Free Agency Set at One Year?

chucksabr · 10-21-2013, 08:22 PM

Has anybody ever tried a fictional league in which the ML service requirement to achieve free agency was set at one year—meaning, in effect, everyone in the league not signed to a multi-year contract is a free agent every year? If so, how did it play out? Was it chaos, or did it sort itself out logically?

And just as importantly, how did a freewheeling free agency market affect the salaries? I have always suspected that if the majors had allowed every player to be a free agent every year, salaries would have stayed much lower over time because supply would have glutted the market and created a perpetual buyer's market, rather than the current system of having a tightly-restricted supply of veterans which creates a seller's market.

Any feedback on that?

hfield007 · 10-22-2013, 03:21 AM

The union had the idea of the six years service until free agency I believe to limit the influx of quality players available each season when the reserve clause was broken up. marvin miller made that call to make sure the players salaries rose higher.

however in ootp the financial model isn't really designed to test this theory in comparison to what would happen IRL.

i've never done this myself but I would imagine most players would sign one year contract extensions at most early in their careers or be cut loose to free agency where they'd get either one year market value deals or a long term big deal for players with high potentials. I could be wrong.

10-21-2013, 08:22 PM	#1
chucksabr Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: In the canyons of your mind Posts: 3,194	Free Agency Set at One Year? Has anybody ever tried a fictional league in which the ML service requirement to achieve free agency was set at one year—meaning, in effect, everyone in the league not signed to a multi-year contract is a free agent every year? If so, how did it play out? Was it chaos, or did it sort itself out logically? And just as importantly, how did a freewheeling free agency market affect the salaries? I have always suspected that if the majors had allowed every player to be a free agent every year, salaries would have stayed much lower over time because supply would have glutted the market and created a perpetual buyer's market, rather than the current system of having a tightly-restricted supply of veterans which creates a seller's market. Any feedback on that? __________________ The (English) Baseball League (est. 1888): A History The 1932 Season is Underway Dynasty Mission \| Creation Story \| Subscribe 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 (Great War Hiatus) 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 The OOTP Interview about the Baseball League

10-22-2013, 03:21 AM	#2
hfield007 All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,737	The union had the idea of the six years service until free agency I believe to limit the influx of quality players available each season when the reserve clause was broken up. marvin miller made that call to make sure the players salaries rose higher. however in ootp the financial model isn't really designed to test this theory in comparison to what would happen IRL. i've never done this myself but I would imagine most players would sign one year contract extensions at most early in their careers or be cut loose to free agency where they'd get either one year market value deals or a long term big deal for players with high potentials. I could be wrong.