Player Donations

[Brent]

To be fair Votto is only owed 10M, the rest is paid.

I think the easiest solution here is to raise the floor and lower the reward. That eliminates almost every single bad contract you just listed from being donated without ruining the overall scheme.

1000+ 1st round supplemental pick + 1M Int. Funds
800-999 2nd round supplemental pick + 500k Int. Funds
600-800 3rd round supplemental pick + 250k Int. Funds
300-600 150k Int. Funds
0-300 not eligible for donation.

So are we moving the goal post on donations or not?

[Vik]

So are we moving the goal post on donations or not?

My preference is to stick with orginal layout as per opening post here.

That said another thing we are discussing is possibly updating salaries on some of these players, if not all, to be real life contract instead of some of these ugly contracts we have here. This would harm open teams much less.

[Brent]

My preference is to stick with orginal layout as per opening post here.

That said another thing we are discussing is possibly updating salaries on some of these players, if not all, to be real life contract instead of some of these ugly contracts we have here. This would harm open teams much less.

Yeah, Kim's salary isn't ideal.  I claimed him on waivers, but someone bought into his original hype and overpaid. 

[ldsjayhawk]

I do think we need to continue to eliminate anyone that has officially signed overseas, but this is a very valid concern as well.  Many of these donations are salary dumps that likely actually make these empty teams worse off...and not only that, but the donating team not only gets out from under the bad contract, but they get something in return for it.  I think the only way these donations are worth anything is if the donating team retains the salary for the life of the contract.

Even with the large amounts of money that some teams have available, mine included, I can't imagine any team giving up anything of value for these guys...literally if I was taking over one of these teams and had a free drop or a drop at a reduced price, it would be all of these guys.  Therefore, I fully support the salary adjustment Vik mentioned for all of these players.

Joey Votto making 20M through his 40 year old season
Ha-Seong Kim @ 18M for 4 more years
Adam Eaton @ 11M for 3 more years
Matt Carpenter @ 21M for 2 more years
Mike Minor already passed through waivers @ 6M, so he literally could not be given away
Garrett Richards @ 18M for 2 more years
Brand Hand @ 10M for 4 more years

Ryan is right. This is just an opportunity for teams to shed their crummy contracts for a benefit, no less.  I think the better way for this to be implemented is to find new GMs, then basically do a draft from unprotected players.

I also unclear on how teams are going to get these players.  Is the league going to assign them? 

In my experience, most GMs come in to a new team and clean house and bring in new players who they like or fit their strategies.  This is actually going to hamstring these new GMs.  Like Ryan said, who will trade for these players?  Most of these guys have been on the trade block and haven't been traded.  The new GMs will not be able to move these players for the building blocks they want on their new teams.  Just my 2 cents. 

With that said here are my donations:

Chris Archer $18m 2022
Martin Perez $2.7m 2025

[Braves155]

I'm not sure how owners would feel about this, but if needed to help get talent on a team needing an owner, I would be willing to take a team and make no transactions at all between my main tam (Blue Jays) and the team I would be watching over and improving until we found an outside new owner. I know I am new to these leagues, but I am willing to do whatever it takes to help this league.

Maybe we will need an owner or 2 in here to parent a team for a while, with transactions closely monitored for a while, but these are all rebuild teams and at least one of these teams is in real poor shape, so we would need to visit how to best divide the talent in the pool to make the teams all even or attractive as possible for any prospective owner.

[Jonathan]

A "new GM's draft" might not be a bad idea. You could compensate based on where they're drafted. If the player in the donations pool isn't drafted, then they get returned to the original team. I guess the main issue would be finding new GM's to have that draft.

[Braves155]

If we really want to make things fair for a new owner for taking on 'Donated players,' they should not be forced to take on a contract if the salary is really high. Instead we should scale back these salaries for new owners to give them as much cap space s possible for FA, deals and other transactions. Sure, we can't exactly let them take on 'ARB 1' or rookie salaries, but what I suggest instead of giving them, say (and no one is to blame really for these high contracts I don't think) Joey Votto at 20M through 2024, or Evan Longoria at 4M through 2024, we take the length of their current contract and divide the 2022 salary by # years remaining on contract.

If this is done, instead of Votto being 20M for any said new oner, his salary would be 6.67M for 2022-24, likewise, Longoria would be 1.33M (2022-24). Maybe we do this for all players, or ones with salaries above a certain threshold, but it would immensely help any new owner taking these otherwise high salary players compete more in FA and make more sensible deals while lessening the salary disadvantage otherwise.

I don't normally post opinions on player salaries, but since some high $$ ones are listed, I will just briefly state on certain ones thoughts on how to handle, pls feel free to comment:

Ha-Seong Kim @ 18M for 4 more years Using the method mentioned above- $4.5M- Not bad. New owner could decide whether/not worth it.
Adam Eaton @ 11M for 3 more years- Considering retirement
Matt Carpenter @ 21M for 2 more years- No. Just No
Garrett Richards @ 18M for 2 more years- Old owner should volunteer to eat some salary
Brand Hand @ 10M for 4 more years- Ok, not bad here.
Martin Perez 2.7M (2025)- Real friendly contract, and if a new owner accepts at 675K/year, could be worth it.

[RyanJames5]

I loved this idea initially, but I just don?t think it accomplishes what it set out to accomplish.

It gives marginal at best players to teams that don?t likely want them, so it doesn?t improve the rosters at all. Additionally it?s a massive boost to existing teams, in some cases giving more than 20M in cap space to spend immediately while also giving them an award for gaining cap space.

I just think the idea needs to be walked back. I could live with the fact that I think it?s unfair to give teams an award and a free drop if it truly made these teams better, but it simply doesn?t

[Braves155]

I loved this idea initially, but I just don?t think it accomplishes what it set out to accomplish.

It gives marginal at best players to teams that don?t likely want them, so it doesn?t improve the rosters at all. Additionally it?s a massive boost to existing teams, in some cases giving more than 20M in cap space to spend immediately while also giving them an award for gaining cap space.

I just think the idea needs to be walked back. I could live with the fact that I think it?s unfair to give teams an award and a free drop if it truly made these teams better, but it simply doesn?t

Blame me for looking at one side of the coin on my idea. Maybe, and I'm not sure how feasible this would be, we could implement somewhat of a 'Bonilla' Rule stating that if you donate a player above annual salary X, you must pay say (for example) 50% of the total salary upfront, or up to 70% one the next 2 seasons. I don't know enough about releases/drops from this league, but maybe we could play along the lines of the Bonilla rules but add something that serves more as a financial hit to teams dropping high salary players. I mean this more as a deterrent to donating high salary, older/declining players than donation of higher salary players themselves who still have pretty good fantasy value.

Thinking on my idea earlier, some players actually are worth a higher salary, but how do you justly allow the 'donating' team and the 'receiving' to potentially get this player to the new team from the old team without allowing the old owner too much financial freedom while still fairly compensating?
I do think that certain type players with high salaries should be barred from being donated as well. I'm sure we all could think of some examples, but I don't think a 37 y/o slyer on the decline with a 17M salary should even be accepted as a 'donation.' Again, I know this will take us all thinking together, but there must be a way to at least find as fair of a way as possible between financial alleviation for the old team, and player with salary benefit/reduction for the receiving, new team.

[RyanJames5]

Oh no, no reason to blame anyone. I think ideas need to be thrown around and tried.

Like I said, the donation idea seemed great to me at first, but the massive benefit to a team, to not only give away 20M, but actually get something in return for it, significantly outweighs the benefit to the team gaining these players.

I?m still of the belief that allowing a GM to run 2 teams has the potential to fill the league quicker than any of the other ideas. 1 or two good trades and someone actually trimming the waste from the minors while signing some players with upside can give these teams a whole new appearance and outlook.