended the leagues altogether. 

6.4.1

[Rockies GM (Micah)]

I'm sure I can't address all of the arguments in this thread, but I definitely would be in favor of looking into how much cap room can be added through trade. I guess the idea of a salary cap is basically broken if you can legitimately go past it through trading all of your unwanted prospects and picks.

I know one owner is going to feel picked on here, and I'm not trying to single anyone out so I won't mention which team, but it has not only magnified the problem, but in a way broken the system by trading for so much cash. It was done legitimately, I understand no rules were broken or even stretched, it is within the rules, a great strategy and it was worked to perfection. I'm not blaming anyone at all. But in acquiring $125m of cash, this team is now working with more than double the cap room as others. Not to mention the teams with lower cap room because they are selling the cash.

It seems like it just widens the gap between the good teams and the bad teams and I'm not sure that's what we should want. The salary cap is there to help everyone be on the same level. The strategy should be how many talented players can you fit under your salary cap, not how much cash can you acquire all in one year.

Just my opinion, but I'd be all in favor of discussing a limit to how much you can expand your cap space in one year.