|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jul 11, 2016 8:24:52 GMT -5
At the risk of repeating myself, this is exactly why I voted to retain Zevin, In the end the "simple contract rules" become increasing labyrinthine and near impossible to agree upon. At this point I would rather A) let the game determine the free agent rules, B) Go back to Zevin, or C) just hand the contract rules to the Commish so we don't have to endlessly debate them.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Jul 11, 2016 8:45:04 GMT -5
Im really tired of this. You said ALL contracts so that applies to free agency as well. I dont understand if I have the money now (which i dont) why I can't spend it NOW. Im not sure how we dont even have a vote or anything regarding this rules and how youre just putting them into place. I agree with Anthony 110%. We should strive for simplicity. I can only imagine what a new GM would think after reading all this.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 11, 2016 9:56:00 GMT -5
Not going to quote. And I've put forward my proposal. So, I'll leave it alone after this.
Anthony, with respect "you're just putting them into place" is wrong. I have no power whatsoever to do that. If this was put to a vote I would have only one.
I think I showed the simplicity of the proposal? The Zevin formula was far more intricate. You can easily make this far more complicated, but I chose to keep it as simple and universally applicable as possible.
And front-loading contracts simply doesn't occur "generally" in real life, especially with young, elite, talent. I've stated my position on this elsewhere, so will not argue it further.
I'll leave this to the will of the Commissioner. Just thought it was a reasonable alternative to Zevin.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Jul 11, 2016 10:01:06 GMT -5
And just as a side note, I do want to say thank you for all the thought and energy you've put into this. I will admit that the Zevin formulation was probably much more involved. However, the upside was it was an involved process that I personally didn't have to mess with. Sweet sweet ignorance of the process is a distinct plus for me. Though I can understand how it might not be for others.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 11, 2016 10:26:06 GMT -5
Im not sure why we have to complicate these rules so much.
Major League Service = 5yrs + 50days No option year higher than a guaranteed year One type of option per contract (not including a player opt outs but may not have a option directly following an opt out - saw an opt out after year 2, player option for 3 so kinda defeats the purpose.) 25% buyout on Team Options Incentives not higher than 25% of the highest (or lowest year)
I dont know why we need 3 god damn pages of contract rules. Or why we need to only allow back loaded contracts.
If i want to sign a 37 year old player to a front loaded deal, I should be able to.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 11, 2016 10:52:01 GMT -5
1. Annual contract amounts, guaranteed or option, for all players under age 35, may not be lower than the first year.2. Annual contract amounts, guaranteed or option, for all players under age 35, may only be 25% higher than the first.Solved! Personally, if you want to offer a heavily front-loaded contract to a 35+ (or, as you stated 37) year old, I hope the game and competitive free agent market would appropriately deal with it? I'll stop now.........
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 11, 2016 11:34:31 GMT -5
I think it may be time for me to resign.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Jul 11, 2016 13:58:06 GMT -5
And front-loading contracts simply doesn't occur "generally" in real life, especially with young, elite, talent. This is true. I think Anthony's confusion may spring from the restrictions on regular free agents, not young stars being extended (for which I think your rules proposes are perfect. Why cannot a 32 year old be a bit front loaded, etc?
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jul 11, 2016 14:24:32 GMT -5
I think it may be time for me to resign. Why not wait until we make some official decisions. As usual I let all sides argue their points and when I think an argument from both sides have no more valid points to offer I intervene and make a decision. I love the debates here and I think this is why the PBL is so damn good. We had 1,000 debates so far and the resolution isn't to quit. If your heart is not in the PBL then no hard feelings but debates will forever be welcome in the league as I think its critical to the success. Even if we do not adopt a specific side of an argument then it can always help in future discussions as well. This is why we keep everything in the Archives.
|
|
|
Post by Peter - Boston Red Sox on Jul 11, 2016 19:27:55 GMT -5
Simple is better for this noob!
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jul 11, 2016 21:43:39 GMT -5
David's proposal is actually pretty short and simple. I think people get intended by the length of his entire posts when he discusses it. To review, here is the proposal in its entirety:
Players under team control may not be signed to a multi-year contract until they have reached a minimum of 5 YEARS & 50 DAYS of major league service time.
They may be offered arbitration in each of their arbitration years OR a one year contract may be negotiated for the next season (but only between the start of the off-season and the arbitration date).
Once a player reaches 5/50, the contract stipulations below must be observed.
Free agent contracts may be negotiated at any time between the free agency filing date and the end of the regular season. The contract stipulations below must also be observed.
All contracts must adhere to the following stipulations:
1. Annual contract amounts, guaranteed or option, may not be lower than the first year. 2. Annual contract amounts, guaranteed or option, may only be 25% higher than the first. 3. Only one “type” of option, or the new Opt-Out, may be offered in any contract (Team, Player, Vesting or Opt-Out). 4. All team option years offered must include a 25% buyout.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jul 11, 2016 21:46:09 GMT -5
My opinion. I love the 5-50.
I don't see any reason to have a black out time where Free Agents cannot be signed. Free Agents should be signable whenever.
I don't see a problem with front loading.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 12, 2016 11:52:11 GMT -5
So, just to continue the conversation. By removing some of the contentious items, that would make things extremely simple:
Players under team control may not be signed to a multi-year contract until they have reached a minimum of 5 YEARS & 50 DAYS of major league service time.
They may be offered arbitration in each of their arbitration years OR a one year contract may be negotiated for the next season (but only between the start of the off-season and the arbitration date).
All team option years offered must include a 25% buyout.
The last line is pretty standard stuff and cleans up the existing rule. I still think we would need one more line to specify the amount that can be offered as a team or vesting option, compared to amounts in the guaranteed portion of a contract? And possibly a line just to clarify that "Free agent contracts can be negotiated at any time."
This would allow us to delete many lines of Zevin rules, which was my only intention going into this (come close to Zevin, but with far fewer words). Sorry if I ruffled feathers.
I assume the "only one type of option" or opt-out is also off the table. Not a huge issue, just thought I would suggest it because I have already seen some curious uses of multiple options and opt-outs that make one scratch their head. But, so be it! That can be a future amendment.
With respect to front-loading, clearly that is the biggest lightning rod proposal. It's not the front-loading of a 37-year old I am trying to guard against. In fact that would cause me no issue at all (likely because I would rarely employ that), it's the front-loading of a 27-year old, so you can extend his years at an unrealistically low number. But, unless that plays out in future, I appear rather isolated making my point.
That is also fine because I also sincerely believe that once a player gets to their sixth year, particularly if they are high OVR and POT, they would hopefully be less likely to agree to a heavily front-loaded deal. I honestly believe getting the players to full value in the game is most crucial, which I have also stated repeatedly. I would hope that once they are valued in-game, the AI would more competently negotiate. We shall see, I'm sure.
I'll await any decision.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jul 12, 2016 12:11:49 GMT -5
So, just to continue the conversation. By removing some of the contentious items, that would make things extremely simple: Players under team control may not be signed to a multi-year contract until they have reached a minimum of 5 YEARS & 50 DAYS of major league service time.
They may be offered arbitration in each of their arbitration years OR a one year contract may be negotiated for the next season (but only between the start of the off-season and the arbitration date).
All team option years offered must include a 25% buyout.The last line is pretty standard stuff and cleans up the existing rule. I still think we would need one more line to specify the amount that can be offered as a team or vesting option, compared to amounts in the guaranteed portion of a contract? And possibly a line just to clarify that "Free agent contracts can be negotiated at any time." This would allow us to delete many lines of Zevin rules, which was my only intention going into this (come close to Zevin, but with far fewer words). Sorry if I ruffled feathers. I assume the "only one type of option" or opt-out is also off the table. Not a huge issue, just thought I would suggest it because I have already seen some curious uses of multiple options and opt-outs that make one scratch their head. But, so be it! That can be a future amendment. With respect to front-loading, clearly that is the biggest lightning rod proposal. It's not the front-loading of a 37-year old I am trying to guard against. In fact that would cause me no issue at all (likely because I would rarely employ that), it's the front-loading of a 27-year old, so you can extend his years at an unrealistically low number. But, unless that plays out in future, I appear rather isolated making my point. That is also fine because I also sincerely believe that once a player gets to their sixth year, particularly if they are high OVR and POT, they would hopefully be less likely to agree to a heavily front-loaded deal. I honestly believe getting the players to full value in the game is most crucial, which I have also stated repeatedly. I would hope that once they are valued in-game, the AI would more competently negotiate. We shall see, I'm sure. I'll await any decision. br] David, First of all, thank you for taking the time to put this together. I agree that incorporating portions that we all seem to agree on is probably a good path forward. In my case where the opt out was followed by a player option, the player proposed that when I inquired about offering a contract. If I remember right, they wanted 4 years and I countered at 3, which made the whole thing look goofy. In general though, I'm confused as to why a player wouldn't want a front loaded deal in the first place? I mean if you could get half of your money now, why wouldn't you do it? I just think in some situations it works for both the player and team. For example, look at my contract with Will Taylor. It allowed me to spend more on guys like Rauschenbe and Soto, while he still got the same amount and same aav. I like having the flexibility to be creative with building a team. I agree with a lot of the things you've proposed, more specifically the alterations Ron has made, but I just don't see how this one really improves the league. Good job though and thank you for discussing your thoughts and ideas. IMO, you've done some great work here.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Jul 12, 2016 15:17:52 GMT -5
I would recommend one more line for the options. No other type of an option should be allowed to follow a Team Option.
|
|