|
Post by Texas Rangers on Apr 23, 2014 20:11:34 GMT -5
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 I like this idea, it solves this as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Apr 23, 2014 20:20:59 GMT -5
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 I like this idea, it solves this as far as I can tell. To allow for contracts with an equal salary amount for more than one year, or all years, in a contract, worded to read something like "a salary in an option year can not be greater than any of the other annual salaries in the contract." Simple. Effective. Easy to monitor. I like the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 23, 2014 20:34:17 GMT -5
So, first of all... I am all for simplicity. We have enough trouble with rules adherence without making a multi-tiered solution. So what about this--- If you want to do ANY team option years, the requirement is that EVERY year of the contract is the same, period. The 25% buyout still applies on any team option year. But whether it is a 1 year contract or an 8 year contract, if you want to include ANY team option years... all years must pay at the exact same amount. If, on the other hand, you want to front-load, back-load, or scale your annual salary in a deal... then team options become illegal. This would allow us to keep at the 25% which the majority seem to feel is fair, and not allow any "cheating the system" that Derek (maybe others) have alluded to. I have never felt it was gaming the system at all, still don't... but is this a solution that makes everyone happy? And Derek... I have to agree with Dodgers on something. Most importantly, you get final say. We all accept that. If not, we would put everything to a vote. This is not a democracy, and we appreciate you allowing us to have our voices heard. But you can't really be upset because we shot your ideas down. I assure you, it's nothing personal... no shocker that 32 guys come with 32 different opinions. And with that said, if you guys all shoot down my ALL NEW TEAM OPTION idea... I think I'll just drop this silly league. Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Apr 23, 2014 20:39:57 GMT -5
Why is it so important to keep the 25 percent?
Seriously, what's wrong with 50?
Until OOTP can understand options in a way WE DO, anything that helps the players make more money for accepting options is good IMO
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 23, 2014 20:43:33 GMT -5
I will tell you why. If it's at 50%, you can pretty much throw OUT team options altogether. At 50%, I will never, EVER use them. Team Options bring intrigue and variance, and I'll bet I'm not the only one who will never use them again. When Derek says... if you won't pay 50%, then you had no intention of paying out that year. YES, EXACTLY!! I want the OPTION. But at 50%... what a waste, imo. Just not interested in that number at all. If Derek decides to roll at 50, I am a big boy, and I'll adapt with no hard feelings. But I think it's too high by a longshot.
Now my question... what about my idea? What's wrong with that one? Just curious.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Apr 23, 2014 20:56:58 GMT -5
When Derek says... if you won't pay 50%, then you had no intention of paying out that year. YES, EXACTLY!! I want the OPTION. But at 50%... what a waste, imo. Now my question... what about my idea? What's wrong with that one? Just curious. Tim / KC You have made my point. The game doesn't know you have no plans of paying out that year. The game can be stupid. Team options do not work they way they do in real life, and i take it realism is important. 50% makes it tougher on us. I love that. To answer your question, I don't really like the idea. It takes away even more flexibility we have in contracts. I'm more likely never to use team options in that scenario. Now, I am aware that I'm kinda contradicting myself. First, I say i want things tougher, and then I say I want flexibility. Well, what I want is something that best represents a realistic world. I think 50% does that, while your solution doesn't. I also don't think the goal is to eliminate team options. Just to make the team take on more risk to make up for the CPU's real inability to handle them.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 23, 2014 21:00:37 GMT -5
Thanks for the response, friend. Appreciate the feedback. You make some fair points, and we can respectfully disagree. On other hand... I would say this. I have probably PAID on my team option years MORE than half the time. I'll bet others have too. This supports it being used as an OPTION, not a trick.
But hey, I get where you are coming from.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Apr 23, 2014 21:02:41 GMT -5
I agree with that Tim. In my OOTP career, I'd bet I'm around 50% on how many options I've ended picking up that i never expected to. It's one of those reasons I like the 50% rule.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 23, 2014 21:25:47 GMT -5
Ive still yet to see a single problem with the current 25% so I'm still not understanding why we need to change this and take team options away from teams. For example.. Cole Hamels has a team option. His buyout is 6 mil. Slightly more than 25% since his highest year is 22.5 million. I just 50% is crazy. I could be on board with 30 or 35..and even adding buyouts to player options since currently there isnt any rule. I just completely disagree with 50%.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Apr 23, 2014 21:42:34 GMT -5
Ive still yet to see a single problem with the current 25% so I'm still not understanding why we need to change this and take team options away from teams. For example.. Cole Hamels has a team option. His buyout is 6 mil. Slightly more than 25% since his highest year is 22.5 million. I just 50% is crazy. I could be on board with 30 or 35..and even adding buyouts to player options since currently there isnt any rule. I just completely disagree with 50%. Thanks, Anthony. That is a perfect example of the ideas Tom, Danny, and I commented on in a mini-discussion above. The Hamels contract is relatively "flat", the final year of the contract is less than the year(s) with the highest dollar amount, and the buyout is at least 25% of the salary on the year(s) with the highest annual contract amount.
I like retention of the 25% minimum with the addition of the requirement Tom introduced. I could even go for the totally flat contract requirement Tim introduced, but I prefer allowing GM's to have at least some year-to-year salary amount flexibility. I do not care for the 50% minimum option.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 23, 2014 21:48:48 GMT -5
I personally am not a fan of flat contracts. If i have the money to front load a deal, i should be able to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 23, 2014 21:50:34 GMT -5
I personally am not a fan of flat contracts. If i have the money to front load a deal, i should be able to do so. And of course, I agree with you 100%. I was just looking for some middle ground to please everyone, lol. This would allow you still choose to frontload all you want... just not in conjunction with team options. It was just a thought. Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Apr 23, 2014 21:58:20 GMT -5
I really don't have any preference either way and am fine with whatever is decided, but what about trying out 35% to see how it works out? 25-50% is a pretty big jump.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Apr 23, 2014 22:00:11 GMT -5
Ive still yet to see a single problem with the current 25% so I'm still not understanding why we need to change this and take team options away from teams. For example.. Cole Hamels has a team option. His buyout is 6 mil. Slightly more than 25% since his highest year is 22.5 million. I just 50% is crazy. I could be on board with 30 or 35..and even adding buyouts to player options since currently there isnt any rule. I just completely disagree with 50%. Thanks, Anthony. That is a perfect example of the ideas Tom, Danny, and I commented on in a mini-discussion above. The Hamels contract is relatively "flat", the final year of the contract is less than the year(s) with the highest dollar amount, and the buyout is at least 25% of the salary on the year(s) with the highest annual contract amount.
I like retention of the 25% minimum with the addition of the requirement Tom introduced. I could even go for the totally flat contract requirement Tim introduced, but I prefer allowing GM's to have at least some year-to-year salary amount flexibility. I do not care for the 50% minimum option.
The one clear example why we might want to make an amendment to the team option rule is the contract Tom Chaulk signed.
An 8 year, $168M deal, with 2 team options of $5.5M each. The annual salary was paid out at $21M for this player. Would the last two team options have been tacked on if 50% were applied to the team options? $11M dollars each year?
So if your answer was no, then could the last 2 team option years have been the difference in the player signing? You see, the contract offer integrity enters the equation if you force GM's to put their money where their mouth is.
I like the 50% team option rule. In my mind, it works. If I am going to sign a player to a FA $10M deal, and apply a team option to the 3 year deal, it's fair for me to pay $5M to go away if he is not productive. But who is to say I will sign the player at that price, if a GM is willing to pay more?
So, again, the ebb of cost vs. value will enter the equation and contract integrity will prevail. That's how I see this rule helping the league remain honest with their contract offers with team options or pay a price. This is simple, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 23, 2014 22:09:40 GMT -5
No one else was giving Tom Chaulk anywhere close to the deal with the Twins.
|
|