Vote on per decade Franchise Player

[leecemark]

--Classic Keeper League owners please cast your vote on the idea of allowing each team to designate a franchise player per decade. Each team already has thier 1960s FP (or has passed on the opportunity or traded away that player). You would have another opportunity to designate a player on a lifetime (or until you don't want him anymore) 12 Million dollar deal in each following decade. Any player drafted by your team in the years 1970-79 (and 80-89, 90-99, etc) would be eligible for designation.
--You would not have to give up the previous decade's FP if he is still with your team. Franchise designations are non-transferable so traded players would start getting raises after their first year (or partial year) with a new team. Non-tendered/released FP would go through the same free agent processes as any other player.

[leecemark]

--We will decide after/if this proposal is adopted when the designation would have to be made. Possibilites include; as soon as drafted, when they reach arbitration eligibility (after year 3) or prior to reaching free agent eligibliity (after year 5).
--This can also be settled later, but if expansion goes forward in 1969 as expected I would like to give the expansion teams the option of designating theri first pick in 1969 as a franchise player. If we do this I would expect their "60s FP" to be assigned the 12M salary as soon as drafted.

[538280]

I vote yes, but I would just like to make the proposal that players who have already been drafted to this point not be allowed to be made franchise players. We may have taken different draft choices in the past if we knew that this rule was going to come into place.

[leecemark]

--No player currently on a roster (or for that matter joining in the next 4 years) would be eligible. The 70s franchise player would be one drafted in the 70s (1970-79). Since no picks that far into the future have been traded yet, as far as I can recall, then draft/trade decisions already made would be unaffected by this rule.

[catcher24]

I am voting no, because I would prefer my proposal of two franchise players per team starting in 1969, at 12M per season. If a team wishes to designate another franchise player, they must drop one of the two presently on their roster who would immediately enter that year's premium free agent auction. Thus, designation would need to be made at the time of drafting the player.

However, if this is the ONLY option for franchise players, I would favor it over having none at all.

[leecemark]

--If this proposal fails to get majority support then we will vote on your proposal next. If that doesn't make it then we could still consider a third proposal if someone has another idea. Three strikes would probably mean that the original franchise players would be the only ones though.

[Erik Bedard]

My only question in this is this: If a team (such as mine) has not designated a franchise player, will they still be able to designate a future draftee before 1970?

[leecemark]

--The 1964 expansion teams were offered the opportunity to designate their #1 pick in either 1964 or 1965 as a franchise player. If you did not elect to do so then under the current rules you will have lost your 1960s franchise player option.

[Erik Bedard]

All right. In that case, I vote yes to this proposal.

EDIT: My first-round pick in 1965 was John Hiller. Will I still have the oppurtunity to designate him as a FP to avoid losing him before his great seasons set in?

[leecemark]

--That designation was supposed to have been made beginning with his first season, which would have required you to pay him 12M beginning immediately. If you had the cap space to retroactively pay him the 11+M you would have had to pay him as your franchise player I'd be willing to support the late designation, but a majority of owners would have to agree.
--If not, or if you don't want to pay him 12M for his ungreat seasons you do have another means of hanging on to him. The home town discount rule allows you to make him an offer when he hits free agency that any other owner has to top by 20%. Unless somebody REALLY wants him then offering 12M then instead of now would probably keep him for you (another owner would have to go 14.5M to take him, which is alot for a reliever). Of course you could go even higher and really nail him down (if you went 14M somebody else would have to go 17!).

[Erik Bedard]

OK. I'm not going to push for him to be allowed the FP designation, then, since I didn't have enough cap room after signing Ford. Also, I didn't realize the full effect that the HD rule could have.

[leecemark]

--Comments are still welcome here, but we do have majority support already with 7 yes votes. The per decade franchise designation is now officially adopted.
--We do need to decide if that designation needs to be made immediately upon drafting a player, at arbitration eligiblity (after 3rd year), or before they are free agent eligible (after 5th year). I'll put up another poll for that in a couple days, but would prefer to narrow it to two choices before doign that.

[J W]

I would throw out option #3 (year 6). Option #1 would keep continuity, and most players drafted begin to earn their money after year 3, validating option #2. Six seasons of bargain baseball is too much of a break for a franchise player.

[leecemark]

--I think those are the best two options myself. It would be 5 years, rather than 6 at bargain rates, but still that lets you off pretty easy. I kind of like the 3rd year option. It gives you some payroll flexibilty, especially if you are hard up against the cap when your draft opportunity comes along.
--It also gives you a chance to not commit too early if you are in a down cycle. I'd hate to designate an All Star type player after an off year in say 1971 only to have the opportunty to draft a Hall of Fame type player the next year with the franchise tag is already gone. OTOH, if after 3 years that All Star still looks like your best option then you could look him up.

[catcher24]

Since you're going to put up a poll, that will decide it anyway. My own preference is to make the designation immediately following the rookie draft. And I'm sorry that my proposal once again didn't fly. Personally, I still thank that one created the most flexibility, albeit with some harder decisions to make, than the one adopted, but as always I'll go along with the majority.