POLL: Remove rule for restructuring contracts - A Vote by the RC

[joeshmoe]

Restructuring Contracts
Annual salary after such restructuring must be $4m+
Restructuring allows annual salary to be reduced if player's market value (extension price) is less than or equal to half that of what he is paid.
Total reduction in salary is converted into a guaranteed signing bonus during the current (or upcoming for off-season) year.
Restructuring of contracts is not allowed during the period after the trade deadline and before the off-season.

<div id=example>Here is an example using hypothetical rankings and market values with a real contract.

Derek Lowe, $15.5m (2012)

Let's say his market value is $5.5m, and the team owning him at the time has plenty of cap space.  The restructuring says that his new annual say is $5.5m.  However, the leftover money now front-loaded to him in the form of a bonus (100% guaranteed).  The signing bonus is then a whopping $30m.

Now, let's say the team doesn't have that cap room, but they want to restructure the contract a little bit.  Well, that example is the extreme... the team can play the middle ground and reduce the annual salary to $10.5m per say for a signing bonus of $15m.</div>

Such restructuring of contracts is not allowed from August 1st to the end of the playoffs to prevent teams from abusing the restructuring to make it count for an additional season.

[joeshmoe]

We should remove this rule. Chiefly, MLB contracts are guaranteed. The MLBPA would never ever allow this; as historcial contracts are used as benchmarks.

Furthermore, Bob (shooter47) was burned on this a few years back. I cant remember this rule ever being used. It has a complex set of circumstances. Itis plainly confusing.

Players dont give money back in the MLB because there is no salary cap. We have plenty of ways to cut a guy, or move money in a trade.

This rule needs to go.

[Dan Wood]

Not on the RC. But I agree. It has only been used a few times and is very complex. It's kind of a superfluous rule with being able to drop a player or re-sign them at a lower rate when their contract expires

[joeshmoe]

To clarify my proposal is to remove it completely. No replacement.

[Flash]

I agree with joeshmoe and Dan Wood.  There is no real reason to have this rule.  We have a contract buyout rule that can be used to shed a prohibitive contact, in addition to the others ways already mentioned.  I would support abolishing this rule.

[papps]

I agree

[joeshmoe]

Can we get this approved?

[Flash]