Orioles Contract Restructuring

[h4cheng]

You are making the assumption that big market teams always has a lot of unused salary cap room, which is not the case.

This restructuring debate was brought up by :BAL: who has one of the lowest caps in the league. Teams like :NYY: and :BOS: cannot restructure any contracts simply because they don't have the cap room.

[Colby]

The resign value should be based on average annual overall cap value (salary + signing bonus) and not merely the annual salary.  The only exception for this would be bonuses paid to prospects.

 :iatp:

I think that is a great way to close this loophole.

[rcankosy]

I cannot in good conscience allow this move.  It violates the spirit of the rules and would not be fair to the other teams in the league if we allowed one team to take advantage of this loophole and not the others.

[joeshmoe]

You are making the assumption that big market teams always has a lot of unused salary cap room, which is not the case.

This restructuring debate was brought up by :BAL: who has one of the lowest caps in the league. Teams like :NYY: and :BOS: cannot restructure any contracts simply because they don't have the cap room.

No assumption needed, it is fact.  If a team has more salary cap they are more able to have the extra cap (after compiling a roster) to make those types of moves. 

Furthermore, for all competitions sake, it allows teams to eat a cost in one year that should take longer to eat, while they still are allowed to keep that player.  That is atrocious.

[h4cheng]

No assumption needed, it is fact.  If a team has more salary cap they are more able to have the extra cap (after compiling a roster) to make those types of moves. 

Furthermore, for all competitions sake, it allows teams to eat a cost in one year that should take longer to eat, while they still are allowed to keep that player.  That is atrocious.

While I agree the re-sign value is a loophole that needs to be addressed, I don't think restructuring constructs favors big market teams at all.

Most teams, regardless of small or big capped, spend to the limit of the cap. This IS a fact. The R^2-value on the relationship between cap size and free cap room is 0.4% (e.g., NO correlation at all between cap size and free cap room). If a team has the cap room to restructure a deal, he should be able to do it.

As for the Morneau restructuring, :BAL: found a loophole and as Colby alluded to, should be applauded. He did something that was entirely within the rules of the game and should be allowed until the rules are changed.

[shooter47]

This move along with the contract restructuring are within the rules that govern FGM. I made my trade for Morneau with the idea in place to restructure his contract and then extend him which the current rules allow. Not allowing this extension and changing the rules because it is your opinion that this is not fair affects the value of Morneau and is unfair to me. You don't change the rules to the game in the middle of it and not allow a move. Now if you want to change the rules in response to this move that is for the league and the Rules Committee to discuss.

[rcankosy]

This move along with the contract restructuring are within the rules that govern FGM. I made my trade for Morneau with the idea in place to restructure his contract and then extend him which the current rules allow. Not allowing this extension and changing the rules because it is your opinion that this is not fair affects the value of Morneau and is unfair to me. You don't change the rules to the game in the middle of it and not allow a move. Now if you want to change the rules in response to this move that is for the league and the Rules Committee to discuss.

The Commissioner decides what rules are placed before the Rules Committee, not vice versa.

[shooter47]

The Commissioner decides what rules are placed before the Rules Committee, not vice versa.

I meant that if "you" (the commissioner) want to change this rule you will have to bring it up before the Rules committee.

[joeshmoe]

While I agree the re-sign value is a loophole that needs to be addressed, I don't think restructuring constructs favors big market teams at all.

Most teams, regardless of small or big capped, spend to the limit of the cap. This IS a fact. The R^2-value on the relationship between cap size and free cap room is 0.4% (e.g., NO correlation at all between cap size and free cap room). If a team has the cap room to restructure a deal, he should be able to do it.

As for the Morneau restructuring, :BAL: found a loophole and as Colby alluded to, should be applauded. He did something that was entirely within the rules of the game and should be allowed until the rules are changed.

While you might not agree if it helps or not it is clear that it affects teams based upon market size.  Teams will begin shifting their cap space to allow these transactions and it'll be in the tubes before you can imagine.  I can't reword it to make it more clear, but there is a genuine gain when a team can eliminate X years of liability and can consolidate it into one year while they maintain the control of a player.  Large market teams will be in a better position to make this happen.  It is not within the best interest of the league.

Furthermore, Howe, why not address my concern that this is illegal in the MLB?  I can't see any argument to this claim.  And the intent of this league as I have always understood it was realistic atmosphere, a la no trading draft picks.  I believe that was the reasoning for discontinuing it.

[joeshmoe]

This move along with the contract restructuring are within the rules that govern FGM. I made my trade for Morneau with the idea in place to restructure his contract and then extend him which the current rules allow. Not allowing this extension and changing the rules because it is your opinion that this is not fair affects the value of Morneau and is unfair to me. You don't change the rules to the game in the middle of it and not allow a move. Now if you want to change the rules in response to this move that is for the league and the Rules Committee to discuss.

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 damned 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.