|
Post by mikebraves on Nov 24, 2015 8:51:35 GMT -5
For the record I took no Mulligans on taking over the Braves contracts. I also took no Mulligans on the course this morning and shot had 3 snowmen and a 9 on the card so you can imagine the results that got me. I don't mind the rule but I'll take pride in rebuilding with no help
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Nov 24, 2015 9:11:45 GMT -5
For the record I took no Mulligans on taking over the Braves contracts. I also took no Mulligans on the course this morning and shot had 3 snowmen and a 9 on the card so you can imagine the results that got me. I don't mind the rule but I'll take pride in rebuilding with no help If you birdied every other hole then the score wouldnt be so bad. I did that a few times this year. Played even par for 6 holes (not in a row) then was +10 on the other 3.
|
|
|
Post by marcus.dodgers on Nov 24, 2015 10:12:29 GMT -5
I also took no mulligans when taking over the Pirates. I did make a couple bad trades in trying to get out from under bad contracts, though. I made some good ones too.
Overall I think this is a great rule, why should a team have a constant revolving door of GM's when a contract that was given three GM's ago is one of the reasons the team is not fun to play? I do like that we are discussing it also.
I think one is a better number than two but will defer to Anthony and Thomas' decision(s).
One thing It sparks in my mind is an amnesty type situation the NBA did not long ago. I think that's something interesting to consider if we ever get that bad. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 24, 2015 12:39:34 GMT -5
The Blue Rule: This rule is for New GM's. This will allow a new General Manager taking over a team the ability to request the reduction of up to 2 contracts already in place. This will be adjusted at the commissioners discretion to help out the GM taking over the team. This may be either changing guaranteed years to Team Options, or removing years from the contract.
Award Voting tomorrow... First offseason sim will be Tuesday night! Did we ever have any discussion about this? 2 Contracts ? Why not just 1 ? And what type of reduction? This just seems a little vague. When I came into the league 5 seasons ago I was stuck with huge huge long term deals with Joey Votto, Devin Meseraco, Jay Bruce and Johnny Cueto. I had to unload or work through all of those contracts, but when I took on the challenge I knew what I was I getting into. So I'm am not sure how I feel about this rule being put in. For the record, the Joey Votto contract was/is a real MLB contract. He's currently on the biggest Reds contract in history. We don't edit those. The Jay Bruce contract was only 3 years. Not sure without opening up the game about Meseraco and Cueto.
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Nov 24, 2015 12:53:12 GMT -5
I also took no mulligans when taking over the Pirates. I did make a couple bad trades in trying to get out from under bad contracts, though. I made some good ones too. Overall I think this is a great rule, why should a team have a constant revolving door of GM's when a contract that was given three GM's ago is one of the reasons the team is not fun to play? I do like that we are discussing it also. I think one is a better number than two but will defer to Anthony and Thomas' decision(s). One thing It sparks in my mind is an amnesty type situation the NBA did not long ago. I think that's something interesting to consider if we ever get that bad. Just a thought. Thanks for the support! Yes, I really do not think we should be afraid of taking action to encourage having a filled team. What's better: a barren team with tons of bad contracts that's AI run for 5 seasons because no one wants it or give a team a break to encourage them to stick with it?
|
|
|
Post by mikejk on Nov 24, 2015 13:26:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanation Anthony. Does limiting it to one contract seem more fair to you? I think two is fair, as long as it is restricted to very, very, stupid contracts in small markets, and maybe a few exceptions outside of that.
|
|
|
Post by marcus.dodgers on Nov 24, 2015 13:36:18 GMT -5
I definitely think the size of the market should play into the amnesty of a contract.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Nov 24, 2015 15:13:36 GMT -5
I definitely think the size of the market should play into the amnesty of a contract. Absolutely. Thats why it's on a case by case basis and somewhat a little vague.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah:OriolesGM on Nov 24, 2015 15:42:31 GMT -5
So no amnestying Stanton in Baltimore then? Hehehe
|
|
|
Post by marcus.dodgers on Nov 24, 2015 15:45:43 GMT -5
Did we ever have any discussion about this? 2 Contracts ? Why not just 1 ? And what type of reduction? This just seems a little vague. When I came into the league 5 seasons ago I was stuck with huge huge long term deals with Joey Votto, Devin Meseraco, Jay Bruce and Johnny Cueto. I had to unload or work through all of those contracts, but when I took on the challenge I knew what I was I getting into. So I'm am not sure how I feel about this rule being put in. I agree, if we are making an attempt to increase realism in some ways, we shouldn't try to reduce it in others. Mac/Mike, I understand your concern. Let me clarify a couple of things here... We have done this in the past, there was just no rule in place (Colby Rasmus, Oakland.) We had a GM come in, and ask if something could be done with the contract. Rasmus was making about 25% of the entire teams payroll. For a small market team, a contract that should have never been on that team. The idea behind this rule is to help an incoming GM out, and try to stop the revolving door that some teams just can't get away from. The rule is a little vague only due to the fact it's really on a case by case basis. A lot of factors go into looking at what to adjust/decrease and the rule only states it as a request. The Commissioners office does not need to oblige. I will never release a player with 5 years and 100 million dollars left on his contract. That is not the intention of this rule. The idea is to turn those last 2 years of 20 million each into Team Options. Now maybe 3 years @ 60 million is a little bit more moveable than say 5 years guaranteed. I am more than willing to discuss and tweak the rule in anyway that the league likes... My ultimate goal is to add stability to every franchise in the league. I've seen this done in other leagues as well as different variations of it. One league has done what i'm talking about. Turning the last 2 years into Team Options. Removing one of the years in the middle. Things of that nature to help out a new GM. Others have a clause that will allow a team one contract to be completely removed from their books without penalty when they first take over a team. Nothing is set in stone, and i'm willing to make any adjustments. I just don't want to see a team go through GM after GM because of several 'bad' contracts signed by a previous GM. We can discuss further and I will put this rule under review for now. So you're saying I shouldn't sign Jose Fernandez to a 9 yr 25mil per year contract? Cause that's what he wants..... -boggles eyes-
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Nov 24, 2015 15:47:43 GMT -5
Mac/Mike, I understand your concern. Let me clarify a couple of things here... We have done this in the past, there was just no rule in place (Colby Rasmus, Oakland.) We had a GM come in, and ask if something could be done with the contract. Rasmus was making about 25% of the entire teams payroll. For a small market team, a contract that should have never been on that team. The idea behind this rule is to help an incoming GM out, and try to stop the revolving door that some teams just can't get away from. The rule is a little vague only due to the fact it's really on a case by case basis. A lot of factors go into looking at what to adjust/decrease and the rule only states it as a request. The Commissioners office does not need to oblige. I will never release a player with 5 years and 100 million dollars left on his contract. That is not the intention of this rule. The idea is to turn those last 2 years of 20 million each into Team Options. Now maybe 3 years @ 60 million is a little bit more moveable than say 5 years guaranteed. I am more than willing to discuss and tweak the rule in anyway that the league likes... My ultimate goal is to add stability to every franchise in the league. I've seen this done in other leagues as well as different variations of it. One league has done what i'm talking about. Turning the last 2 years into Team Options. Removing one of the years in the middle. Things of that nature to help out a new GM. Others have a clause that will allow a team one contract to be completely removed from their books without penalty when they first take over a team. Nothing is set in stone, and i'm willing to make any adjustments. I just don't want to see a team go through GM after GM because of several 'bad' contracts signed by a previous GM. We can discuss further and I will put this rule under review for now. So you're saying I shouldn't sign Jose Fernandez to a 9 yr 25mil per year contract? Cause that's what he wants..... -boggles eyes- Hey, you can do whatever you want. Its the next guys problem? Jk.
|
|
|
Post by phillygmkyle on Nov 24, 2015 16:30:59 GMT -5
The Blue Exemption: (under review) This rule is for New GM's. This will allow a new General Manager taking over a team the ability to request the reduction of up to 2 contracts already in place. This will be adjusted at the commissioners discretion to help out the GM taking over the team. This may be either changing guaranteed years to Team Options, or removing years from the contract.
Award Voting tomorrow... First offseason sim will be Tuesday night!I like the Idea. It sucks having a revolving door of GM's which is what you end up with when teams have no hope. It's tough for a new GM to want to hold on when he has to wait 8 years for bad contracts to expire to then start building a farm system. In my opinion it's to much to ask of new players and creates empty teams. I have had the opportunity to rebuild some horrible teams in my days with PBL but the task is really daunting when you can't even trade your best players because the previous GM signed them to horrible contracts....then just up and leaves.
|
|
|
Post by Tigers_GM_Sam on Nov 24, 2015 18:50:31 GMT -5
I don't generally don't like contract amnesties but if it's only for new GMs then I guess it makes good sense - one or two teams are pretty much screwed thanks to previous management (NYY being the most ridiculous). It's not very fair on the guys who had to suck up horrible contracts over the past few years (Brett Anderson's $20m every year has been impossible for me to move - but at least he's an okay player. Worse was Pujols mega contract which definitely held the Tigers back when I first took the job) but if GMs like the Pirates, Braves and Blue Jays are cool with it then I applaud their generosity!
However, if you want to dump a salary shouldn't you have to dump the player into free agency too? It wouldnt seem fair for a new GM to dump a horrible contract and then have that player have a dominant year?
|
|
|
Post by phillygmkyle on Nov 24, 2015 21:34:15 GMT -5
Maybe a compromise could be made with the new player and the commish? I understand its not fair for guys that have had to deal with bad contracts in the past! I don't think a new player should just be given a clean slate either. Maybe in the future we could be more proactive as a group as well. If we have a player leave maybe the commish can look at the team and make suggestions to fix some of the major issues with the team before filling the team with a new GM?
I do agree with Sam if the player is a good player the team that took over shouldn't just get a salary reduction....it should be a harder choice then that. I'll use myself as an example. Kris Bryant's contract isn't that desirable to me but he is still a productive player. I don't think as a new GM I should just get the option to improve his contract to lets say a 5yr/20M deal. Thats not fair to the GMs that would have easily signed him last year in FA. I would say I either deal with the current contract or release him into FA for the league to try sign...maybe a case could be made that the average salary could be used? So in my case it would still be a 7 year deal but at the average salary of 38M per year?
Not sure what is the best solution.....just thinking out loud.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Nov 24, 2015 21:55:18 GMT -5
I have yet to reduce a yearly salary. There are only a few examples of what has been adjusted in the past. Two years of Moustakas was turned into Team Options. The Yankees were still responsible for paying the buyout. As for Rasmus, he was released directly to Free Agency and the team did not get to keep him.
I've seen leagues do that in the past where teams get "one" buyout when they first join, but again that isn't very fair to any GM's who have been with us in the past and did not get to take advantage of it.
|
|