ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: joeshmoe on June 08, 2010, 11:45:03 PM
-
While I am not on the RC I believe the rules concerning bonuses should be reviewed. In the MLB if a team agrees to the terms of a contract and it includes a bonus, that team is responsible for that bonus trade or not. I think this league should reflect the reality of the MLB and should incorporate this rule as well. Especially with the rules for the extensions, this should be a crucial rule.
-
While I am not on the RC I believe the rules concerning bonuses should be reviewed. In the MLB if a team agrees to the terms of a contract and it includes a bonus, that team is responsible for that bonus trade or not. I think this league should reflect the reality of the MLB and should incorporate this rule as well. Especially with the rules for the extensions, this should be a crucial rule.
I have to agree with you. This was an oversight by several of us. Separating the bonuses really doesn't have much of an effect, but it keeps the bonus on your books only. I can go back and fix up the deal with the Phillies to have me keep the bonus on Max Ramirez and them pay for the equivalent on one of the contracts received.
I vote YES to keep bonuses tied to the franchise's books for that season.
-
I have to agree with you. This was an oversight by several of us. Separating the bonuses really doesn't have much of an effect, but it keeps the bonus on your books only. I can go back and fix up the deal with the Phillies to have me keep the bonus on Max Ramirez and them pay for the equivalent on one of the contracts received.
I vote YES to keep bonuses tied to the franchise's books for that season.
No sense on going back to previous trades to retrofit this rule. Just make it from here on out. If you go back and re-work the trades, you will run into a salary crunch.
~MTK
-
No sense on going back to previous trades to retrofit this rule. Just make it from here on out. If you go back and re-work the trades, you will run into a salary crunch.
~MTK
A trade would be re-worked financially only if it has no effect on the total salaries for all years.
-
ill agree, but only if its at this point. So no previous trades can have this rule.
-
Yeah, probably best we don't rework any trades retroactive to this rule. It hasn't been common practice for new rules, there have been at least a hundred trades so far in this league, and for Colby to pick and choose based on the fiscal status of both teams involved in each trade seems like a lot of time and effort, as teams salaries change with each trade.
Barring that, I will approve of this rule.
-
I agree
-
I don't think the idea of retroactivity is good, but I'm glad to see the support on this :thumbsup:
-
Bonuses are not typical in real life except for draftees. I prefer to keep things as is, so I do NOT approve of this new rule.
-
Bonuses are not typical in real life except for draftees. I prefer to keep things as is, so I do NOT approve of this new rule.
I think it is quite the opposite. Most players receive a signing bonus with their new contracts...
~MTK
-
Bonuses are not typical in real life except for draftees. I prefer to keep things as is, so I do NOT approve of this new rule.
Currently there is no rule on whether or not bonuses should be transferred when a player that has one is traded (prospects, and possibly re-structured contracts if that rule passes). This is not a new rule, but rather a necessary clarification one way or another to ensure consistency.
I approve the decision that bonuses should not be transferred in trades from this point forward, all previous transactions should remain as is.
-
I think it is quite the opposite. Most players receive a signing bonus with their new contracts...
~MTK
+1
-
This one is in the books.... I fixed up the spreadsheet for Dan to keep bonuses separate. Old trades will not be restructured.
:judge:
-
:thumbsup: