What happens if there are no bids on an RFA player?

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

Good question. If 12 hours pass and no offers come in for a posted Restricted Free Agent, then that player will be offered back to the previous owner at his real-life MLB salary.

For example last year Brett Anderson did not receive an offer and was offered back to the previous owner at $10M for 2015 (his actual MLB salary last year).

I am going with a timestamp of 9:00am EST this morning to determine any of these no offer players. All threads were unlocked prior to 9pm EST last night.

[Deleted]

Real life salary for one year or if the player is on a multi year contract do you assume the entire length?

[Deleted]

This is kind of a moot point. If you make that the rule, then the previous owner will just make a 1 year 500k bid

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

I don't understand Andrew's point.

If player has a real-life MLB salary/contract of 16:$8M, 17:$9M, 18:$10M club option ($1.5M buyout) then the previous owner would need to accept the contract as is.

[Deleted]

ok thanks Scott that makes sense.

Andrew that's why if you have any RFA's I would recommend making a min offer on your own players to ensure that doesn't happen. Its why I gave my own RFA's offers in case on one else bid on them

[Deleted]

that was my point

[Deleted]

I think the point of Restricted Free Agency is to allow a GM the opportunity to retain a player that he would otherwise lose. With that being said, the GM that restricted a player should only have the opportunity to match the winning bid, not bid for that player himself. If the GM that restricts a player is also allowed to bid on that player then what is the point of Restricted Free Agency? It's no different than Unrestricted Free Agency if the GM that restricted the player is attempting to win the player via bidding.

Therefore, a GM should not be allowed to place a bid on a player at league minimum to keep the contract low in the case that no one bids on said player. However, I did check the constitution and did not see verbiage that states that the GM who restricts a player may not place a bid on his own restricted free agent. But, in my opinion, if this is allowed it contradicts the entire concept of RFA.

[Deleted]

Completely disagree Ryan. Point of RFA right to match an offer. If someone only makes an offer of 1 year to my player and i want to keep him for multiple seasons and I'm willing to pay the going rate I should have that right. The reason we have this is the fact we can't really negotiate with a player and his agent.

[Deleted]

Steve, this is copied directly from our league constitution - "Since the bidding is for a RFA, the GM who held the restricted player has 48 hours to match the winning bid, and may restructure that bid for a total contract amount no less and a term no longer than that of the "winning" bid."

You may not offer more seasons to a restricted free agent than that offered by the winning bid. Furthermore, a restricted free agency process in most professional sports is similar to our process here. A restricted free agent may negotiate with any club up until a certain date. If the RFA has received an offer from any club by that date the player's original club has what is typically called a right of first refusal. This meaning that the original club has a set number of days that they can match the offer and retain him or choose not to match.

[Deleted]

Steve is saying that the tagging owner, seeing a one year contract as the pending high bid, can and should be able to "outbid" that owner and offer a mutli-year contract

[Deleted]

Yes, I understand what he is saying. I'm simply stating that typically restricted free agency isn't a bidding type of free agency and our constitution says we cannot offer a longer term than the winning bid. There is usually a qualifying offer made by the original team (which is predetermined by the bargaining agreement, which we don't have) then the player negotiates with other teams until a certain date. If a player has been offered a contract by another team, then the original team either matches or doesn't. They don't get the opportunity to negotiate a different contract.

[Deleted]

Correct which is why if I the highest bid by another owner is 2 years and I want to keep the player for 4 years. I'll bid on my own player and make myself the highest bidder.

[Scott (Boston Padres)]

There is NO rule stating an owner isn't allowed to make an offer to his own RFA-tagged player. Maybe there should be; maybe there shouldn't. I can see both sides of the argument.

Ryan does make a good point and maybe the tagging owner shouldn't be allowed to make the first offer. I also see Steve's point about if the high offer on a player is close to the 12-hr mark and is only for 2 years, why shouldn't you be allowed to raise that player with a 4 year offer of your own since we can't add years when matching?

All good discussion here but too late to affect anything for this Free Agency phase. Let's make sure we get it all sorted out so it's clear for 2017. Maybe rules will be amended depending on what the league decides.

[Deleted]

Don't see how that's a good idea not to allow self bidding. If no one else wants a player for the terms your willing to pay what's the issue?

[Drew (Chicago Blue Jays)]

I agree with Steve here. RFA should be an advantage for the tagging owner, not a disadvantage. Maybe every guy starts with a 1 year, 1M offer from the tagging team in future years. The open market should prevail nonetheless.

[Deleted]

I agree that an owner should be allowed to make a bid on his own RFA if there are no other bids or if he/she wants to keep that player for a longer period of time and I have but ONE reason for this. We're having fun guys, that's it. This is all for us to have fun and while I know there are rules; there is no rule for that and until there is.....let's have some FUN!!!
Says the guy who got Texiera for $3m rather than $22m.