Orioles Contract Restructuring

[joeshmoe]

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.

The AROD to Boston situation? 

[joeshmoe]

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 believe that the reason Rolen was okay is because there was in fact, as it appears a very small increase in has actually moneys earned.   Much like the reasoning behind the denial of the AROD issue as I alluded to. 

[Colby]

The underlying and overwhelming points here are the following.
- shooter47 found a loophole in the rules to make contract extensions less expensive. 
- We should applaud him for finding this, but the loophole should be fixed immediately as it goes against the intention of the rules.
- This is a free league.  Just because shooter47 found a loophole doesn't mean we should allow it.  When these things happen, we need to step back, make an adjustment, and allow us all to continue to play and have fun.

[Dan Wood]

I stopped reading along time ago, but here's my two cents. Shooter found a loop hole and it should be allowed. But this leads to two additions that I think we need to make to the rules...

1. Every action that is not specifically talked about in the rules should be brought for review - such as when someone finds a loophole. We are not going to be able to cover every little aspect...this signing is the perfect example. 

2. I think we need to do away with contract restructuring. And yes is does benefit high market teams because they can take large salary hits in a restructure. Most mid and low market teams will stagger a contract over years because it is financially more feasible. We have put in place certain aspects to resigning a player such as 30% MV decreases, and contracts that start at the end of a current contract. I think when this rule was created there were a lot of residual MLB contracts still left - Lowe, Andruw Jones, etc. - we've come to a point where those no longer exist.