ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM => Topic started by: ldsjayhawk on February 11, 2026, 11:21:29 AM
-
The rules committee has been discussing via PM the following proposal. I post it here for transparency and official documentation.
Proposed Rule Change: Remove the provisions to resume the original contract and add signing bonus from the following rule:
"You may not bid on a player that you have released for a period of 30 days. After that period, if you resign a player, their original contract is restored, however, if the total value of the bid is larger than the previous contract, the difference will be converted to a signing bonus (to take effect after the 2022 season)"
The new rule will read as follows:
You may not bid on a player that you have released for a period of 30 days. After that period, if you resign a player, the contract will determined as all other contracts in free agency. Cap hits and buyouts will remain as previously established at the time of the original release.
This rule will be effective internally and have a pilot period of one year during which, any rule committee member can request to reconsider this change.
Removed text:
After that period, if you resign a player, their original contract is restored, however, if the total value of the bid is larger than the previous contract, the difference will be converted to a signing bonus (to take effect after the 2022 season)"
Reasoning:
- It was determined that the signing bonus penalizes the team twice.
- The rule is not in keeping with the state purpose of the league to mimic as closely as possible MLB rules.
Please post your decisions and comments in the thread below.
-
As far as I can tell this is an original rule instituted to keep people from being able to release players and resign them at a lower price. It calls for the original contract to be reinstated if the player is resigned to prevent that from happening.
You cannot consider cap hits and/or buyout taxes as compensation to the player. They are penalties for terminating a contract early. Had the original contract not been terminated the Rockies would be paying Castro $10m this year. Instead they will be paying him $7m. The $3m signing bonus would compensate for that and pay him $7m for the remainder of the contract.
With that said, in the future I think we need to look at short and long term deals. Implement this for deals spanning 2 years and not even allow resignings in season.
-
I am fine with the proposed rule change. I believe that you forgot the word "be" from the following sentence:
"After that period, if you resign a player, the contract will be determined as all other contracts in free agency."
-
From RyanJames5
Re: (No subject)
? Sent to: BHows, rcankosy, ldsjayhawk, game162, DaveW on: February 09, 2026, 10:49:49 AM ?Reply to
As written it seems to me that there isn?t much wiggle room. The contract would need to be reinstated with the difference applied as a signing bonus.
For me, if the rule would be kept, the rule should be applied in season. If I release someone in April and then turn around and resign them in July, we just reinstate the original contract with anything on top of that being given as a signing bonus.
I would reset this rule as our yearly calendar flips to the next season. As you stated, it?s not out of the question that a team would release a player, (most likely DFA or non-tender) and then end up signing them again during free agency later that off-season, to a cheaper contract.
I?d be fine to drop the rule. It?s a rule that really doesn?t serve a purpose and creates work for mods. If the market dictates that a player is worth less than the contract they were released from and the owner paid the cap hit to release him, why penalize the owner further when that?s not how MLB works. Our cap hit penalty simulates fully guaranteed contracts and all we?re doing then is double penalizing an owner.
-
From DaveW
Re: (No subject)
? Sent to: BHows, rcankosy, ldsjayhawk, game162, RyanJames5 on: February 09, 2026, 11:21:30 AM ?Reply to
Quote from: BHows on February 09, 2026, 11:08:31 AM
I say let the winning bid stand- $7m (2029). Castro would have been paid $10m for the 2026 so charge a $3m signing Bonus to make up the difference. He is to then be paid $7m ea. for 2027-29.
Previous Cap hits and buyouts taxes are irrelevant. That's last year's budget. We don't carry over year end balances, Our Cap starts new every year.
I agree with Rick
-
From game162
Re: (No subject)
? Sent to: BHows, rcankosy, ldsjayhawk, RyanJames5, DaveW on: February 09, 2026, 01:10:21 PM ?
? You have forwarded or responded to this message.
I'm not having much luck figuring out the scenario(s) this rule intended to curb. Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems to be a redundant penalty, and I would be okay with eliminating it completely or modifying it to just the 30 day restriction on bidding (first sentence of rule). The forced signing bonus is unnecessary.
-
I agree with the rule as written above.
The rule adjustment is approved by the Rules Committee 6-0. The adjusted rule is in effect immediately as of 2/9/26. The rule will remain in pilot status through the end of 2027 free agency.