Orioles Contract Restructuring

[shooter47]

Shooter, I need to point out that although you made a move with a certain understanding in no way will affect the rulings of this league.  In 2010 I was heavily interested in competing by using a lot of pitching to overcome the major slant towards hitters.  Well, limits were placed on pitchers and that was that.  It was ruled best for the league and be Smoking Guned if your plans for your franchise were messed up. 

That's just how this league has been.  So any appeal to the fact that you made a move based on a certain understanding is on shaky ground to begin with.

I see some similarities with that situation however that was a rule change that affected strategy and player values throughout the league. Roy saying that he will not allow my contract restructuring and extension even though it is within the rules that currently govern FGM changes the value of my player and sets a dangerous precedence in the league. The precedence this sets is that the Commissioner can change the rules and not allow transactions that are currently legal within the rules. The commissioner would have the power to rule over anything that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules. My contract restructuring and extension were within the rules of FGM and should go through.

On another note its not like contract restructuring is a new concept in the rules of FGM. It has been in the rulebook for the two years that I have been in the league and in my memory has not been used up to this point. I don't see this giving an advantage to Large Market teams for the reasons that Howe has already stated.

[joeshmoe]

Here is an example, using the Yankees as they are (no offense OUDAN), of what I foresee if this rule is upheld and of my concern...any smart GM will plan for next year so lets assume in this model Dan does this all next year.:

SP Sabathia, CC, $23m (2015), was #6 SP in 2011 and #13 in 2012 - #6SP = 18m.
    23m - 18m = 5m x 2 years = 10m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually 5m for 2014 (taking cap down to 33.5m).

SP Hernandez, Felix, $23m (2016), was #3 SP in 2011 and #7 in 2012 - #3SP = 18.5m.  23m - 18.5m = 4.5m x 3 years = 13.5m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 4.5m so the cost is actually 9m for 2014 (taking cap down to 24.5m).

CI-OF Bautista, Jose, $27.5m (2016), who was #1 OF in 2011 and #3 CI for 2011 and #51 OF in 2012 and #46 CI in 2012 - #1 OF = 22.5m.  27.5m - 22.5m = 5m x 3 years = 15m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually only 10m for 2014 (taking cap down to 14.5m).

Now in this example gets to keep these players, get relief from over payment and shave millions off of his salary; 14.5m in 2015 and 10m in 2016...but why, because they made bad choices and dont want to cut their losses by having to move them? 
No way is this realistic.

Furthermore compare this to the SD situation, I think I had 14m to start free agency.  I have one overvalue deal:

OF Soler, Jorge, $8m (2015), if I were to do this I can't even get him as low as his value should be, which is 0.5m...why are the rules slanted this way?  I would have to pay 8m this year to restructure his deal after accounting.  It is almost all of my cap available this year.  How many insane contracts have I purchased?  Few!  And yet its the overspenders rewarded most?  They are the ones who drive Soler to 8m in the first place.  The vice tightens further.  Clearly for the length of this post I cant detail all of the reasons it damages small clubs but the facts remain clear.

The Yankees could gain almost my entire cap next year by exploiting a loophole not existent in the MLB.

[joeshmoe]

I see some similarities with that situation however that was a rule change that affected strategy and player values throughout the league. Roy saying that he will not allow my contract restructuring and extension even though it is within the rules that currently govern FGM changes the value of my player and sets a dangerous precedence in the league. The precedence this sets is that the Commissioner can change the rules and not allow transactions that are currently legal within the rules. The commissioner would have the power to rule over anything that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules. My contract restructuring and extension were within the rules of FGM and should go through.

On another note its not like contract restructuring is a new concept in the rules of FGM. It has been in the rulebook for the two years that I have been in the league and in my memory has not been used up to this point. I don't see this giving an advantage to Large Market teams for the reasons that Howe has already stated.

Absolutely, that as you acknowledge this is the first time this rule has been tested, it is the Commissioners duty to intervene.  The rule is wrong, it isn't MLB at all, Bobby Bonilla anyone? http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?sp=30904025&s=2&p=30903998

Furthermore, it does help large market teams, I've shown proof, show me some that it doesn't.

Roy you are right on with your decision to stop a dangerous principle.  Furthermore, allowing one move then changing the rules really is not good for league fair play.  If we change the rule this year it precludes those that otherwise need a year to make such moves.  It really gets sticky.  Just avoid the whole thing, admit it's a dangerous rule and move on.

[shooter47]

Here is an example, using the Yankees as they are (no offense OUDAN), of what I foresee if this rule is upheld and of my concern...any smart GM will plan for next year so lets assume in this model Dan does this all next year.:

SP Sabathia, CC, $23m (2015), was #6 SP in 2011 and #13 in 2012 - #6SP = 18m.
    23m - 18m = 5m x 2 years = 10m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually 5m for 2014 (taking cap down to 33.5m).

SP Hernandez, Felix, $23m (2016), was #3 SP in 2011 and #7 in 2012 - #3SP = 18.5m.  23m - 18.5m = 4.5m x 3 years = 13.5m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 4.5m so the cost is actually 9m for 2014 (taking cap down to 24.5m).

CI-OF Bautista, Jose, $27.5m (2016), who was #1 OF in 2011 and #3 CI for 2011 and #51 OF in 2012 and #46 CI in 2012 - #1 OF = 22.5m.  27.5m - 22.5m = 5m x 3 years = 15m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually only 10m for 2014 (taking cap down to 14.5m).

Now in this example gets to keep these players, get relief from over payment and shave millions off of his salary; 14.5m in 2015 and 10m in 2016...but why, because they made bad choices and dont want to cut their losses by having to move them? 
No way is this realistic.

Furthermore compare this to the SD situation, I think I had 14m to start free agency.  I have one overvalue deal:

OF Soler, Jorge, $8m (2015), if I were to do this I can't even get him as low as his value should be, which is 0.5m...why are the rules slanted this way?  I would have to pay 8m this year to restructure his deal after accounting.  It is almost all of my cap available this year.  How many insane contracts have I purchased?  Few!  And yet its the overspenders rewarded most?  They are the ones who drive Soler to 8m in the first place.  The vice tightens further.  Clearly for the length of this post I cant detail all of the reasons it damages small clubs but the facts remain clear.

The Yankees could gain almost my entire cap next year by exploiting a loophole not existent in the MLB.

Have you even read the rules for contract restructuring? I have included them in my post if you haven't.

None of your examples for the yankees are legal because one of the rules to restructuring is that the players extension price must be 50% or less than what their current salary is. Now the yankees would never make a move like this anyways because this move is only useful to a team that is playing for the future. The cap space that the yankees would use to make a move like this would be better used to acquire players that would help them win now.

Also the math in your examples is wrong. For example CC Sabathia is a 2015 contract which is 3 years not 2. $5m * 3 years = $15m Signing bonus. With 5 million cap gained the actualy cost to the yankees would be $10m in 2013. The following mistake was made in each example.

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]

Have you even read the rules for contract restructuring? I have included them in my post if you haven't.

None of your examples for the yankees are legal because one of the rules to restructuring is that the players extension price must be 50% or less than what their current salary is. Now the yankees would never make a move like this anyways because this move is only useful to a team that is playing for the future. The cap space that the yankees would use to make a move like this would be better used to acquire players that would help them win now.

Also the math in your examples is wrong. For example CC Sabathia is a 2015 contract which is 3 years not 2. $5m * 3 years = $15m Signing bonus. With 5 million cap gained the actualy cost to the yankees would be $10m in 2013. The following mistake was made in each example.

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.

These are all straw man arguments at best. 

1)  The above rule I did in fact miss, but there will be examples of the situation I am explaining.  Further, the trends show downward for all of those players, imagine infinite examples that could end up a problem.

2)  You are saying my math was wrong, but in my first paragraph I said lets assume it is all done next year.  I didn't make a mistake three times.

3)  This hasn't discredited my point that it helps team escape out of bad bidding procedures, while maintain control of a player, its win win; and most helps large market clubs. 

4)  If those two points aren't quality for reasoning then how about that this is not MLB practice.

5)  Your assertion of what and what not the will and will not do does not actually hold.  You have no idea what any team will do and not do, play for the future or the now.  And that restructure would help them rapidly in some circumstances.  It creates loopholes too many to count.

[shooter47]

These are all straw man arguments at best. 

1)  The above rule I did in fact miss, but there will be examples of the situation I am explaining.  Further, the trends show downward for all of those players, imagine infinite examples that could end up a problem.

2)  You are saying my math was wrong, but in my first paragraph I said lets assume it is all done next year.  I didn't make a mistake three times.

3)  This hasn't discredited my point that it helps team escape out of bad bidding procedures, while maintain control of a player, its win win; and most helps large market clubs. 

4)  If those two points aren't quality for reasoning then how about that this is not MLB practice.

5)  Your assertion of what and what not the will and will not do does not actually hold.  You have no idea what any team will do and not do, play for the future or the now.  And that restructure would help them rapidly in some circumstances.  It creates loopholes too many to count.

I missed the part where you stated that your examples would be done next year. You did the math correctly and I apoligize for saying it was incorrect.

Now I am not going to continue arguing this rule because this is not the time or place for that. That can be handled by the Rules Committee if and when Roy brings it before them.

We are actually arguing two different things. My argument is that my contract restructuring and extension are within the current rules that govern FGM. This is a legal move according to those rules and should be allowed. Rules that are changed after a GM makes a move should not affect a move that was previously made and was within the rules at that time. FGM has a rule called the Prince Fielder rule that prohibits teams from doing a sign and trade in the offseason. This rule was added to the rule book however the transaction between the Royals and Brewers (which was legal according to the rules at that time) was allowed. This sets a precedence in the league that rule changes do not affect transactions that are made before the rule is changed.

This rule hasn't even been officially changed by the rules committee. Not allowing this transaction undermines the rules of FGM and the power of the Rules committee.

[rcankosy]

I see some similarities with that situation however that was a rule change that affected strategy and player values throughout the league. Roy saying that he will not allow my contract restructuring and extension even though it is within the rules that currently govern FGM changes the value of my player and sets a dangerous precedence in the league. The precedence this sets is that the Commissioner can change the rules and not allow transactions that are currently legal within the rules. The commissioner would have the power to rule over anything that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules. My contract restructuring and extension were within the rules of FGM and should go through.

On another note its not like contract restructuring is a new concept in the rules of FGM. It has been in the rulebook for the two years that I have been in the league and in my memory has not been used up to this point. I don't see this giving an advantage to Large Market teams for the reasons that Howe has already stated.

I have not changed any rules.  The buyout clause was not intended to be manipulated in this manner to reduce extension values. 

From time to time, the Commissioner will be forced to rule on matters not explicitly stated in the rules such as free agent bids being binding.  The rules should be accepted in the spirit in which they were written or we all become reduced to clubhouse lawyers rather than friendly competitors in a baseball league. 

[shooter47]

I have not changed any rules.  The buyout clause was not intended to be manipulated in this manner to reduce extension values. 

From time to time, the Commissioner will be forced to rule on matters not explicitly stated in the rules such as free agent bids being binding.  The rules should be accepted in the spirit in which they were written or we all become reduced to clubhouse lawyers rather than friendly competitors in a baseball league.

By not allowing a restructuring and extension that is a legal move to happen is changing the rules. You have added a rule that says this type of legal move can not be done and have usurped power from the rules committee.

Also for those who say that this is not realistic in MLB baseball you can follow the following links that dicsuss a contract restructuring that the Cincinnati Reds and Scott Rolen did. You will see that this contract extension is the exact same thing that I am trying to do with Morneau. The Reds Lowered the current year contract and gave Rolen a signing bonus that was equal to the decrease in the current year contract value. They then signed him to an extension for two years.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

[rcankosy]

By not allowing a restructuring and extension that is a legal move to happen is changing the rules. You have added a rule that says this type of legal move can not be done and have usurped power from the rules committee.

Also for those who say that this is not realistic in MLB baseball you can follow the following links that dicsuss a contract restructuring that the Cincinnati Reds and Scott Rolen did. You will see that this contract extension is the exact same thing that I am trying to do with Morneau. The Reds Lowered the current year contract and gave Rolen a signing bonus that was equal to the decrease in the current year contract value. They then signed him to an extension for two years.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

I have asked the Rules Committee to interpret more existing rules during my short time as Commissioner than either of my two predecessors.  I have even asked the RC to rule on amendments to deadline dates that were EXPLICITLY stated in the rules such as the one governing re-sign dates (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=73692.0), because some owners were unhappy. 

I respect the RC, and I and am grateful for the work that they have done.  However, I do not believe that I should run every dispute by the RC, because an owner is upset by my ruling.

[shooter47]

I have asked the Rules Committee to interpret more existing rules during my short time as Commissioner than either of my two predecessors.  I have even asked the RC to rule on amendments to deadline dates that were EXPLICITLY stated in the rules such as the one governing re-sign dates (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=73692.0), because some owners were unhappy. 

I respect the RC, and I and am grateful for the work that they have done.  However, I do not believe that I should run every dispute by the RC, because an owner is upset by my ruling.

I am not just upset with you ruling but am challenging the basis on how you reached your decision. Your main arguments up to this point have been that this situation doesn't happen in real life MLB and that it doesn't follow the spirit of the FGM rules.

1) I have given a clear example of how this situation has happened in MLB before. The Cincinnati Reds restructured Scott Rolen's contract to lower his salary, gave him a signing bonus and then signed him to a 2 year extension. So this situation does realistically happen in the MLB.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

2) The spirit of the FGM rules is to mimic the real life MLB rules as close as possible. Now if something happens in the real life MLB then it should be allowed to happen in FGM.

My main argument for why this transaction should be allowed is that it has happened in the MLB before, it is clearly legal in the rules that currently govern FGM and is even within the spirit of the FGM principle that the rules should help the league mimic MLB as close as possible. I have yet to hear a compelling reason from you on why this transaction should not be allowed.