ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: rcankosy on June 01, 2010, 10:49:55 PM
-
Guys,
I would like to formalize the ruling on extending prospects whose bonuses were spread out over future years as part of a standard contract. We have discussed this topic before, but it has never been fully resolved. As an example, I would like to use my own Max Stassi. His contract is $0.5 million (2011). In all likelihood, he will not have even played a game in the majors, let alone exhausted rookie eligibility, by the end of the 2011 season considering he is currently in A Ball. My understanding at the time we started free agency was that we would NOT forgo future prospect status if we chose to sign a prospect to a standard contract. I was told that Stassi would return to a prospect contract once his signing bonus was paid out if he was still prospect eligible (less than 50 games played or 40 IP). I don't see how such contracts could otherwise work, because there would be NO other logical means of extending them if they have little to no MLB stats by the end of their current deals. Extending them as prospects makes perfect sense to me, because they are years away from being eligible for arbitration. I have several of these contracts, and I know I'm not the only one. I propose that we allow players like Stassi to be extended with prospect contracts when their contract contracts are over.
Roy
-
Seems fair enough to me... it would fall as a special caveat of extensions where the player is given a prospect contract in the extension. I believe this should only apply to players whose prospect clock has not started (under 40 GP / 50 IP).
-
Seems fair enough to me... it would fall as a special caveat of extensions where the player is given a prospect contract in the extension. I believe this should only apply to players whose prospect clock has not started (under 40 GP / 50 IP).
Hmm...I'm not sure on this...when the GM signs a prospect, he has the option to sign him to a prospect contract right then and there. The only reason the GM would sign said prospect to a non-prospect contract would be that he doesn't have enough money to give him a bonus to the signing. In my opinion, that is the GM's decision and risk, and his alone, since he controls all financial aspects of his team, and if he wants to forego a prospect contract, that is his risk.
This seems like a backdoor way to get a prospect back onto a prospect contract, since the GM didn't have the money before.
So, in theory, a team can land all the prospects he wants, sign them to 2-3 year contracts, then actually GAIN cap back when these contracts are up, simply because they haven't played in the MLB yet. It just doesn't seem normal that a young player would take a large salary at the start of his career, then be ok with playing for 500k until he starts to play in the majors.
The idea has its positives for all teams, and it would benefit my team surely, but I'm not sure if it's inside the rationale of the league.
-
Jake,
A few points I would like to add:
1. This is not the first time this has come up. We were ALL told that we could spread out the bonuses without losing their prospect status at the end of the standard contract prior to FA. I asked the question on the main page, becasue I knew it would come up later, and the response was that such players revert back to prospect status if they have not exhausted their eligibility. I'm formalizing the rule now, because apparently this caveat as Colby put it was not noticed by all of the owners. I'm sure some owners were aware of this and chose to take the one year hit as part of their overall strategy for the future.
2. The NFL has a hard salary cap, and it allows its teams to spread out rookie bonuses over the life of their contracts.
3. For those of who do not agree with the above, what do YOU propose as an alternative? These players will have little to no stats on which to base extensions. You can't just force owners to throw them back into the FA pool without the option to re-sign them. Players like Andrew Brackman signed major league deals, and it is no longer unusual for drafted players to sign such deals. Since the 1990s, there have been multitudes of million dollar bonus babies who have not become stars in the majors. A lot of them play for minimum salaries for a few years until they are out of the league entirely.
4. The rookie draft is coming up, and in my humble opinion it is not fair to force a team that already has finished last in the league to bear the hit of a $7 million bonus. The league is already stacked against its small market teams, and this caveat would provide them a fighting chance against big market teams with $100-150 million plus payrolls. I disagree that this caveat is not in the spirit of the league. I would argue that it is quite the opposite.
Roy
-
Jake,
A few points I would like to add:
1. This is not the first time this has come up. We were ALL told that we could spread out the bonuses without losing their prospect status at the end of the standard contract prior to FA. I asked the question on the main page, becasue I knew it would come up later, and the response was that such players revert back to prospect status if they have not exhausted their eligibility. I'm formalizing the rule now, because apparently this caveat as Colby put it was not noticed by all of the owners. I'm sure some owners were aware of this and chose to take the one year hit as part of their overall strategy for the future.
2. The NFL has a hard salary cap, and it allows its teams to spread out rookie bonuses over the life of their contracts.
3. For those of who do not agree with the above, what do YOU propose as an alternative? These players will have little to no stats on which to base extensions. You can't just force owners to throw them back into the FA pool without the option to re-sign them. Players like Andrew Brackman signed major league deals, and it is no longer unusual for drafted players to sign such deals. Since the 1990s, there have been multitudes of million dollar bonus babies who have not become stars in the majors. A lot of them play for minimum salaries for a few years until they are out of the league entirely.
4. The rookie draft is coming up, and in my humble opinion it is not fair to force a team that already has finished last in the league to bear the hit of a $7 million bonus. The league is already stacked against its small market teams, and this caveat would provide them a fighting chance against big market teams with $100-150 million plus payrolls. I disagree that this caveat is not in the spirit of the league. I would argue that it is quite the opposite.
Roy
1. I must have oversighted this discussion, or I cannot recollect it. I'll look through the forum to read about it again.
2. With respect, this is not the NFL.
3. I would recommend they be given the minimum contract, or up to two years @ $500k. However, your proposal and my theory are really no different money wise, it is a matter of player status. One one hand, your player is listed as a prospect contract, and mine is listed as a MLB contract.
4. I think we've thought two different things this whole season, at least between you and me. I've reserved just over $10 million in cap space for the sole reason being that I'd be paying bonuses this year in order keep the players I draft as prospect players...
...I guess my main concern is allowing these players we give MLB contracts to right from the get go receive prospect contracts when their MLB contract is up. It seems backwards to me as to how the process should work. Roy, your proposal makes perfect sense, I might be a bit too linear in my thinking. But I see a player getting a prospect contract, then landing the major league deal, never the opposite. I have a feeling that we've been planning for the same event in two opposite ways...
-
I have to side with Jake on this one. I am relatively new here so I am unaware of any prior discussions on this matter. However since you asked what I would propose,
If you sign a prospect to a non-prospect contract and it expires before the "prospect clock" begins, then you should be allowed to resign them to a contract with a 50% increase.
i.e. Yonder Alonso 1mil (2010)* Its now the offseason and my boy Yonder is a potential FA. Inorder to resign him, I would need to sign him to an extension of 1.5mil per year (50% increase) for a max of 5yrs.
*-not actual contract year
Now I'm not on the RC, but I think this would fit into the rules and like Jake said keep them on "non-prospect" contracts.
~MTK
-
I have to agree with Roy on #4, and I have argued it from the get go. Say the Marlins with a crap payroll, or the Padres had the first overall pick this year (in actuality the Mets do). Bryce Harper obviously #1. The Marlins would have to give up a huge percentage of their payroll in order to pay his bonus. This is counter productive to being competitive. Do you honestly think a GM will hang around year after year waiting on his prospects to finally mature and have a competitive team when the Phillies, Yanks etc will be loaded year after year, because they can afford to go out and sign FAs. Granted this is a discrepancy that exists in the majors, whether by choice (real life Marlins) or by circumstance (real life Padres). IMHO I want a league that gives every team a chance to win year in and year out, through smart moves, good prospecting, not simple luck of having 3 guys have career years at once - (Marlins last year). If a team is terrible, just let them have the pick, take who they want, and have him at a prospect contract. This would be all well and good if this was in fact moneyball, and we can go out and sign Scott Hatteberg and have him accumulate stats for us on the cheap, but we as GMs in this league can only react to what the real MLB presents to us. Case in point, you think a small market team could afford a 10 mil bonus to aaron Hicks(Mets in 2010), or a 10 mil bonus to Justin Smoak(Angels in 2009), or 12 mil to Alex Avila (Cubs in 2010) - I notice a pattern there. Also some GMs were already at a disadvantage because some teams were allowed to cherry pick top prospect in the cheap, prior to this league becoming fully operational with active GMs. I honestly don't understand the love affair with bonuses. Those picks were earned either through having a bad team or trading away talent, I think that is cost enough already.
As far as Roy's original argument, Colby told him that it wouldn't be a problem, and as the rules are set up, it shouldn't. If the player hasn't accumulated his benchmark of statistics, then he can still be signed as a prospect regardless if a team resigns him, or if a team signs a once owned player out of the FA pool.
-
Dan, I agree that the bonuses were a tad excessive during free agent signings, but that will not be an issue any more, as all top prospects have been taken and, more than likely, will be kept and not released. And we cannot help that some teams took advantage of the prospects available during the first months of the league. It is something we cannot change prior, but won't be occurring again.
We are attempting to stick with MLB rules in all aspects of the league, and draft signing bonuses are as much a part of it as any other facet. Yeah, it would be nice to just draft a guy for 500k with nothing extra added on, but that isn't the way it works in the real pros.
Maybe a go between could be reached. Possibly with the way extensions work, bonuses could be paid like salaries, or out over years based on draft selection/amount. An example would be with Bryce Harper. His $7m bonus could be applied out over 2 years (so $3.5m) instead of one lump sum. If he is traded, the remaining bonus goes with him. However, we would probably have to rework the bonuses, since we have figures like x.5 that cannot be divisible in 500k amounts.
This way, the players keep their prospect status, and the lump sum bonus can be broken down into an affordable way for small market or bad teams to draft the talent they need on their team.
-
I am going to have to agree with Jake on this one - it is not within the intent of the rule for prospects to be signed to MLB contracts (spreading out the bonus) only to be re-signed on prospect contracts.
1. This is not the first time this has come up. We were ALL told that we could spread out the bonuses without losing their prospect status at the end of the standard contract prior to FA. I asked the question on the main page, becasue I knew it would come up later, and the response was that such players revert back to prospect status if they have not exhausted their eligibility. I'm formalizing the rule now, because apparently this caveat as Colby put it was not noticed by all of the owners. I'm sure some owners were aware of this and chose to take the one year hit as part of their overall strategy for the future.
If we were all told this, it would be in the rules - however, as you mentioned this was discussed but never resolved. I'm sure there are also owners who did not sign prospects to MLB contracts because they were unsure of what the rules were when they went to re-sign them (myself included). One person may have said yes, and another said no, that does not mean yes - that is what the RC is for (and this topic).
I think we need to lay out all of the pro's and con's and get some good discussion on this one.
If we need to make exceptions to the rule, then we'll handle that later, but lets not make a bad decision just because it's easy. We need to make a decision that is in the best interests of the league moving forward, not looking backwards.
-
I am going to have to agree with Jake on this one - it is not within the intent of the rule for prospects to be signed to MLB contracts (spreading out the bonus) only to be re-signed on prospect contracts.
If we were all told this, it would be in the rules - however, as you mentioned this was discussed but never resolved. I'm sure there are also owners who did not sign prospects to MLB contracts because they were unsure of what the rules were when they went to re-sign them (myself included). One person may have said yes, and another said no, that does not mean yes - that is what the RC is for (and this topic).
I think we need to lay out all of the pro's and con's and get some good discussion on this one.
If we need to make exceptions to the rule, then we'll handle that later, but lets not make a bad decision just because it's easy. We need to make a decision that is in the best interests of the league moving forward, not looking backwards.
I did bring up the idea of spreading out the bonus on a prospect contract, without necessarily making it a MLB contract. We would have to rework the bonus values to coincide with years, but I think I might have a solution for that also. By making all prospect bonuses payable over 2 years and only two years (only 1 year for 500k bonuses), we would actually halve the bonus amounts owed to a player.
In my example of Bryce Harper, his $7m due can be either $7m for one year, or the GM can pay it out over 2 years at $3.5m. He has two options, and the second option can be more economic for small market teams. After the second year, it's back to the minimum prospect salary, and he remains a prospect. As I stated earlier, the bonuses would have to be reworked to include numbers evenly divisible by 2 (years).
Another example could be the #2 rated rookie, which has a $6m bonus. The team who drafts him has two options to sign him:
1.) 1 year bonus of $6.0m
2.) 2 year bonus of $3.0m each year
These 2 year bonuses can be kept the same way that releasing a player with years remaining works. Gary Matthews, for example, is owed $5m this year, $2.5 in 2011, etc. This setup can be tracked in the same way on the spreadsheet, I'm pretty sure.
This option allows the prospect to keep his prospect status and not have to switch between a MLB contract and Prospect contract, will keep the bonuses intact and not elminiate them, and will help the small market teams and their stricter salary caps.
Just an idea to try and allow everyone to have their cake, in a sense.
-
I did not include in my last post what to do with prospects who have no MLB experience that ALREADY have MLB contracts.
I would recommend that after their MLB contract expires, they are extended the minimum MLB contract (up to two years at $500k). These players have no MLB experience, so they would fall under the minimum contract. This is the exact same as a prospect contract, essentially, and as long as they are on your team, you have first chance to extend them, no one else.
-
this is being written from a phone so please excuse any writing mistakes. Jake i think you r definitely onto something. Maybe we have a guideline for draft contracts that is similar to resigning prospects. This way incorporating the bonus into the contract and being able to sign the player for more than 5 years. Such as harper say a 6 year 10 mil contract. That way it doesnt kill your payroll and you still get a low cost mlb player. Kind of like what u can do in franchise mode in the show
-
Guys,
I've always believed in the KISS rule. No, that has nothing to do with mono or the band with Gene Simmons, but rather Keep It Simple Stupid. As some of you might recall, I was the one who proposed that FA bids be awarded on the basis of total dollars and letting the years be decided later. Now, I find the same scenario with the concept of signing and extending prospects. It might be just me, but it seems as if as Dan said it earlier, we ALREADY have sufficient rules in place to cover all of the points raised to date.
1. We've already got a salary table covering the max/min amounts for annual salary and length of contract.
2. We've already got a rule in terms of being able to extend prospects as defined as players with less than 50 games and 40 IP for up to 3 years after they have passed those thresholds.
I heard some good ideas, but they all seemed to complicate things without really improving anything. Call me a simple man, but I don't see the compelling need to create another standard for players drafted or prospect contracts in general. I stand by my original proposal that we simply allow owners to spread bonuses within the already defined salary table that has accounted for dollars and years combined with rule # 2 above for extending prospects. With all due respect to Jake and others, I do not see the downside to this proposal. The bonus dollars are still guaranteed, so there is no getting around them even if you cut the player. I can not imagine why anyone other than perhaps the Yankees would have any issues with this rule, but maybe it's me.
-
1. We've already got a salary table covering the max/min amounts for annual salary and length of contract.
2. We've already got a rule in terms of being able to extend prospects as defined as players with less than 50 games and 40 IP for up to 3 years after they have passed those thresholds.
Item 2 has a minimum of $4.0M/year, so this is far more than extending a player on a prospect contract - is that what you had in mind?
-
No. I was referring to the rule that allows us to extend prospects for up to 3 years AFTER they have passed the theshholds I mentioned. You are referring to extending a player BEYOND the 3 years after that point.
Roy
-
Guys,
I've always believed in the KISS rule. No, that has nothing to do with mono or the band with Gene Simmons, but rather Keep It Simple Stupid. As some of you might recall, I was the one who proposed that FA bids be awarded on the basis of total dollars and letting the years be decided later. Now, I find the same scenario with the concept of signing and extending prospects. It might be just me, but it seems as if as Dan said it earlier, we ALREADY have sufficient rules in place to cover all of the points raised to date.
1. We've already got a salary table covering the max/min amounts for annual salary and length of contract.
2. We've already got a rule in terms of being able to extend prospects as defined as players with less than 50 games and 40 IP for up to 3 years after they have passed those thresholds.
I heard some good ideas, but they all seemed to complicate things without really improving anything. Call me a simple man, but I don't see the compelling need to create another standard for players drafted or prospect contracts in general. I stand by my original proposal that we simply allow owners to spread bonuses within the already defined salary table that has accounted for dollars and years combined with rule # 2 above for extending prospects. With all due respect to Jake and others, I do not see the downside to this proposal. The bonus dollars are still guaranteed, so there is no getting around them even if you cut the player. I can not imagine why anyone other than perhaps the Yankees would have any issues with this rule, but maybe it's me.
Give me an example of what you are proposing, Roy, so we have something to go off of on this current discussion.
-
Jake,
It's the same proposal as before. You get to spread bonuses for either FA prospects or draft picks based on the current salary table. Let's say you want to spread the bonuses over the max years for Bryce Harper. According to our salary chart, you could go 3 years at $2.5 million per year for a total contract value of $7.5 million. Adding the extra year costs you $0.5 million in total dollars, but it saves you $1 million per year ($2.5 versus $3.5 million). His contract would read $2.5m (2012). The caveat is that you get to extend him at $0.5 million per year starting 2013 after his bonus has been paid off. He also is eligible to be signed at $0.5 million per year for 3 seasons after he has played 50 games according to the prospect rules already in place.
The same numbers would apply to a FA prospect. No new rules. Just a simple caveat to rules already in place. Simple, right?
Roy
-
No. I was referring to the rule that allows us to extend prospects for up to 3 years AFTER they have passed the theshholds I mentioned. You are referring to extending a player BEYOND the 3 years after that point.
Roy
Is this a rule? I'm looking at the Contracts page and do not see it...
-
Prospect Contracts
A player can be signed to a prospect contract as long as they have pitched less than 40 IP or played in less than 50 games in their career. The contract is at the league minimum, but it can be more as in the case of some inherited contracts. The player may be cut at any time, and the hit to the cap will be zero as long as their salary was at the league minimum (bonuses are fully guaranteed). Note that a player also becomes ineligible for a prospect contract when that player is released from a prospect contract that had its three year clock already start.
The contract lasts for three years after the point they accumulate 40 IP (pitcher) or play in 50 games (position player). They may accumulate this over multiple years, but the three year rule does not take effect until the year they actually hit the accumulation threshold.
-
Prospect Contracts
A player can be signed to a prospect contract as long as they have pitched less than 40 IP or played in less than 50 games in their career. The contract is at the league minimum, but it can be more as in the case of some inherited contracts. The player may be cut at any time, and the hit to the cap will be zero as long as their salary was at the league minimum (bonuses are fully guaranteed). Note that a player also becomes ineligible for a prospect contract when that player is released from a prospect contract that had its three year clock already start.
The contract lasts for three years after the point they accumulate 40 IP (pitcher) or play in 50 games (position player). They may accumulate this over multiple years, but the three year rule does not take effect until the year they actually hit the accumulation threshold.
That isn't an extension, just the definition of a prospect contract. Here is my view on this. A player could be extended on a prospect contract if their base salary was $1m/year before hand. This is due to the 50% rule for off-season extensions.
Regarding the draft, and huge signing bonuses, the original proposal called for paying out bonuses or a larger amount in a contract. We decided to KISS, as Roy mentioned, and go with bonuses at lower prices. The bonuses are not astronomical...
1 - 7.0M
2 - 6.0M
3 - 5.0M
4 - 4.0M
5 and 6 - 3.5M
7 and 8 - 3.0M
9 thru 12 - 2.5M
13 thru 17 - 2.0M
18 thru 31 - 1.5M
32 thru 46 - 1.0M
47 thru 64 - 0.5M
all picks from 65 on require no signing bonus
In real life MLB, picks are not traded, so the liability of having four 1st round picks, several 2nd rounders, and the supplemental round picks is not a reality. Trading for higher picks means the possibility of spending more money ONLY if you draft the touted prospect.
Remember, these bonuses are not based on your draft position, but the player you selected. We mentioned that a source would be used for the ranking of draftees in order to determine the slotted bonus assigned to them. We should figure out such source now, but Baseball Prospectus or the actual draft results should suffice.
Back to the point this entire thread started. I like the current rules that we have in place. If a prospect-type player has a standard contract, and the contract expires, then they can be extended to a new contract according to the rules. If a prospect contract could apply, then it will, so long as their base pay in the previous year was no more than $1m.
-
One other point is that if such a player was let go to FA because of the huge asking price for such a prospect, and the releasing team won the bid, then they can choose to give the money over $500k as a bonus, or spread it out as a contract again. Once again, nothing new in the rules here, just situations that have not come up yet.
-
Colby,
I assume that by base pay you mean salary w/o pro-rated bonuses. How could the base pay on a prospect be anything other than $0.5 million? I ask because I have Tommy Joseph with a contract of $1.5m (2012). What is his base pay?
Roy
-
One other thing before we leave this seemingly endless debate.
Can we pro-rate bonuses for draft picks and retain the future right to re-sign them on a prospect contract?
-
Colby,
I assume that by base pay you mean salary w/o pro-rated bonuses. How could the base pay on a prospect be anything other than $0.5 million? I ask because I have Tommy Joseph with a contract of $1.5m (2012). What is his base pay?
Roy
His base pay is $1.5m... if his prospect clock does not start by the end of the 2012 season, then the only options you will have is extend him at $1m/year or release.
-
The more I think about this, the more I agree with Roy's KISS statements, although I don't think they were actually what he had in mind.
In the pros, a player is only signed to a major league contract in cases where the team is giving them a big chunk of money and probably expects them to be in the show rather quickly. Once that contract expires, they don't get to automatically re-sign them at the minimum, but rather they go through the same arbitration process as everyone else.
I think if you have a prospect that is on an MLB contract and it has expired, you treat it like any other contract that expires BUT you allow the owner to use the special prospect extension rule, already in place - but no one can be re-signed to a prospect contract unless they are a FA under the playing time limit.
-
The more I think about this, the more I agree with Roy's KISS statements, although I don't think they were actually what he had in mind.
In the pros, a player is only signed to a major league contract in cases where the team is giving them a big chunk of money and probably expects them to be in the show rather quickly. Once that contract expires, they don't get to automatically re-sign them at the minimum, but rather they go through the same arbitration process as everyone else.
I think if you have a prospect that is on an MLB contract and it has expired, you treat it like any other contract that expires BUT you allow the owner to use the special prospect extension rule, already in place - but no one can be re-signed to a prospect contract unless they are a FA under the playing time limit.
I concur.
-
The more I think about this, the more I agree with Roy's KISS statements, although I don't think they were actually what he had in mind.
In the pros, a player is only signed to a major league contract in cases where the team is giving them a big chunk of money and probably expects them to be in the show rather quickly. Once that contract expires, they don't get to automatically re-sign them at the minimum, but rather they go through the same arbitration process as everyone else.
I think if you have a prospect that is on an MLB contract and it has expired, you treat it like any other contract that expires BUT you allow the owner to use the special prospect extension rule, already in place - but no one can be re-signed to a prospect contract unless they are a FA under the playing time limit.
I agree... and the thing is, we all have contracts on our rosters like this.
:TEX:
C Joseph, Tommy, $1.5m (2012)
CI Wheeler, Ryan, $2m (2011)
CI Liddi, Alex, $1.5m (2011)
:MIL:
SP Matusz, Brian, $1m (2011)
:PIT:
SP Turner, Jacob, $2m (2012)
CI Waring, Brandon, $0.5m (2011)
:WAS:
SP Britton, Zach, $2m (2012)
:CIN:
P Ni, Fu-Te, $0.5m (2011)
P Perdomo, Luis, $0.5m (2011)
C Thole, Josh, $1.5m (2012)
MI Salcedo, Edward, $0.5m (2011)
There are certainly others, but most of our prospects have received bonuses as the liability will clear sooner. Roy can sign Joseph to a $1m 1-year extension in 2013, and Liddi and Wheeler to a 1-year $1m deal in 2012. I could sign Turner to $1m for a year in 2013 and Waring to $500k for 2 years in 2012.
I think you get the point... the risk of spreading the bonuses out is the increase of future salary.
-
Colby,
Can I continue to sign them to 1 year deals until 3 years after they have exceeded 50 games played?
Roy
-
Colby,
Can I continue to sign them to 1 year deals until 3 years after they have exceeded 50 games played?
Roy
Roy, you can extend any player to a new 1-year deal as long as you follow standard market value procedures. The thing with prospects that aren't on prospect contracts, their value will most likely be low, and then you could sign them on the cheap.
-
The problem with all of this is that I gave Roy my word on this via PM several months ago. I told him, based on my understanding, that the player can resolve to a prospect contract if eligible after the current contract.
This leaves me to two decisions.
1) Continue with that ruling
2) Go with our discussion here, and grandfather all such previous players whose prospect clock has not started
-
The problem with all of this is that I gave Roy my word on this via PM several months ago. I told him, based on my understanding, that the player can resolve to a prospect contract if eligible after the current contract.
This leaves me to two decisions.
1) Continue with that ruling
2) Go with our discussion here, and grandfather all such previous players whose prospect clock has not started
I would recommend we follow with the rules of this current discussion, as they have been the most transparent. There is no issue with discussing rules through private messages between members, but the unfortunate side of that is what we have here: specific rules being interpreted without being officially ruled on by the league.
-
I would recommend we follow with the rules of this current discussion, as they have been the most transparent. There is no issue with discussing rules through private messages between members, but the unfortunate side of that is what we have here: specific rules being interpreted without being officially ruled on by the league.
Of course the problem is that I told Roy one thing real quickly without it being discussed with the RC. I didn't realize that it could have been perceived as a possible hole in the rules.
-
Colby,
Don't beat yourself up over this. You didn't do anything wrong. Will all due respect to the RC, Colby made a decision in response to my question a few days before FA started, and he posted it on the main board. Everything was quite "transparent" as Jake would say, and NO ONE from the RC posted a protest. NO ONE at the time even suggested that such a "ruling" be brought before the RC. Complaints about this only came up weeks after the fact when it was referred to in other posts. By then, the genie was out of the bottle, because several owners did the same thing as me. I'm pretty sure that most people who read Colby's original decision on the matter just accepted the it in the same manner as when Colby told us that we could not retract the high bid prior to it being the "winning" bid as defined in the league rules for bidding on free agents.
Roy
-
Colby,
Don't beat yourself up over this. You didn't do anything wrong. Will all due respect to the RC, Colby made a decision in response to my question a few days before FA started, and he posted it on the main board. Everything was quite "transparent" as Jake would say, and NO ONE from the RC posted a protest. NO ONE at the time even suggested that such a "ruling" be brought before the RC. Complaints about this only came up weeks after the fact when it was referred to in other posts. By then, the genie was out of the bottle, because several owners did the same thing as me. I'm pretty sure that most people who read Colby's original decision on the matter just accepted the it in the same manner as when Colby told us that we could not retract the high bid prior to it being the "winning" bid as defined in the league rules for bidding on free agents.
Roy
I just read the topic discussion on the general board, and both Ben and Dan requested this be brought forward in the Rules Discussion. It hadn't up until this point. Also, not everyone agreed with the terms, both Dan and Ben made points against the case. If a proposal is brought before the Rules Committee in the RC Forum, then it is voted on. If it is merely brought up in the General Discussion, it isn't voted on, and is not official, no matter how many people agree to it. I'm not making up those rules, they have been implemented from day 1.
This league isn't about merely accepting matters at hand, and Ben even makes a point in that discussion stating that issues must be officially ratified and not just discussed and generally ok'ed without an official ruling. This case hasn't.
Roy, if you want to ridicule my wording with transparency, any discussion that is talked about publicly will always be more clearly stated to the league than private talk between two members. I'm not sure what the mystery is behind my wording.
-
I just read the topic discussion on the general board, and both Ben and Dan requested this be brought forward in the Rules Discussion. It hadn't up until this point. Also, not everyone agreed with the terms, both Dan and Ben made points against the case. If a proposal is brought before the Rules Committee in the RC Forum, then it is voted on. If it is merely brought up in the General Discussion, it isn't voted on, and is not official, no matter how many people agree to it. I'm not making up those rules, they have been implemented from day 1.
This league isn't about merely accepting matters at hand, and Ben even makes a point in that discussion stating that issues must be officially ratified and not just discussed and generally ok'ed without an official ruling. This case hasn't.
Roy, if you want to ridicule my wording with transparency, any discussion that is talked about publicly will always be more clearly stated to the league than private talk between two members. I'm not sure what the mystery is behind my wording.
:toth:
-
His base pay is $1.5m... if his prospect clock does not start by the end of the 2012 season, then the only options you will have is extend him at $1m/year or release.
Which rule/clause are you going by to get the $1.0M figure? Just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
-
I believe Colby is referring to once a contract expires you can sign a player to half his previous salary if that is what is vale is. I think Colby used Andrew Miller as an example on the contracts board.
-
I believe Colby is referring to once a contract expires you can sign a player to half his previous salary if that is what is vale is. I think Colby used Andrew Miller as an example on the contracts board.
Got it - but that is not a prospect contract (it's guaranteed), correct?
-
To my understanding, that would be a guaranteed contract
-
IMO, I think it is best served for us to find a halfway point in these discussions and vote on my following proposal.
If at the end (after last season is over) of a contract a player is eligible for a prospect contract then their contract may be converted into a prospect contract with a signing bonus equal to 50% (Previous Annual Salary - $500k) rounded to the nearest $500k.
-
IMO, I think it is best served for us to find a halfway point in these discussions and vote on my following proposal.
If at the end (after last season is over) of a contract a player is eligible for a prospect contract then their contract may be converted into a prospect contract with a signing bonus equal to 50% (Previous Annual Salary - $500k) rounded to the nearest $500k.
I would vote against.
The reason for signing a prospect eligible player to a regular contract is to avoid paying a signing bonus upfront - there should be a cost associated to that, in that you cannot have the player on the automatically renewing prospect contract. You might argue that the cost is a guaranteed contract, the bonus is also guaranteed.
The only reason we have not come to this conclusion yet is because there was some confusion about the rule before the season. If we need to come up with something fair to correct that then I'm willing to discuss grandfather type solutions, but we should not propagate a mistake into our rules.
-
As far as the grandfathering goes, we could potentially offer a 1-time chance to re-structure the prospect's contract such that all remaining salary - 500k is paid as a bonus in 2010, and they are switched to a prospect contract.
-
As far as the grandfathering goes, we could potentially offer a 1-time chance to re-structure the prospect's contract such that all remaining salary - 500k is paid as a bonus in 2010, and they are switched to a prospect contract.
I agree.
-
Brewers and Jake,
What teams have the money in their 2010 caps to do what you're suggesting as a compromise at this stage of the season, especially with the draft and its associated signing bonuses coming up? Grandfathering means allowing what was understood at the time by some to remain in place. Your compromise would not be possible by many owners including myself without massive trading because of the guaranteed money given to other free agents.
-
Brewers and Jake,
What teams have the money in their 2010 caps to do what you're suggesting as a compromise at this stage of the season, especially with the draft and its associated signing bonuses coming up? Grandfathering means allowing what was understood at the time by some to remain in place. Your compromise would not be possible by many owners including myself without massive trading because of the guaranteed money given to other free agents.
And what about the owners that did not get information via PM and bid on prospects given the current understanding, which does not include an exception to re-sign a player onto a prospect contract, and ultimately lost out on bids to teams who spread the bonus out? Should we throw those prospects back into FA and let them adjust their bids accordingly?
There was never a rule that said such re-signs would be allowed, any grandfather clause is an olive branch.
-
Brewers and Jake,
What teams have the money in their 2010 caps to do what you're suggesting as a compromise at this stage of the season, especially with the draft and its associated signing bonuses coming up? Grandfathering means allowing what was understood at the time by some to remain in place. Your compromise would not be possible by many owners including myself without massive trading because of the guaranteed money given to other free agents.
I'd like to hear from other teams who thought this way also. If 20% of this league thought of it this way, then I might reconsider...5%, probably not.
-
By my own estimate, there are probably at least 7-10 teams that have signed prospects to standard contracts. Some of them don't have the priviledge (or sometimes cruel punishment :rofl:) of being on the RC and letting their voices be heard.
-
Everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussion, but they just cannot vote.
-
Anything? I feel that this is a fairly dead issue. There aren't too many regular contracts given to prospects out there. Any such contract that is handed out at $500k-$1m/year can be extended at $500k for 2 years if the player didn't rank with a market value too, so that's another point to consider for extension.
-
Anything? I feel that this is a fairly dead issue. There aren't too many regular contracts given to prospects out there. Any such contract that is handed out at $500k-$1m/year can be extended at $500k for 2 years if the player didn't rank with a market value too, so that's another point to consider for extension.
A good point, Colb. I am still pretty firm that an MLB contract cannot be reverted to a prospect contract at any time. Ben did offer an alternative a couple posts prior that I did agree with, to attempt to compromise on the idea.
-
As far as the grandfathering goes, we could potentially offer a 1-time chance to re-structure the prospect's contract such that all remaining salary - 500k is paid as a bonus in 2010, and they are switched to a prospect contract.
I would support this one-time grandfathering for players whose prospect clocks have not started and for the period after the draft to before the signing deadline.
-
Would these bonus adjustments come out of 2010 or 2011 salary cap dollars?
-
Would these bonus adjustments come out of 2010 or 2011 salary cap dollars?
2011 cap... after the draft, the 2010 season is closed and then we have a period of no free agency but where trades and extensions and drops can happen until the signing deadline.
-
Disagree - the 2010 draft is on the 2010 books...
-
Disagree - the 2010 draft is on the 2010 books...
That is what I said but in the wrong manner. The 2010 season doesn't close until the 2010 draft is over.