ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: rcankosy on August 06, 2011, 12:03:57 PM
-
I have a salary cap question. Do our rules for releasing players (75/50/25%) cover the gross or net amount of the contract? By net, I mean if another team is paying for some of the contract. See the example of the Mets/Yanks trade.
-
I have a salary cap question. Do our rules for releasing players (75/50/25%) cover the gross or net amount of the contract? By net, I mean if another team is paying for some of the contract. See the example of the Mets/Yanks trade.
judging by all other past moves it would be the total. So if the nats were to drop arod, the percentages would be of 27.5m
-
judging by all other past moves it would be the total. So if the nats were to drop arod, the percentages would be of 27.5m
What would happen if the Nats dropped him the last day of the season? The cap hits would be
2011 21m
2012 14m
2013 7m
The Mets are supposed to be covering 20m per season through 2014? Would that obligation just disappear if the Nats released A-Rod? I'm not saying this is even remotely likely. I just want us to be clear on the salary cap ramifications on these kind of long-term obligations.
-
What would happen if the Nats dropped him the last day of the season? The cap hits would be
2011 21m
2012 14m
2013 7m
The Mets are supposed to be covering 20m per season through 2014? Would that obligation just disappear if the Nats released A-Rod? I'm not saying this is even remotely likely. I just want us to be clear on the salary cap ramifications on these kind of long-term obligations.
I dont believe the Mets obligations disappears. We still pay. and the nats still pay the cap hit. so if it were real life Arod would be making bank lol. When i was the yankees. I was paying 10m on buehrle i believe. He was dropped by another team and that team was paying a cap hit of like 5m. Even tho I was paying 10 or maybe even 10.5. But that is why I think its that way.
-
The amount owed still has to be covered. Dice K was released by me. He is owed $$$ this year and next, the Sawx are covering it. If the Yanks pay 20 mil towards Aroid and he is dropped by the Nats, any moneys owed by the Nats would take effect after the 20 mil the Mets are paying. Any number under 20 mil, the savings goes to the Mets.
-
The amount owed still has to be covered. Dice K was released by me. He is owed $$$ this year and next, the Sawx are covering it. If the Yanks pay 20 mil towards Aroid and he is dropped by the Nats, any moneys owed by the Nats would take effect after the 20 mil the Mets are paying. Any number under 20 mil, the savings goes to the Mets.
The Mets are no longer paying ARod, they're paying the Nats - regardless of what happens between the Nats and ARod, the cash owed by the Mets to the Nats does not change. At least that's my interpretation...
-
The Mets are no longer paying ARod, they're paying the Nats - regardless of what happens between the Nats and ARod, the cash owed by the Mets to the Nats does not change. At least that's my interpretation...
I thought we abolished cash only exchanges last year and said that cash must follow the player. The only real life example I can think of also involves A-Rod. When A-Rod opted out of the last 3 years of his Texas contract, the Rangers saved 21m over those 3 years. In any case, the rules should state whether the cap hits are before or after cash that follows the player in a trade like this one.
-
I thought we abolished cash only exchanges last year and said that cash must follow the player. The only real life example I can think of also involves A-Rod. When A-Rod opted out of the last 3 years of his Texas contract, the Rangers saved 21m over those 3 years. In any case, the rules should state whether the cap hits are before or after cash that follows the player in a trade like this one.
We do have a rule that says cash can only be associated to a player and that it follows them in a trade - I'm not sure if that clarifies your question though. As for the real life example ARod opted out of his contract and the Rangers saving money, that would contradict what I said - the Rangers did not owe the Yankees money, they owed ARod money for his contract (and no longer owed it when he opted out). Is that always the case?
Personally I'm indifferent on how we rule here, just want to make sure we keep it as simple as possible...
-
I do believe that the cash hit for the mets should disappear. I always thought that was in the rules. The money exchanged is attached to the contract and thus if the contract is ended the money attached disappears. In the arod case the nats would have to pay the 1m on the first year and the mets would save 6m and 13m the following two years.
-
Fair enough...