Orioles Contract Restructuring

[VolsRaysBucs]

 :iatp:

[rcankosy]

MLB salaries are 100% guaranteed, no?  What player would sign that restructured deal in a hypothetically realistic situation.  I should have just restructured all those bad contracts I inherited in my first season (Peavey and H. Bell). 

It also damages the salary structure as large teams could take huge gambles on players via free agency and if they suck they merely restructure.  Small market teams would immediately be damaged as they have less cap to bid on these players. 

It would also create insane market bids for players as there really are no consequences to signing a player way over his value if you can restructure him.  Really I could restructure immediately and get my money for bidding back too.  As you can see the loopholes are endless.  And as I stated first, I don't believe the MLB has anything like this.  If it did it would be hard to translate into this setting.

Perhaps, I missed something here.  What is the objection to restructuring contacts even in their final year as long as they do NOT affect resign values?  In the current ase involving Morneau, his resign value would be his average salary PLUS bonus on his current contract.

[Paul S.]

Perhaps, I missed something here.  What is the objection to restructuring contacts even in their final year as long as they do NOT affect resign values?  In the current ase involving Morneau, his resign value would be his average salary PLUS bonus on his current contract.

There is no reason for restructuring in the final year of a contract if the signing bonus is included in the average salary.  This was possibly an attempt to change Morneau's 2013 salary from $13.5m to $6m in order to extend him at $6m rather than the 70% minimum of $9.5m.

[rcankosy]

There is no reason for restructuring in the final year of a contract if the signing bonus is included in the average salary.  This was possibly an attempt to change Morneau's 2013 salary from $13.5m to $6m in order to extend him at $6m rather than the 70% minimum of $9.5m.

That was exactly why I proposed the inclusion of the signing bonus in the salary calculation.  I wanted to add a a simple ammendment to the current rule that would make sense thoughout the course of the contract AND remove the incentive to contract restructure in the final year.

[h4cheng]

Colby's right - this move should be allowed as it is under the rules, we can have a separate discussion on how to address issue in another thread.

[joeshmoe]

Colby's right - this move should be allowed as it is under the rules, we can have a separate discussion on how to address issue in another thread.

NO this shouldn't be allowed to happen as it never does in the MLB where they have gauranteed contracts.  Furthermore it sets a horrible precedent that if you search for loopholes hard enough it will work out for your interest.  This transaction will destroy extensions values, contracts, salary cap, and league parity.  EVERYONE who has traded a player as opposed to manipulating this rule will have been burned. 

I am going to post a list of restructures so if this does go through you can see how it artificially helps my team beyond reasonable limits of the league.  And if we're gonna let this ONE through and then change the rules for everyone else that is simply unconscionable.

[joeshmoe]

Perhaps, I missed something here.  What is the objection to restructuring contacts even in their final year as long as they do NOT affect resign values?  In the current ase involving Morneau, his resign value would be his average salary PLUS bonus on his current contract.

Roy, reread my paragraphs 2 and 3 about how it destroys liability for teams to make good signings.  It also destroys parity of the league.  And finally it isn't realistic in one sense of the MLB.

[h4cheng]

I really don't see what the big deal is besides the change in re-sign value.

MLB salaries are 100% guaranteed, no?  What player would sign that restructured deal in a hypothetically realistic situation.  I should have just restructured all those bad contracts I inherited in my first season (Peavey and H. Bell). 

They are 100% guaranteed. Just because the contract has been structured doesn't mean the team isn't paying 100% of the contract value.

It also damages the salary structure as large teams could take huge gambles on players via free agency and if they suck they merely restructure.  Small market teams would immediately be damaged as they have less cap to bid on these players. 

It would also create insane market bids for players as there really are no consequences to signing a player way over his value if you can restructure him.  Really I could restructure immediately and get my money for bidding back too.  As you can see the loopholes are endless.  And as I stated first, I don't believe the MLB has anything like this.  If it did it would be hard to translate into this setting.

You lost me completely - I don't see how big market teams can take advantage of this. Again, restructuring contracts does not change the amount of money a team has to pay out. If a big market team bids recklessly, it's still on hook for the player contract (the only thing changed is the timing of the payment). Hell, the team gets more instant salary relief via a drop then restructuring.

[joeshmoe]

I want and NEED to make another point.  You cannot in any circumstance buyout of a contract that are 1.5m or less; which is most important to any club trying to field a full roster and stay under cap.  You get stuck singing small contract to fill a roster out but you then cant get out from under it.  There is zero financial relief with a 70% clause.  This already limits small market clubs.  Then these buyouts of huge contracts further assists big league clubs who suddenly have no consequences for the 5 years they signed a huge contract if they can manipulate it into one years expense.  I just can't help but see this.

[joeshmoe]

I really don't see what the big deal is besides the change in re-sign value.

They are 100% guaranteed. Just because the contract has been structured doesn't mean the team isn't paying 100% of the contract value.

You lost me completely - I don't see how big market teams can take advantage of this. Again, restructuring contracts does not change the amount of money a team has to pay out. If a big market team bids recklessly, it's still on hook for the player contract (the only thing changed is the timing of the payment). Hell, the team gets more instant salary relief via a drop then restructuring.

This is a huge problem.  And although they get more salary relief during a drop the consequence is that they then lose the rights to that player and can't gain points from him.  During a restructure the team is allowed to maintain the player.  We should be giving teams financial relief in years upcoming AND let them keep that player to gain points with?  That's a double win!  Something a small market team would have to empty their roster in order to accomplish. 

AND IF we're going to have a league with variable salary cap, where one team isn't equal with another, and that inequality was not adjusted amongst teams in the beginning of the creation of the league.  We should be careful to make rules that do not help one market over another purely by the creation of that rule.  It slants the table.

AND finally the MLB does not give relief from the cap for years they were signed.  Arent the Mets still paying a guy 2.5m on the cap from their days back with Bobby V in early 2000 (IRL)?  I mean it's cut and dry in the MLB that you cannot do this.