ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: shooter47 on February 26, 2013, 05:48:10 PM
-
Orioles are restructuring the contract for
CI Morneau, Justin, $13.5m (2013)
2011 Rank #101 CI
2012 Rank #34 CI
2011 Value $1m
2012 Value $6m
Orioles will restructure the contract to
CI Morneau, Justin, $6m (2013)
X-CI Morneau, Justin, Signing Bonus 2013, $7.5m in 2013
-
I don't think it works that way. There a 70% rule for salary decreases if I am not mistaking, and I am not even sure this league allows for contract restructuring of players that have not been dropped.
-
I don't think it works that way. There a 70% rule for salary decreases if I am not mistaking, and I am not even sure this league allows for contract restructuring of players that have not been dropped.
The 70% rule is for Contract extensions. The following is under the rules for contracts which shows that contract restructuring is legal if the resign value is less then 50% of the current contract amount.
Restructuring Contracts
•Annual salary after such restructuring must be $4m+
•Restructuring allows annual salary to be reduced if player's market value (extension price) is less than or equal to half that of what he is paid.
•Total reduction in salary is converted into a guaranteed signing bonus during the current (or upcoming for off-season) year.
•Restructuring of contracts is not allowed during the period after the trade deadline and before the off-season.
<div id=example>Here is an example using hypothetical rankings and market values with a real contract.
Derek Lowe, $15.5m (2012)
Let's say his market value is $5.5m, and the team owning him at the time has plenty of cap space. The restructuring says that his new annual say is $5.5m. However, the leftover money now front-loaded to him in the form of a bonus (100% guaranteed). The signing bonus is then a whopping $30m.
Now, let's say the team doesn't have that cap room, but they want to restructure the contract a little bit. Well, that example is the extreme... the team can play the middle ground and reduce the annual salary to $10.5m per say for a signing bonus of $15m.</div>
Such restructuring of contracts is not allowed from August 1st to the end of the playoffs to prevent teams from abusing the restructuring to make it count for an additional season.
-
It is not reflected in the rules now but I believe at one time contracts could not be restructured in the final year of the contract. This loophole may need to be reviewed by the rules committee.
-
It is not reflected in the rules now but I believe at one time contracts could not be restructured in the final year of the contract. This loophole may need to be reviewed by the rules committee.
Didn't see that contracts could not be restructured in the final year when reading through the rules.
-
Colby would be the one to chime in on this as this rule predates pretty much everyone in the league.
I know the general purpose of it was to make a large contract more palatable over the duration by giving a player a large sum of money up front (signing bonus).
When that rule was written it was 2010 and as you can see the numbers were meant to run through 2012. That may be where some of the confusion is coming from as it isn't stated in the example.
-
If this is allowed in final year of contract it will allow some teams to extend players without following the 70% rule of contract extensions...
-
Colby would be the one to chime in on this as this rule predates pretty much everyone in the league.
I know the general purpose of it was to make a large contract more palatable over the duration by giving a player a large sum of money up front (signing bonus).
When that rule was written it was 2010 and as you can see the numbers were meant to run through 2012. That may be where some of the confusion is coming from as it isn't stated in the example.
At first I was wondering why he would do this, but it does give an advantage for contract extensions. It appears to be a legal move, but goes against the intention of the buy-out clause and allows for abuse of manipulating contract extension mandates. shooter47 uncovered a gap in the rules and should be applauded for this. The RC needs to vote on an amendment to the buy-out rules. Perhaps buy-outs should not be allowed in the final year of a contract? This still allows teams to change contract values in the year prior, but they will need to eat salary cap space to do so which mimics real-life restructuring.
-
I am not against restructuring contracts in the final year, but it should not affect the resign value. The resign value should be based on average annual overall cap value (salary + signing bonus) and not merely the annual salary. The only exception for this would be bonuses paid to prospects.
This is how the NFL treats their contracts since MLB does not deal with salary caps.
-
I am not against restructuring contracts in the final year, but it should not affect the resign value. The resign value should be based on average annual overall cap value (salary + signing bonus) and not merely the annual salary. The only exception for this would be bonuses paid to prospects.
This is how the NFL treats their contracts since MLB does not deal with salary caps.
MLB salaries are 100% guaranteed, no? What player would sign that restructured deal in a hypothetically realistic situation. I should have just restructured all those bad contracts I inherited in my first season (Peavey and H. Bell).
It also damages the salary structure as large teams could take huge gambles on players via free agency and if they suck they merely restructure. Small market teams would immediately be damaged as they have less cap to bid on these players.
It would also create insane market bids for players as there really are no consequences to signing a player way over his value if you can restructure him. Really I could restructure immediately and get my money for bidding back too. As you can see the loopholes are endless. And as I stated first, I don't believe the MLB has anything like this. If it did it would be hard to translate into this setting.
-
:iatp:
-
MLB salaries are 100% guaranteed, no? What player would sign that restructured deal in a hypothetically realistic situation. I should have just restructured all those bad contracts I inherited in my first season (Peavey and H. Bell).
It also damages the salary structure as large teams could take huge gambles on players via free agency and if they suck they merely restructure. Small market teams would immediately be damaged as they have less cap to bid on these players.
It would also create insane market bids for players as there really are no consequences to signing a player way over his value if you can restructure him. Really I could restructure immediately and get my money for bidding back too. As you can see the loopholes are endless. And as I stated first, I don't believe the MLB has anything like this. If it did it would be hard to translate into this setting.
Perhaps, I missed something here. What is the objection to restructuring contacts even in their final year as long as they do NOT affect resign values? In the current ase involving Morneau, his resign value would be his average salary PLUS bonus on his current contract.
-
Perhaps, I missed something here. What is the objection to restructuring contacts even in their final year as long as they do NOT affect resign values? In the current ase involving Morneau, his resign value would be his average salary PLUS bonus on his current contract.
There is no reason for restructuring in the final year of a contract if the signing bonus is included in the average salary. This was possibly an attempt to change Morneau's 2013 salary from $13.5m to $6m in order to extend him at $6m rather than the 70% minimum of $9.5m.
-
There is no reason for restructuring in the final year of a contract if the signing bonus is included in the average salary. This was possibly an attempt to change Morneau's 2013 salary from $13.5m to $6m in order to extend him at $6m rather than the 70% minimum of $9.5m.
That was exactly why I proposed the inclusion of the signing bonus in the salary calculation. I wanted to add a a simple ammendment to the current rule that would make sense thoughout the course of the contract AND remove the incentive to contract restructure in the final year.
-
Colby's right - this move should be allowed as it is under the rules, we can have a separate discussion on how to address issue in another thread.
-
Colby's right - this move should be allowed as it is under the rules, we can have a separate discussion on how to address issue in another thread.
NO this shouldn't be allowed to happen as it never does in the MLB where they have gauranteed contracts. Furthermore it sets a horrible precedent that if you search for loopholes hard enough it will work out for your interest. This transaction will destroy extensions values, contracts, salary cap, and league parity. EVERYONE who has traded a player as opposed to manipulating this rule will have been burned.
I am going to post a list of restructures so if this does go through you can see how it artificially helps my team beyond reasonable limits of the league. And if we're gonna let this ONE through and then change the rules for everyone else that is simply unconscionable.
-
Perhaps, I missed something here. What is the objection to restructuring contacts even in their final year as long as they do NOT affect resign values? In the current ase involving Morneau, his resign value would be his average salary PLUS bonus on his current contract.
Roy, reread my paragraphs 2 and 3 about how it destroys liability for teams to make good signings. It also destroys parity of the league. And finally it isn't realistic in one sense of the MLB.
-
I really don't see what the big deal is besides the change in re-sign value.
MLB salaries are 100% guaranteed, no? What player would sign that restructured deal in a hypothetically realistic situation. I should have just restructured all those bad contracts I inherited in my first season (Peavey and H. Bell).
They are 100% guaranteed. Just because the contract has been structured doesn't mean the team isn't paying 100% of the contract value.
It also damages the salary structure as large teams could take huge gambles on players via free agency and if they suck they merely restructure. Small market teams would immediately be damaged as they have less cap to bid on these players.
It would also create insane market bids for players as there really are no consequences to signing a player way over his value if you can restructure him. Really I could restructure immediately and get my money for bidding back too. As you can see the loopholes are endless. And as I stated first, I don't believe the MLB has anything like this. If it did it would be hard to translate into this setting.
You lost me completely - I don't see how big market teams can take advantage of this. Again, restructuring contracts does not change the amount of money a team has to pay out. If a big market team bids recklessly, it's still on hook for the player contract (the only thing changed is the timing of the payment). Hell, the team gets more instant salary relief via a drop then restructuring.
-
I want and NEED to make another point. You cannot in any circumstance buyout of a contract that are 1.5m or less; which is most important to any club trying to field a full roster and stay under cap. You get stuck singing small contract to fill a roster out but you then cant get out from under it. There is zero financial relief with a 70% clause. This already limits small market clubs. Then these buyouts of huge contracts further assists big league clubs who suddenly have no consequences for the 5 years they signed a huge contract if they can manipulate it into one years expense. I just can't help but see this.
-
I really don't see what the big deal is besides the change in re-sign value.
They are 100% guaranteed. Just because the contract has been structured doesn't mean the team isn't paying 100% of the contract value.
You lost me completely - I don't see how big market teams can take advantage of this. Again, restructuring contracts does not change the amount of money a team has to pay out. If a big market team bids recklessly, it's still on hook for the player contract (the only thing changed is the timing of the payment). Hell, the team gets more instant salary relief via a drop then restructuring.
This is a huge problem. And although they get more salary relief during a drop the consequence is that they then lose the rights to that player and can't gain points from him. During a restructure the team is allowed to maintain the player. We should be giving teams financial relief in years upcoming AND let them keep that player to gain points with? That's a double win! Something a small market team would have to empty their roster in order to accomplish.
AND IF we're going to have a league with variable salary cap, where one team isn't equal with another, and that inequality was not adjusted amongst teams in the beginning of the creation of the league. We should be careful to make rules that do not help one market over another purely by the creation of that rule. It slants the table.
AND finally the MLB does not give relief from the cap for years they were signed. Arent the Mets still paying a guy 2.5m on the cap from their days back with Bobby V in early 2000 (IRL)? I mean it's cut and dry in the MLB that you cannot do this.
-
You are making the assumption that big market teams always has a lot of unused salary cap room, which is not the case.
This restructuring debate was brought up by :BAL: who has one of the lowest caps in the league. Teams like :NYY: and :BOS: cannot restructure any contracts simply because they don't have the cap room.
-
The resign value should be based on average annual overall cap value (salary + signing bonus) and not merely the annual salary. The only exception for this would be bonuses paid to prospects.
:iatp:
I think that is a great way to close this loophole.
-
I cannot in good conscience allow this move. It violates the spirit of the rules and would not be fair to the other teams in the league if we allowed one team to take advantage of this loophole and not the others.
-
You are making the assumption that big market teams always has a lot of unused salary cap room, which is not the case.
This restructuring debate was brought up by :BAL: who has one of the lowest caps in the league. Teams like :NYY: and :BOS: cannot restructure any contracts simply because they don't have the cap room.
No assumption needed, it is fact. If a team has more salary cap they are more able to have the extra cap (after compiling a roster) to make those types of moves.
Furthermore, for all competitions sake, it allows teams to eat a cost in one year that should take longer to eat, while they still are allowed to keep that player. That is atrocious.
-
No assumption needed, it is fact. If a team has more salary cap they are more able to have the extra cap (after compiling a roster) to make those types of moves.
Furthermore, for all competitions sake, it allows teams to eat a cost in one year that should take longer to eat, while they still are allowed to keep that player. That is atrocious.
While I agree the re-sign value is a loophole that needs to be addressed, I don't think restructuring constructs favors big market teams at all.
Most teams, regardless of small or big capped, spend to the limit of the cap. This IS a fact. The R^2-value on the relationship between cap size and free cap room is 0.4% (e.g., NO correlation at all between cap size and free cap room). If a team has the cap room to restructure a deal, he should be able to do it.
As for the Morneau restructuring, :BAL: found a loophole and as Colby alluded to, should be applauded. He did something that was entirely within the rules of the game and should be allowed until the rules are changed.
-
This move along with the contract restructuring are within the rules that govern FGM. I made my trade for Morneau with the idea in place to restructure his contract and then extend him which the current rules allow. Not allowing this extension and changing the rules because it is your opinion that this is not fair affects the value of Morneau and is unfair to me. You don't change the rules to the game in the middle of it and not allow a move. Now if you want to change the rules in response to this move that is for the league and the Rules Committee to discuss.
-
This move along with the contract restructuring are within the rules that govern FGM. I made my trade for Morneau with the idea in place to restructure his contract and then extend him which the current rules allow. Not allowing this extension and changing the rules because it is your opinion that this is not fair affects the value of Morneau and is unfair to me. You don't change the rules to the game in the middle of it and not allow a move. Now if you want to change the rules in response to this move that is for the league and the Rules Committee to discuss.
The Commissioner decides what rules are placed before the Rules Committee, not vice versa.
-
The Commissioner decides what rules are placed before the Rules Committee, not vice versa.
I meant that if "you" (the commissioner) want to change this rule you will have to bring it up before the Rules committee.
-
While I agree the re-sign value is a loophole that needs to be addressed, I don't think restructuring constructs favors big market teams at all.
Most teams, regardless of small or big capped, spend to the limit of the cap. This IS a fact. The R^2-value on the relationship between cap size and free cap room is 0.4% (e.g., NO correlation at all between cap size and free cap room). If a team has the cap room to restructure a deal, he should be able to do it.
As for the Morneau restructuring, :BAL: found a loophole and as Colby alluded to, should be applauded. He did something that was entirely within the rules of the game and should be allowed until the rules are changed.
While you might not agree if it helps or not it is clear that it affects teams based upon market size. Teams will begin shifting their cap space to allow these transactions and it'll be in the tubes before you can imagine. I can't reword it to make it more clear, but there is a genuine gain when a team can eliminate X years of liability and can consolidate it into one year while they maintain the control of a player. Large market teams will be in a better position to make this happen. It is not within the best interest of the league.
Furthermore, Howe, why not address my concern that this is illegal in the MLB? I can't see any argument to this claim. And the intent of this league as I have always understood it was realistic atmosphere, a la no trading draft picks. I believe that was the reasoning for discontinuing it.
-
This move along with the contract restructuring are within the rules that govern FGM. I made my trade for Morneau with the idea in place to restructure his contract and then extend him which the current rules allow. Not allowing this extension and changing the rules because it is your opinion that this is not fair affects the value of Morneau and is unfair to me. You don't change the rules to the game in the middle of it and not allow a move. Now if you want to change the rules in response to this move that is for the league and the Rules Committee to discuss.
Shooter, I need to point out that although you made a move with a certain understanding in no way will affect the rulings of this league. In 2010 I was heavily interested in competing by using a lot of pitching to overcome the major slant towards hitters. Well, limits were placed on pitchers and that was that. It was ruled best for the league and be damned if your plans for your franchise were messed up.
That's just how this league has been. So any appeal to the fact that you made a move based on a certain understanding is on shaky ground to begin with.
-
Shooter, I need to point out that although you made a move with a certain understanding in no way will affect the rulings of this league. In 2010 I was heavily interested in competing by using a lot of pitching to overcome the major slant towards hitters. Well, limits were placed on pitchers and that was that. It was ruled best for the league and be Smoking Guned if your plans for your franchise were messed up.
That's just how this league has been. So any appeal to the fact that you made a move based on a certain understanding is on shaky ground to begin with.
I see some similarities with that situation however that was a rule change that affected strategy and player values throughout the league. Roy saying that he will not allow my contract restructuring and extension even though it is within the rules that currently govern FGM changes the value of my player and sets a dangerous precedence in the league. The precedence this sets is that the Commissioner can change the rules and not allow transactions that are currently legal within the rules. The commissioner would have the power to rule over anything that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules. My contract restructuring and extension were within the rules of FGM and should go through.
On another note its not like contract restructuring is a new concept in the rules of FGM. It has been in the rulebook for the two years that I have been in the league and in my memory has not been used up to this point. I don't see this giving an advantage to Large Market teams for the reasons that Howe has already stated.
-
Here is an example, using the Yankees as they are (no offense OUDAN), of what I foresee if this rule is upheld and of my concern...any smart GM will plan for next year so lets assume in this model Dan does this all next year.:
SP Sabathia, CC, $23m (2015), was #6 SP in 2011 and #13 in 2012 - #6SP = 18m.
23m - 18m = 5m x 2 years = 10m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually 5m for 2014 (taking :NYY: cap down to 33.5m).
SP Hernandez, Felix, $23m (2016), was #3 SP in 2011 and #7 in 2012 - #3SP = 18.5m. 23m - 18.5m = 4.5m x 3 years = 13.5m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 4.5m so the cost is actually 9m for 2014 (taking :NYY: cap down to 24.5m).
CI-OF Bautista, Jose, $27.5m (2016), who was #1 OF in 2011 and #3 CI for 2011 and #51 OF in 2012 and #46 CI in 2012 - #1 OF = 22.5m. 27.5m - 22.5m = 5m x 3 years = 15m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually only 10m for 2014 (taking :NYY: cap down to 14.5m).
Now in this example :NYY: gets to keep these players, get relief from over payment and shave millions off of his salary; 14.5m in 2015 and 10m in 2016...but why, because they made bad choices and dont want to cut their losses by having to move them?
No way is this realistic.
Furthermore compare this to the SD situation, I think I had 14m to start free agency. I have one overvalue deal:
OF Soler, Jorge, $8m (2015), if I were to do this I can't even get him as low as his value should be, which is 0.5m...why are the rules slanted this way? I would have to pay 8m this year to restructure his deal after accounting. It is almost all of my cap available this year. How many insane contracts have I purchased? Few! And yet its the overspenders rewarded most? They are the ones who drive Soler to 8m in the first place. The vice tightens further. Clearly for the length of this post I cant detail all of the reasons it damages small clubs but the facts remain clear.
The Yankees could gain almost my entire cap next year by exploiting a loophole not existent in the MLB.
-
I see some similarities with that situation however that was a rule change that affected strategy and player values throughout the league. Roy saying that he will not allow my contract restructuring and extension even though it is within the rules that currently govern FGM changes the value of my player and sets a dangerous precedence in the league. The precedence this sets is that the Commissioner can change the rules and not allow transactions that are currently legal within the rules. The commissioner would have the power to rule over anything that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules. My contract restructuring and extension were within the rules of FGM and should go through.
On another note its not like contract restructuring is a new concept in the rules of FGM. It has been in the rulebook for the two years that I have been in the league and in my memory has not been used up to this point. I don't see this giving an advantage to Large Market teams for the reasons that Howe has already stated.
Absolutely, that as you acknowledge this is the first time this rule has been tested, it is the Commissioners duty to intervene. The rule is wrong, it isn't MLB at all, Bobby Bonilla anyone? http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?sp=30904025&s=2&p=30903998 (http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?sp=30904025&s=2&p=30903998)
Furthermore, it does help large market teams, I've shown proof, show me some that it doesn't.
Roy you are right on with your decision to stop a dangerous principle. Furthermore, allowing one move then changing the rules really is not good for league fair play. If we change the rule this year it precludes those that otherwise need a year to make such moves. It really gets sticky. Just avoid the whole thing, admit it's a dangerous rule and move on.
-
Here is an example, using the Yankees as they are (no offense OUDAN), of what I foresee if this rule is upheld and of my concern...any smart GM will plan for next year so lets assume in this model Dan does this all next year.:
SP Sabathia, CC, $23m (2015), was #6 SP in 2011 and #13 in 2012 - #6SP = 18m.
23m - 18m = 5m x 2 years = 10m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually 5m for 2014 (taking :NYY: cap down to 33.5m).
SP Hernandez, Felix, $23m (2016), was #3 SP in 2011 and #7 in 2012 - #3SP = 18.5m. 23m - 18.5m = 4.5m x 3 years = 13.5m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 4.5m so the cost is actually 9m for 2014 (taking :NYY: cap down to 24.5m).
CI-OF Bautista, Jose, $27.5m (2016), who was #1 OF in 2011 and #3 CI for 2011 and #51 OF in 2012 and #46 CI in 2012 - #1 OF = 22.5m. 27.5m - 22.5m = 5m x 3 years = 15m bonus owed, but the cap gained = 5m so the cost is actually only 10m for 2014 (taking :NYY: cap down to 14.5m).
Now in this example :NYY: gets to keep these players, get relief from over payment and shave millions off of his salary; 14.5m in 2015 and 10m in 2016...but why, because they made bad choices and dont want to cut their losses by having to move them?
No way is this realistic.
Furthermore compare this to the SD situation, I think I had 14m to start free agency. I have one overvalue deal:
OF Soler, Jorge, $8m (2015), if I were to do this I can't even get him as low as his value should be, which is 0.5m...why are the rules slanted this way? I would have to pay 8m this year to restructure his deal after accounting. It is almost all of my cap available this year. How many insane contracts have I purchased? Few! And yet its the overspenders rewarded most? They are the ones who drive Soler to 8m in the first place. The vice tightens further. Clearly for the length of this post I cant detail all of the reasons it damages small clubs but the facts remain clear.
The Yankees could gain almost my entire cap next year by exploiting a loophole not existent in the MLB.
Have you even read the rules for contract restructuring? I have included them in my post if you haven't.
None of your examples for the yankees are legal because one of the rules to restructuring is that the players extension price must be 50% or less than what their current salary is. Now the yankees would never make a move like this anyways because this move is only useful to a team that is playing for the future. The cap space that the yankees would use to make a move like this would be better used to acquire players that would help them win now.
Also the math in your examples is wrong. For example CC Sabathia is a 2015 contract which is 3 years not 2. $5m * 3 years = $15m Signing bonus. With 5 million cap gained the actualy cost to the yankees would be $10m in 2013. The following mistake was made in each example.
Restructuring Contracts
•Annual salary after such restructuring must be $4m+
•Restructuring allows annual salary to be reduced if player's market value (extension price) is less than or equal to half that of what he is paid.
•Total reduction in salary is converted into a guaranteed signing bonus during the current (or upcoming for off-season) year.
•Restructuring of contracts is not allowed during the period after the trade deadline and before the off-season.
<div id=example>Here is an example using hypothetical rankings and market values with a real contract.
Derek Lowe, $15.5m (2012)
Let's say his market value is $5.5m, and the team owning him at the time has plenty of cap space. The restructuring says that his new annual say is $5.5m. However, the leftover money now front-loaded to him in the form of a bonus (100% guaranteed). The signing bonus is then a whopping $30m.
Now, let's say the team doesn't have that cap room, but they want to restructure the contract a little bit. Well, that example is the extreme... the team can play the middle ground and reduce the annual salary to $10.5m per say for a signing bonus of $15m.</div>
Such restructuring of contracts is not allowed from August 1st to the end of the playoffs to prevent teams from abusing the restructuring to make it count for an additional season.
-
Have you even read the rules for contract restructuring? I have included them in my post if you haven't.
None of your examples for the yankees are legal because one of the rules to restructuring is that the players extension price must be 50% or less than what their current salary is. Now the yankees would never make a move like this anyways because this move is only useful to a team that is playing for the future. The cap space that the yankees would use to make a move like this would be better used to acquire players that would help them win now.
Also the math in your examples is wrong. For example CC Sabathia is a 2015 contract which is 3 years not 2. $5m * 3 years = $15m Signing bonus. With 5 million cap gained the actualy cost to the yankees would be $10m in 2013. The following mistake was made in each example.
Restructuring Contracts
•Annual salary after such restructuring must be $4m+
•Restructuring allows annual salary to be reduced if player's market value (extension price) is less than or equal to half that of what he is paid.
•Total reduction in salary is converted into a guaranteed signing bonus during the current (or upcoming for off-season) year.
•Restructuring of contracts is not allowed during the period after the trade deadline and before the off-season.
<div id=example>Here is an example using hypothetical rankings and market values with a real contract.
Derek Lowe, $15.5m (2012)
Let's say his market value is $5.5m, and the team owning him at the time has plenty of cap space. The restructuring says that his new annual say is $5.5m. However, the leftover money now front-loaded to him in the form of a bonus (100% guaranteed). The signing bonus is then a whopping $30m.
Now, let's say the team doesn't have that cap room, but they want to restructure the contract a little bit. Well, that example is the extreme... the team can play the middle ground and reduce the annual salary to $10.5m per say for a signing bonus of $15m.</div>
Such restructuring of contracts is not allowed from August 1st to the end of the playoffs to prevent teams from abusing the restructuring to make it count for an additional season.
These are all straw man arguments at best.
1) The above rule I did in fact miss, but there will be examples of the situation I am explaining. Further, the trends show downward for all of those players, imagine infinite examples that could end up a problem.
2) You are saying my math was wrong, but in my first paragraph I said lets assume it is all done next year. I didn't make a mistake three times.
3) This hasn't discredited my point that it helps team escape out of bad bidding procedures, while maintain control of a player, its win win; and most helps large market clubs.
4) If those two points aren't quality for reasoning then how about that this is not MLB practice.
5) Your assertion of what and what not the :NYY: will and will not do does not actually hold. You have no idea what any team will do and not do, play for the future or the now. And that restructure would help them rapidly in some circumstances. It creates loopholes too many to count.
-
These are all straw man arguments at best.
1) The above rule I did in fact miss, but there will be examples of the situation I am explaining. Further, the trends show downward for all of those players, imagine infinite examples that could end up a problem.
2) You are saying my math was wrong, but in my first paragraph I said lets assume it is all done next year. I didn't make a mistake three times.
3) This hasn't discredited my point that it helps team escape out of bad bidding procedures, while maintain control of a player, its win win; and most helps large market clubs.
4) If those two points aren't quality for reasoning then how about that this is not MLB practice.
5) Your assertion of what and what not the :NYY: will and will not do does not actually hold. You have no idea what any team will do and not do, play for the future or the now. And that restructure would help them rapidly in some circumstances. It creates loopholes too many to count.
I missed the part where you stated that your examples would be done next year. You did the math correctly and I apoligize for saying it was incorrect.
Now I am not going to continue arguing this rule because this is not the time or place for that. That can be handled by the Rules Committee if and when Roy brings it before them.
We are actually arguing two different things. My argument is that my contract restructuring and extension are within the current rules that govern FGM. This is a legal move according to those rules and should be allowed. Rules that are changed after a GM makes a move should not affect a move that was previously made and was within the rules at that time. FGM has a rule called the Prince Fielder rule that prohibits teams from doing a sign and trade in the offseason. This rule was added to the rule book however the transaction between the Royals and Brewers (which was legal according to the rules at that time) was allowed. This sets a precedence in the league that rule changes do not affect transactions that are made before the rule is changed.
This rule hasn't even been officially changed by the rules committee. Not allowing this transaction undermines the rules of FGM and the power of the Rules committee.
-
I see some similarities with that situation however that was a rule change that affected strategy and player values throughout the league. Roy saying that he will not allow my contract restructuring and extension even though it is within the rules that currently govern FGM changes the value of my player and sets a dangerous precedence in the league. The precedence this sets is that the Commissioner can change the rules and not allow transactions that are currently legal within the rules. The commissioner would have the power to rule over anything that is not explicitly spelled out in the rules. My contract restructuring and extension were within the rules of FGM and should go through.
On another note its not like contract restructuring is a new concept in the rules of FGM. It has been in the rulebook for the two years that I have been in the league and in my memory has not been used up to this point. I don't see this giving an advantage to Large Market teams for the reasons that Howe has already stated.
I have not changed any rules. The buyout clause was not intended to be manipulated in this manner to reduce extension values.
From time to time, the Commissioner will be forced to rule on matters not explicitly stated in the rules such as free agent bids being binding. The rules should be accepted in the spirit in which they were written or we all become reduced to clubhouse lawyers rather than friendly competitors in a baseball league.
-
I have not changed any rules. The buyout clause was not intended to be manipulated in this manner to reduce extension values.
From time to time, the Commissioner will be forced to rule on matters not explicitly stated in the rules such as free agent bids being binding. The rules should be accepted in the spirit in which they were written or we all become reduced to clubhouse lawyers rather than friendly competitors in a baseball league.
By not allowing a restructuring and extension that is a legal move to happen is changing the rules. You have added a rule that says this type of legal move can not be done and have usurped power from the rules committee.
Also for those who say that this is not realistic in MLB baseball you can follow the following links that dicsuss a contract restructuring that the Cincinnati Reds and Scott Rolen did. You will see that this contract extension is the exact same thing that I am trying to do with Morneau. The Reds Lowered the current year contract and gave Rolen a signing bonus that was equal to the decrease in the current year contract value. They then signed him to an extension for two years.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin
-
By not allowing a restructuring and extension that is a legal move to happen is changing the rules. You have added a rule that says this type of legal move can not be done and have usurped power from the rules committee.
Also for those who say that this is not realistic in MLB baseball you can follow the following links that dicsuss a contract restructuring that the Cincinnati Reds and Scott Rolen did. You will see that this contract extension is the exact same thing that I am trying to do with Morneau. The Reds Lowered the current year contract and gave Rolen a signing bonus that was equal to the decrease in the current year contract value. They then signed him to an extension for two years.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin
I have asked the Rules Committee to interpret more existing rules during my short time as Commissioner than either of my two predecessors. I have even asked the RC to rule on amendments to deadline dates that were EXPLICITLY stated in the rules such as the one governing re-sign dates (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=73692.0), because some owners were unhappy.
I respect the RC, and I and am grateful for the work that they have done. However, I do not believe that I should run every dispute by the RC, because an owner is upset by my ruling.
-
I have asked the Rules Committee to interpret more existing rules during my short time as Commissioner than either of my two predecessors. I have even asked the RC to rule on amendments to deadline dates that were EXPLICITLY stated in the rules such as the one governing re-sign dates (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=73692.0), because some owners were unhappy.
I respect the RC, and I and am grateful for the work that they have done. However, I do not believe that I should run every dispute by the RC, because an owner is upset by my ruling.
I am not just upset with you ruling but am challenging the basis on how you reached your decision. Your main arguments up to this point have been that this situation doesn't happen in real life MLB and that it doesn't follow the spirit of the FGM rules.
1) I have given a clear example of how this situation has happened in MLB before. The Cincinnati Reds restructured Scott Rolen's contract to lower his salary, gave him a signing bonus and then signed him to a 2 year extension. So this situation does realistically happen in the MLB.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin
2) The spirit of the FGM rules is to mimic the real life MLB rules as close as possible. Now if something happens in the real life MLB then it should be allowed to happen in FGM.
My main argument for why this transaction should be allowed is that it has happened in the MLB before, it is clearly legal in the rules that currently govern FGM and is even within the spirit of the FGM principle that the rules should help the league mimic MLB as close as possible. I have yet to hear a compelling reason from you on why this transaction should not be allowed.
-
I am not just upset with you ruling but am challenging the basis on how you reached your decision. Your main arguments up to this point have been that this situation doesn't happen in real life MLB and that it doesn't follow the spirit of the FGM rules.
1) I have given a clear example of how this situation has happened in MLB before. The Cincinnati Reds restructured Scott Rolen's contract to lower his salary, gave him a signing bonus and then signed him to a 2 year extension. So this situation does realistically happen in the MLB.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin
2) The spirit of the FGM rules is to mimic the real life MLB rules as close as possible. Now if something happens in the real life MLB then it should be allowed to happen in FGM.
My main argument for why this transaction should be allowed is that it has happened in the MLB before, it is clearly legal in the rules that currently govern FGM and is even within the spirit of the FGM principle that the rules should help the league mimic MLB as close as possible. I have yet to hear a compelling reason from you on why this transaction should not be allowed.
The AROD to Boston situation?
-
By not allowing a restructuring and extension that is a legal move to happen is changing the rules. You have added a rule that says this type of legal move can not be done and have usurped power from the rules committee.
Also for those who say that this is not realistic in MLB baseball you can follow the following links that dicsuss a contract restructuring that the Cincinnati Reds and Scott Rolen did. You will see that this contract extension is the exact same thing that I am trying to do with Morneau. The Reds Lowered the current year contract and gave Rolen a signing bonus that was equal to the decrease in the current year contract value. They then signed him to an extension for two years.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/12/reds-restructure-extent-rolens-contract.html
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091219&content_id=7832380&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin
I believe that the reason Rolen was okay is because there was in fact, as it appears a very small increase in has actually moneys earned. Much like the reasoning behind the denial of the AROD issue as I alluded to.
-
The underlying and overwhelming points here are the following.
- shooter47 found a loophole in the rules to make contract extensions less expensive.
- We should applaud him for finding this, but the loophole should be fixed immediately as it goes against the intention of the rules.
- This is a free league. Just because shooter47 found a loophole doesn't mean we should allow it. When these things happen, we need to step back, make an adjustment, and allow us all to continue to play and have fun.
-
I stopped reading along time ago, but here's my two cents. Shooter found a loop hole and it should be allowed. But this leads to two additions that I think we need to make to the rules...
1. Every action that is not specifically talked about in the rules should be brought for review - such as when someone finds a loophole. We are not going to be able to cover every little aspect...this signing is the perfect example.
2. I think we need to do away with contract restructuring. And yes is does benefit high market teams because they can take large salary hits in a restructure. Most mid and low market teams will stagger a contract over years because it is financially more feasible. We have put in place certain aspects to resigning a player such as 30% MV decreases, and contracts that start at the end of a current contract. I think when this rule was created there were a lot of residual MLB contracts still left - Lowe, Andruw Jones, etc. - we've come to a point where those no longer exist.