This came up in the Maroth thread

What should there be a definite way to judge offers?

like more years or more money?

I asked this question last year and never really got an answer. How much more money does an offer have to be for if it is for less years? Does an offer of 2/750K beat 3/500K? I also think we need to address the issue of multiyear minimum salary deals. There is no reason for a player to accept a multi year deal for the min salary.

cubfan131 wrote:

There is no reason for a player to accept a multi year deal for the min salary.

I was really shocked to see so many of these 3,4,5yr/MLB Min Salary
offers to guys wanting 10.5M for 3,4,5 years! I didn't realize we were
lowballing these players that much.

-Cinci'

cubfan131 wrote:

There is no reason for a player to accept a multi year deal for the min salary.

I brought this up during the winter meetings, but nine out of twelve people didn't like it, and wanted to keep it the way it is

cubfan131 wrote:

I asked this question last year and never really got an answer. How much more money does an offer have to be for if it is for less years? Does an offer of 2/750K beat 3/500K? I also think we need to address the issue of multiyear minimum salary deals. There is no reason for a player to accept a multi year deal for the min salary.

2/750 would win because it is the same amount for less years

Cincinnati GM wrote:

cubfan131 wrote:

There is no reason for a player to accept a multi year deal for the min salary.

I was really shocked to see so many of these 3,4,5yr/MLB Min Salary
offers to guys wanting 10.5M for 3,4,5 years! I didn't realize we were
lowballing these players that much.

-Cinci'

The prices go up, those are just the starting bids.

defense wrote:

I brought this up during the winter meetings, but nine out of twelve people didn't like it, and wanted to keep it the way it is

Most of the people voted no, because they wanted our league to set up the market. Free Agency works like supply and demand. The more demands, the more the player would cost, but with many teams in poor financial states, the demands are much lower making players salaries lower.

Admin wrote:

2/750 would win because it is the same amount for less years

OK, so basically you add up the total value of the contract to see who’s offer is better and if the total value is the same then the offer with fewer years wins.

Admin wrote:

Most of the people voted no, because they wanted our league to set up the market. Free Agency works like supply and demand. The more demands, the more the player would cost, but with many teams in poor financial states, the demands are much lower making players salaries lower.

I don’t have a problem with low salaries or having no min bid but correct me if I am wrong but can’t you release players making the min without paying the rest of their contract? So min contracts are non-guaranteed and who would sign a non-guaranteed contract for more than 1 year?

Yes and if its the only contract a player could get, im sure he would take it.

So does an offer of 1/400k beat an offer of 3/ML Min? It would seem to me that the player would take the guranteed money rather then the 3 year deal.

The 3 yr/mlb min would win because potentially it could add up to almost one million. And you can still buy out the 400k for almost nothing.

Why not total value wins? That's the most logical and prominent in other leagues. Team Options are valued at 50% and have to be within X% of the base (I suggest 25%) while Player Options are still valued at 100% since the player decides to exercise the option, not you.