|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 22, 2014 22:27:12 GMT -5
What do you all think about raising team options? 25% is a low number and I think if we raised it then it would prevent teams from backloading contracts knowing it can just check team option and buy out that final year at ΒΌ the cost. What about if a team is going to offer two option years then the final one can't be a team option, it must be a player option so a team must make a 2 year decision. Perhaps this would increase low balling FAs into false contracts, possibly allowing for better names to hit the FA market as well.
What if the buyout was 40-50% this would make teams much more cautious of taking advantage of this rule. You see a lot of deals with highly inflated final seasons. Make the buyout something you use to get out of a truly bad experience not just to create extra room.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 22, 2014 22:29:48 GMT -5
My take: 40-50% is a ridiculously high number, imho. I would rather you limit us to ONE option year, than force a buyout approaching that high. Personally, I think it is fine the way it is. Just one man's opinion. We'll see what the masses say.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by Chip_PhilliesGM on Apr 22, 2014 22:34:21 GMT -5
I actually really like this and have been thinking that the buyout should be raised, since for me and I think most of us, it's really just an afterthought when offering a contract. A 50% buyout would make everyone a little more cautious. A big part of this, is just how bad the AI calculates team options when considering an offer.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 22, 2014 22:42:59 GMT -5
The AI is terrible at realising this and this is a big problem as to why players don't hit the FA market. I can have a player ask for a 5 year, $15m per year contract and offer him $10m, $10m, $11m then team option for $11m and then team option for $20m and the AI will think this is a good counter offer and accept it. So reality is we could have a good player in his prime asking for a $75m extension but really signed for $30m plus the buyout and he hits the FA market after his prime season.
|
|
|
Post by Nick_BrewersGM on Apr 22, 2014 22:53:33 GMT -5
i didnt know the 25% rule and it has really bitten me in the ass...i dnt think ill ever offer a team option again honestly vesting options are so much more worth it
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 22, 2014 23:15:01 GMT -5
Id vote against any changes regarding team options. 25% is a reasonable amount.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 22, 2014 23:19:33 GMT -5
Didnt we used to have a rule in place that the option year couldnt be more than a certain % higher than the highest guaranteed year?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Apr 23, 2014 1:38:48 GMT -5
Didnt we used to have a rule in place that the option year couldnt be more than a certain % higher than the highest guaranteed year? I have long thought this was the the rule, and I am against upping the team option percentage. I think it's fine the way it is. I don't think the scenario Derek proposed is possible under league rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 2:08:48 GMT -5
Didnt we used to have a rule in place that the option year couldnt be more than a certain % higher than the highest guaranteed year? I have long thought this was the the rule, and I am against upping the team option percentage. I think it's fine the way it is. I don't think the scenario Derek proposed is possible under league rules. It is possible, we changed this when we made the buyout 25%. How about this? We simply say that the team option year can not be the highest salary year of a contract? Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 2:21:15 GMT -5
There are better options than upping to 40/50%, such as limiting team options to being the same as the highest guaranteed year as a maximum etc.
That said, we are barely having any problems now, and we don't even punish teams that break the rules now, I'm not sure we are going to be able to expect to enforce a 50% limit.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 23, 2014 6:41:01 GMT -5
Part of the goal this offseason is to create the rules and implement the penalties. We always said lets set a penalty for this or that but when talks about what the penalty should be it immediately gets shut down by some saying its too harsh or not enough. We can never agree on a penalty.
Same thing is happening now with this team option discussion. We get mad over weak FA classes, etc but do nothing about it. I think we are 'looking the other way' if we really don't think teams are taking advantage of this rule. Raising the % shouldn't be a big deal if you really wanted to honor that contract. My strongly being against it makes me believe teams know its an advantage are running with it.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 23, 2014 7:08:53 GMT -5
Part of the goal this offseason is to create the rules and implement the penalties. We always said lets set a penalty for this or that but when talks about what the penalty should be it immediately gets shut down by some saying its too harsh or not enough. We can never agree on a penalty. Same thing is happening now with this team option discussion. We get mad over weak FA classes, etc but do nothing about it. I think we are 'looking the other way' if we really don't think teams are taking advantage of this rule. Raising the % shouldn't be a big deal if you really wanted to honor that contract. My strongly being against it makes me believe teams know its an advantage are running with it. Your example was a team offering a team option year worth 40% more than any of his other years of the deal. Ive yet to see anyone offer a contract like that.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 23, 2014 7:11:53 GMT -5
From my brief dealings with OOTP 15, i think negotiations are better. Draft picks are now "impossible" to sign as they are intent on going to college and their demands reflect that. I would assume (maybe wrongly) that other negotiations would be improved as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 7:14:01 GMT -5
In my opinion team options are the least of our worries. We had lengthy discussions about team options just a few seasons ago.
There are more pressing needs atm like discussing on cash included in trades to cover a players salary (for multiple years?), signing comp. eligible free agents after trading your first round pick, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 23, 2014 7:21:47 GMT -5
And to your weak free agency comment... How often do stars actually reach free agency? In recent years Pujols and Hamilton are guys that come to mind both rejected large team extensions and both had major question marks attached. Pujols = age, Hamilton = Injury History, Past. Neither player had worked out for Anaheim yet (although maybe Pujols has turned a corner)
The only time you see an ace pitcher is when a small market club cant afford him. We shouldnt be expecting a perennial all star to be in the free agent market.
|
|