A stronger FA class anyone?

[Witlon]

While I don't really like the idea, as long as it's kept to a minimum, it wouldn't bug me if it happened.(Like 4-5 players).

[Kingdom]

I just feel the need to point it out - The league made the TC be a stubborn bunch. If we weren't such pricks there would be 10 teams in debt, and they'd have been in debt for at least 8 years because of how bad some GMs were.

I'd say the FA editing is definitely needed, since there is literally two good players in it per year and maybe a max of five young players per year, and that's just ridiculous.

I wasn't knocking the TC, I was pointing out the reason we don't need additional rules in regards to trading newly signed FAs.

[Stonedrie2]

and restarting this league or importing historical players into this league would be a MONUMENTAL disaster.

why do you think importing a couple historical players be worse then editing players to make them better? i'm curious..

[McKain]

I'm not too sure about any newly-signed FA rules but we need to get past the issue of "edited FAs or not" to begin with.

[Stonedrie2]

hey McKain, why do you think the league is better with toned down draft classes, but supped-up FAs?

[McKain]

I am in favor of the edited and improved draft classes.

[missionhockey21]

Just for the record, in terms of editing I am not talking about making too many studs. For the most part I am concerned about making a stronger FA class with depth, not everyone slinging out 15 million dollar offers to 57 4.0 star players. The league could use some talent depth and a few added big talents wouldn't hurt either but it wouldn't be the main intent. People have paid 5 mil, 6 mil or more for marginal pitchers in some years and that's just not fun.

As far as limiting these players to be traded, likely it would not be as strict as some are thinking it could be. My main concern is that teams would intentionally sign some players to try to move them for 5.0 star prospects when they see the chance. I am not big on rules, the league really didn't have any rules at the start as they were added out of need. I am thinking something like a 1 year NTC for any non reliever that's 3.0 stars or higher (not for sure on that, just a thought.) As far as limiting cash, on second thought I think that would be trashed, I hate that shit.

[General]

How about added funds to Boston?

[missionhockey21]

With Torres gone and aggressively shopping VBS, you should be able to dig yourself out of the financial grave you dug yourself.

[General]

Nobody wants VBS.

[McKain]

So lower yo demands, sucka. He's old and he's inevitably going to decline and he's expensive.

[Kingdom]

I'd much rather see restrictions on contracts than trades. Do we really need more Pujol-like contracts?

[General]

Does McKain want VBS?

I just want a passable deal for him.

[missionhockey21]

Honestly, I really don't give a shit. I doubt I will make it through this year with running this league.

I don't have crazy time to dedicate to this (no pun intended) and maybe this isn't very well thought out. But as much as I dislike hurting those who sign a FA with good intent but not allowing trading within the first year to assure that those who are intending to abuse the system will at least have to deal with a fat contract for a year, personally I believe it's best for the league.

[McKain]

I'm rebuilding, buddy, I want VBS like I want VDs.