|
Post by The Beast on Apr 4, 2017 15:45:10 GMT -5
Also, I don't think 2 years is a big deal if were not making the switch till 2019. Anybody with 2 years or less shouldn't be considered a burden, no matter the salary. They'd be able to do the buyout if we went that route. 3 years worth more than 3 mil is the only RPs in my opinion are the ones that should be considered
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Apr 4, 2017 16:37:07 GMT -5
This seems like a reasonable solution to me (although you can see I'm not impacted by this). We'd also want to send a reminder before next year's bidding. I'm fine with the second proposal too, even if it puts someone over $10. I don't agree on completely wiping away a players salary. Especially if a team is able to do it for more than one...I'd be willing to listen to ppls opinions on lowering the cost, not the years. But definitely not getting rid of the whole contract. Well, in theory, as of today, it could be said that only Ramos, Herrera, Robertson, and Chapman's (and maybe Bedrosian's) value would be negatively affected by the category change, because the other guys are currently slated to be setup men (long term). Unless there's an injury to Bedrosian, I wouldn't think that I'll be voiding that contract, as he should be valuable for $1 regardless of the category's status in two years. I'm fine with changing that list to only those players that are currently closers, which is 4.
It still doesn't answer your concern specifically, but shortens the list by 50%+.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Apr 4, 2017 18:11:25 GMT -5
I have an idea. What are your thoughts on paying part of a salary in a trade to get some of the released players back in play. For example bryzzo has heyward for 10/4 and he picked him up and traded him away but paid 6 million per year and the other team pays the 4 for 4 years. More players would put back into play and give just a little Salary relief on the teams trading them away. Would it also work in reverse? Example: A few years ago in the Fantasy GM league I had Matt Carpenter on a multi-year $1 million contract when he had his breakout year with the Cardinals. Under your proposal, could I trade him for a higher amount and pocket the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Soultakers on Apr 4, 2017 21:36:57 GMT -5
I have an idea. What are your thoughts on paying part of a salary in a trade to get some of the released players back in play. For example bryzzo has heyward for 10/4 and he picked him up and traded him away but paid 6 million per year and the other team pays the 4 for 4 years. More players would put back into play and give just a little Salary relief on the teams trading them away. Would it also work in reverse? Example: A few years ago in the Fantasy GM league I had Matt Carpenter on a multi-year $1 million contract when he had his breakout year with the Cardinals. Under your proposal, could I trade him for a higher amount and pocket the difference? Idk about that. I was mainly looking to get some of the players in the released list back in play and have a little cap relief for teams strapped with bad contacts. I realize the owners typically strapped themselves with these contacts so they should be stuck with them. I see your point though.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Apr 5, 2017 0:21:41 GMT -5
I know what you mean - it's horrible to have a player like Billy Butler on a max contract for multiple years and watch him fail miserably. (Sorry, Scott - it was just the first example I thought of.) But, it seems to me if we are going to make player salaries negotiable in trades, it should go both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Soultakers on Apr 5, 2017 0:37:28 GMT -5
I know what you mean - it's horrible to have a player like Billy Butler on a max contract for multiple years and watch him fail miserably. (Sorry, Scott - it was just the first example I thought of.) But, it seems to me if we are going to make player salaries negotiable in trades, it should go both ways. I see your point. I would go along with it if others did as well just wasn't what i had in mind is all.
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Apr 5, 2017 9:28:38 GMT -5
I have an idea. What are your thoughts on paying part of a salary in a trade to get some of the released players back in play. For example bryzzo has heyward for 10/4 and he picked him up and traded him away but paid 6 million per year and the other team pays the 4 for 4 years. More players would put back into play and give just a little Salary relief on the teams trading them away. Would it also work in reverse? Example: A few years ago in the Fantasy GM league I had Matt Carpenter on a multi-year $1 million contract when he had his breakout year with the Cardinals. Under your proposal, could I trade him for a higher amount and pocket the difference? I don't know if you were serious or not about this, but no. As most have mentioned in the past, and as current commish, we can't get too complicated with the rules, because with complication comes extra work on the board. The point I've made in the past, and the point that was brought up again in this thread was/is to get players that have albatross contracts back into active lineup for teams with cap space to take on some of the cap hit, which would also provide relief to the team owning the bad contract. There would be a note on each team's page regarding the status of the contract and what they're responsible for. To keep it simple, I would say that only the $ amount is negotiable, not the years. If you trade for the player, you are responsible for the dollars negotiated for the remainder of the contract. I like the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Apr 6, 2017 16:10:34 GMT -5
Of course it was a serious question. The mechanism of splitting contracts between two teams is a big headache admin-wise, and I would oppose it just for that reason. But, having it go both ways doesn't make it any more complicated, as the double-entry methods would be the same.
The salary cap is always a limiting factor on the majority of teams in this league. I'm not sure that changing the rules to add ways to get around the cap is in the best interest of the league as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Soultakers on Apr 6, 2017 17:29:48 GMT -5
Of course it was a serious question. The mechanism of splitting contracts between two teams is a big headache admin-wise, and I would oppose it just for that reason. But, having it go both ways doesn't make it any more complicated, as the double-entry methods would be the same. The salary cap is always a limiting factor on the majority of teams in this league. I'm not sure that changing the rules to add ways to get around the cap is in the best interest of the league as a whole. its just something you see in actual baseball every year. how many times does a team trade away a player and pay part of his salary to free up a roster spot and or some of the salary? i dont see it happen the other way but i wasnt going to oppose it when you offered up the idea of having the reverse. it may not be something i would pay extra for in a trade but that doesnt mean others wouldnt be interested in it.
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Oct 4, 2017 10:40:26 GMT -5
For the 2018 season, unless someone posts opposition to this (and we can put it to a vote), I'm going to be adding the buyout option to the rules. Since the max contract is 10 (for the time being), you can only buyout players whose contract is 5 or less. Please read the original post in this thread for the description of the buyout rules.
I would also like to revisit the rules suggestions of partial salary trades, and category change from Saves to (Saves+Holds).
|
|
|
Post by The Beast on Oct 4, 2017 11:11:07 GMT -5
For the 2018 season, unless someone posts opposition to this (and we can put it to a vote), I'm going to be adding the buyout option to the rules. Since the max contract is 10 (for the time being), you can only buyout players whose contract is 5 or less. Please read the original post in this thread for the description of the buyout rules. I would also like to revisit the rules suggestions of partial salary trades, and category change from Saves to (Saves+Holds). Hard no on partial salary trades for me Hard yes on sv+h Pretty much not changing my stance on those lol If people are worried about saves and don’t wanna double the salary or can’t to get rid of them sooner, maybe we can do like basketball did a few years ago. Each team gets one contract to amnesty. But I’d suggest not a complete amnesty. Just reduce the years to one. So if someone had Chapman at 10/3 and was reluctant to vote for sv+h, at least he could amnesty down to 10/1. But the amnesty only for the first year we introduce sv+h
|
|
|
Post by 4th St Clubhouse on Oct 4, 2017 17:10:44 GMT -5
I've read through this a couple of times. Seems like there should be a vote on any rule change.
I'm still not sure what all has been proposed but starting with the firs comment in this thread.
I'm ok with the save/hold but sounds like the league if still split. If it is going to start in a future year we need to vote prior to the 2018 season before more long term contracts are possibly established. Could go either way on the one time option to drop existing contracts. I can agree to the buyout but only if the buyout salary can exceed the salary cap. Definitely against partial salary trades.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Oct 4, 2017 18:19:05 GMT -5
It seems to me that the market for RP's in this league is unique - that is, the RP bids are unaffected by the going prices for SP's and hitters. If we are going to rewrite the rules for RP's, then I would propose that all bid relievers be released as free agents without loyalty prior to the rule change taking effect. It wouldn't affect players on minor league contracts - most of them we don't even know if they're going to be relievers or starters anyway.
This is one way that a rule change this significant can be imposed without putting some teams at a disadvantage.
The alternative is to put it to a vote with everyone who thinks they're getting a raw deal voting against, and anyone like me who doesn't like giving anyone a raw deal also votes against. Then, nothing changes.
|
|
|
Post by Soultakers on Oct 5, 2017 9:59:09 GMT -5
for peoples concern on the save vs holds. what about making holds worth 0.5 saves / holds category. kinda like using the half point per reception.
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn Cobesters on Oct 5, 2017 13:42:52 GMT -5
Against all the proposed changes other than the buyout option. As for the buyout option noticed that you can use the option and team can then still use the player. Would allow other teams to pick up the player but not the original owner. If you use the buyout option would bar the original owner from using that player again.
Wait until last few rounds to pick up relievers in leagues that use 1 cat to record saves & holds. Would never trade for a reliever again unless I was at or near the max. Too many holds guys available. Makes the cat pretty much worthless. Asked & was told that we wouldn't start adding holds until 2019 at the earliest if we made the change. Hope that is still correct. Will go along with majority even if it makes Aroldis worth much less in 2019. We could add holds as cat & add another cat for offense too. My vote would be to leave it as is.
Too complicated with salary sharing.
|
|