ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Green on February 21, 2010, 01:24:35 AM
-
This should be obvious to me but it isn't. If Jermaine Dye retires, does his salary come off my books? How is it that Jermaine Dye doesn't have a contract in Baseball but has one on my team? (I worry about the answer to that one...)
-
I'm not sure if we have a rule that explicitly handles this, but IMO if the player retires you're still on the hook as our contracts are independent of MLB contracts (after the initial league startup).
-
How is it that Jermaine Dye doesn't have a contract in Baseball but has one on my team? (I worry about the answer to that one...)
He had an option for 2010, but we do not have the concept of option years in FGM. The White Sox bought him out http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091106&content_id=7631464&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091106&content_id=7631464&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb), but in our league that's not an option.
-
I'm not sure if we have a rule that explicitly handles this, but IMO if the player retires you're still on the hook as our contracts are independent of MLB contracts (after the initial league startup).
I am not sure how that is fair if I didn't give him the contract and he retires from baseball. Two points. In reality, if a player signs a four year contract and retires after two the team doesn't have to pay him the remaining two years why should I have to? I don't mind the option year ruling but that is if he is going to another team I still have control. Did the Angels franchise have to keep Adenhart on their payroll? This contract is not independent of MLB contracts, it was based on it and was based on initial league setup. If I bid on him I could half understand that but I still don't think I would have to pay a player if it is his choice to retire.
I would like a ruling from the Rules Committee. I will go with the result obviously.
-
And what if he signs with another team and plays all of 2010? At what point should his contract be terminated? If/when he announces his retirement?
-
And what if he signs with another team and plays all of 2010? At what point should his contract be terminated? If/when he announces his retirement?
I think that is the counterpoint to my argument and is a good point. In the case of Jermaine Dye (or Brett Favre) he probably won't turn in any papers and if he pulls a Pedro to be ready for a contender. I guess the case for my situation is that having chosen to retire and then un-retire that would be the definition of a free agent. I realize the sentiment is to stick it to me because it limits me. It's just another bad contract that was inherited
-
Seattle is on the hook for Kenji Johjima and he left MLB. Any contract before the league started (inherited), you are accountable for. Also any contract handed out - Billy Wagner I believe he was signed for 3 years (Ben was that you?), you are also responsible for. Adenhart died prior to the league starting. But at the time he was a prospect, and would have been able to be dropped without a cap hit. So I believe there was a ruling on this prior to my becoming the Commish, I will let Colby chime in on that. But as it looks right now, from previous history, you do not lose the contract once the player retires, or goes and plays elsewhere such as Japan.
-
My two cents here...
First.. If the player officialy sign retirement papers at the real MLB, then the owner here should have the right to release the player without paying any buyout, as the player left baseball... If the player then plays a Favre and comeback, then he would be a FA just like any other free agent...
But if it's like you mentioned, a player that goes abroad or doesn't officialy retire and is without team, I think you could create a special "buyout" rule, seting the percentage lower than the normal buyout... Something like 50% for the first year, 25% the next and then 10% for each other year...
However, this type of release would be valid only during the regular season, to make sure the guy is without team...
Again, if the player later on comeback, his old team would have no rights on him, he would be a normal FA...
-
Billy Wagner I believe he was signed for 3 years (Ben was that you?)
He was only signed for 2, but there is of course a risk that he doesn't pitch in 2011... same idea with Magglio who I just signed for 3 years, but is getting old and declining so he may not play all 3.
With respect to FA bidding, if we knew when a player retired we could freely drop them, old players would be signed to unrealistically long contracts just to bid up the total value. Personally, I think if you bid up the value you're on the hook for that money, even if the player retires.
With that said, things happen in real life and players retire earlier than expected, and MLB teams are off the hook. Maybe we can consider allowing a special, early contract termination on a case by case basis, where a specific set of criteria must be met, for example: player has officially filed for retirement, the FGM team did not have clear warning signs of this happening when the contract was signed, etc.. Maybe a player like Dye would be eligible for this if he signs the paperwork, but then someone like Wagner would not since I should realize he could retire any year now. This type of rule could be problematic when drawing the line, but its just an idea.
-
First.. If the player officialy sign retirement papers at the real MLB, then the owner here should have the right to release the player without paying any buyout, as the player left baseball... If the player then plays a Favre and comeback, then he would be a FA just like any other free agent...
This is a good suggestion, my only concern would be if we get into a situation where teams are abusing the fact that they get a free pass if someone retires (see my comments above). If we can ensure that the rule would not be abused, I'd have no problem with a rule that keeps teams from getting screwed by something out of their control (an unexpected early retirement).
-
FYI, you can buy out a contract. Cap hits apply and then it can be wrapped up into one year with a 10% tax.
-
FYI, you can buy out a contract. Cap hits apply and then it can be wrapped up into one year with a 10% tax.
:)...I don't think I understand this rule at all and it is because I am not that smart but lets take the Dye situation. He is scheduled to make $11M...so 90% of that is $9.9M plus 10% tax on $11M is $1.1M and that gives me $11M cap hit and without the rights to the player in the event he comes back....I have got to be missing something...
-
This is a good suggestion, my only concern would be if we get into a situation where teams are abusing the fact that they get a free pass if someone retires (see my comments above). If we can ensure that the rule would not be abused, I'd have no problem with a rule that keeps teams from getting screwed by something out of their control (an unexpected early retirement).
Well... One idea I had... The franchise should pay at least half of the contract (front loaded) in the case of a player officialy retiring...
Like, if the player contract was 5 years at 10mil per year and the guy retire sometime during the contract, the franchise should pay at least 25mil... It would be 10mil in each of the first two years and then another 5mil on the 3rd year... If the guy retired after the 3rd year, there would be no hit, as the franhise would have already paid 30mil...
As we can't go over 5 years, I think this should have enough effect into FA bidding...
-
:)...I don't think I understand this rule at all and it is because I am not that smart but lets take the Dye situation. He is scheduled to make $11M...so 90% of that is $9.9M plus 10% tax on $11M is $1.1M and that gives me $11M cap hit and without the rights to the player in the event he comes back....I have got to be missing something...
Green... Matter of fact, there is two ways of letting a player go... You can release the player or you can buy out a player...
Releasing a player, you'll have a cap hit in each year of the player contract, following a pre-determined percentage... In the case of Dye, if you release him before the trade deadline, you would have to pay 90% of his current salary this year... If you release after the deadline, 75%...
Buying out a player contract you can choose how to divide the money during the years of contract... However, you have a bigger cap hit... In the case of Dye, you would have to pay 110% of his remaining contract... As there is only one year remaining, you would have to pay all of it during this year... But if it were more years, then you could ellect how to spread the money during those years...
Both ways are more detailed here: http://profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=32.0 (http://profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=32.0)
-
:)...I don't think I understand this rule at all and it is because I am not that smart but lets take the Dye situation. He is scheduled to make $11M...so 90% of that is $9.9M plus 10% tax on $11M is $1.1M and that gives me $11M cap hit and without the rights to the player in the event he comes back....I have got to be missing something...
The buyout only aids in a multi-year cut.
-
The only suggestion I can make, in response to your comment Ben (re: Wagner etc) is if a player is signed after a certain age during OFA bidding - TS, he is yours for the life of the contract. Or we can have an out clause if the players career is ended by injury or unforeseen circumstances, outside of old age. In this case Kenji Johjima would be a good example. Also in fairness, any inherited contracts should not be subject to any retirement speculation, since we didn't sign them, we just got stuck with them. If the guy officially retires, and it is a contract originated from July 09, then you should be allowed some leeway. IMO
-
The only suggestion I can make, in response to your comment Ben (re: Wagner etc) is if a player is signed after a certain age during OFA bidding - TS, he is yours for the life of the contract. Or we can have an out clause if the players career is ended by injury or unforeseen circumstances, outside of old age. In this case Kenji Johjima would be a good example. Also in fairness, any inherited contracts should not be subject to any retirement speculation, since we didn't sign them, we just got stuck with them. If the guy officially retires, and it is a contract originated from July 09, then you should be allowed some leeway. IMO
I'm not sure - I understand the intent of 'since we didn't sign them', but we also didn't sign Vernon Wells to $18.0 (2014)... no offense to Well's current owner but I don't think we should offer an exceptions to shed his contract. What if you inherit the contract from an inept FGM owner who dolled out an albatross contract to an overrated player? IMO, we should treat all contracts equally (is a bad MLB GM really worse than a bad FGM GM?).
If we can come up with a rule that is fair and abuse proof, I'd support it. If we can't accomplish both, I don't think it's so bad if owners are responsible for the risk of their team's contracts (regardless of who wrote them).
-
In response to the injury comments, teams have insurance. Personally I think if the guy is no longer a member of the MLB, either by choice or by injury, then we shouldn't have to have money taken out of our budget. Real GMs, terrible or not, have million dollar insurance policies. The Mets paid 25% of Mo Vaughn's contract when he missed an entire year, insurance picked up the rest. I'm just saying, as much as we would like this league to be exactly like our MLB counterpart. It won't. Sometimes you have to simplify things and make them black and white. For instance players that no longer are on an MLB roster. Maybe that should be part of the TCs job, the RCs job, or the Commish's job. So as to avoid any abuse. Or maybe even having an age threshold for OFAs, so if someone signs someone over the age of 35 to a multi year deal, then they knew the inherent risk going in. I also think that the Mariners shouldn't be responsible for Johjima, because well their MLB counterpart is not. The guy left. He's in Japan. The Mariners (real life) don't pay him anymore. He opted out of his contract. It's that simple.
And you would only be able to abuse the retirement clause so much, because if you keep signing old farts your team is going to suck. I think we can all agree in a post PED MLB world, these guys decline at around 32, 33 or so. Just saying.
-
FYI, the inept GM that gave the money out to Vernon Wells was not in Franchise GM, but in MLB. Ricciardi, the assistant to Billy Beane in Oakland, either thought it was a great idea or ownership pressed it on him to do.
-
Among other sweet deals for mediocre players (Alex Rios, BJ Ryan, AJ Burnett)...plus bad drafts that, until recently, never turned out a star or even usable players.
-
FYI, the inept GM that gave the money out to Vernon Wells was not in Franchise GM, but in MLB. Ricciardi, the assistant to Billy Beane in Oakland, either thought it was a great idea or ownership pressed it on him to do.
That was my point - we won't offer any exceptions to Wells' owner to shed the bad contract just because it was given by an MLB owner.
I'm not really sold one way or the other, my only request is that we move past the pre/post initial contract mind-frame and treat them all equally. We've all inherited contracts from someone, there shouldn't be exceptions made because my bad contracts came from an MLB owner and not yours that came from another FGM owner.