New Rule Proposal

[chrisetc21]

Just wanted to get thoughts on a new rule for this league.  I propose that any new team owner have a one week period where they can buy out any one contract for 50% of the value of the contract.  This will give new owners a mechanism to cut a large contract without having to give away assets to get rid of the contract.  I just don't think it's fair to give a new owner a team loaded with bad contracts and expect them to deal with the previous owners mistake.  They potentially have to play for years with a hamstrung payroll with no mechanism to get a fresh start and play the game.  It's pretty obvious some owners don't care about two years down the road when they make free agency bids and they'll be abandoning  the team as soon as those decisions come back to haunt them.  In particular I'm talking about Matt Cain earning $33 million per year on Colorado's roster.  Thoughts?

[Lindner]

Who in their right mind would offer a 28 year old pitcher $33M/year for 5 years?

[limeygreen]

Yes - as Rockies/Cain owner I am facing quite a tough situation (and thus a semi rationale my vetoed recent trade attempt….)

While I see it as quite a good challenge, and am happy to keep my situation as it is, I agreed with the reasoning behind this post. Though whether a  1 or 2 year soft extension (say $10m) to the respective teams salary cap, where they are close to the overall limit when inheriting the team, is another option - giving them the time and flexibility to manage their team more effectively going forward?

[DarylH]

I think the idea has merits but what about my team?  I just started a few weeks back and have everyone's favorite player. Arod. And I've already had to dump Sabathia and Texeira. I think all teams would have to be able to do this with one player.

[chrisetc21]

I propose this for new owners, not retroactively applying it to existing owners.

[ThePetis]

I think it's a good idea and will only help to encourage more activity in the league.  Put it up for a vote.

[Jss0062]

If we're going down this road the real life NBA amnesty model would work here. Basically a get out of jail free card on one contract within 5 years of the rule passing.  There are a lot of contracts in this league that don't work with a cap that are the fault of the real life teams (i.e. Cliff Lee, Ryan Howard, A-Rod)  Leaving a team stuck with one of those contracts at 50% face value with no production return is really a wash when compared to getting production at an inflated price.  Using Matt Cain as the example, he is probably a $16-$17M player. If he is bought out at 50% the team is stuck with 0 production and a $16.5M bill, they may just as well keep him at an additional $16.5M because that is now what he's worth. . A 100% amnesty would be of greater benefit because it allows for the team to get more value for its money.  Just my thoughts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yahoolando]

I think 1 amnesty drop for each team could work.  Just to make it fair all teams would get one.  Then we could introduce a rule for a new owner to have one drop in the upcoming offseason.  I wouldn't allow the drop during the year as it would benefit teams with more cap room and really the benefit to shedding cap during the season is negligible compared to the offseason before FA and Arbitration.  Keep up the good ideas and we can have a vote.

[chrisetc21]

Eh, I think some of you are looking at this as what it can do for you rather than my intention which was how we can add new owners and keep them without burdening them with past cap killing contracts like the Dodgers $80 million Carl Crawford deal.

I think giving amnesty to the whole league is a horrible idea.  I have a very old league that I play in where any new owner gets a week to buy out a contract at half price and sign extensions out of the normal extension period.  It works well to bring in new owners and give them a break from the previous owner's possible mismanagement.  That's all I was suggesting.  Count me as a huge no for league wide amnesty.

[ThePetis]

Eh, I think some of you are looking at this as what it can do for you rather than my intention which was how we can add new owners and keep them without burdening them with past cap killing contracts like the Dodgers $80 million Carl Crawford deal.

I think giving amnesty to the whole league is a horrible idea.  I have a very old league that I play in where any new owner gets a week to buy out a contract at half price and sign extensions out of the normal extension period.  It works well to bring in new owners and give them a break from the previous owner's possible mismanagement.  That's all I was suggesting.  Count me as a huge no for league wide amnesty.

I'm on board with Chris's suggestion, but also against the league-wide amnesty.  I also like the idea of allowing a new owner to sign extensions outside of the extension window.  As an example, the Red Sox did not offer an extension to Jacoby Ellsbury in our league.  Due to poor timing, the new owner misses out on a chance to re-sign him.