|
Post by Sean..Mariners GM on Jul 24, 2015 8:32:03 GMT -5
Why would contracts signed under the old rules be changed? The Hayes, Leon and Perez (Sea) were just signed, under the existing rules and are in violation of those rules. Full disclosure - I was attempting to sign the second Perez and noticed he signed with Seattle, checked the contract and noticed the "ip" did not meet the existing rule. Not a huge deal as he's a nice, but not "Ace-like" piece, but the rule is the rule. That, in turn, prompted me to re-check the Hayes and the Leon as I remembered the "ip's" on their mega-deals. And then, frankly, the rest of the biggest contracts in the league (Bianchetti and the other Perez stood out, there might be others). I have no idea when the "ip" rule was implemented. If your point is not to alter the "older" agreements, like Bianchetti (signed in 2031) then whatever is decided is fine of course. But the others are all new contracts and should be adjusted to conform to the rule that existed at signing, in my opinion only of course. I think that's only fair. Perez became a free agent as of 29 November as a SP. He was my #4 or 5 guy last year and pitched 170 innings in 32 starts. I signed him as a SP on 7 December to the new contract. Somewhere along the way I switched him to a RP as I noticed his stamina was 4. His stamina did drop from 5 to 4 on the 6th of November before he became a free agent so that's what caught me and I overlooked it. I'm not trying to get out of whatever fine or punishment I'm due. Just explaining the justification of giving him the bonus for innings pitched.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Jul 24, 2015 10:24:09 GMT -5
As David has pointed out through research there are quite a few errors in this, see list below: ... LEON (SF) - features 200ip as a vesting year
... I think the best way of fixing this is to give teams a deadline to self report any violations and it will be fixed without penalty. In the past, Rob was a huge help in this as he was willing to go through this tedious task. I'd be open to finding someone to help with this aspect and report to me to fix or address any issues. I will set up a CLEAR, easy to follow guideline to contracts to help out but , I will allow everyone from now until May 6th (in-game date, one month after opening day) to report any mistaken incentives. * The rule will be amended to say Stamina instead of endurance as David pointed out as well. During the Leon negotiations, Zevin proposed the vesting option based on 200 IP. Frankly, I just went with it without checking the rules. I had totally forgotten about maximums. It is perfectly fine with me if the Commish revises the base for the vesting option from 200 IP to 190 IP. Or, since the contract was signed before Derek created the new list, to 180 IP. Either is fine with me. Do what you think is fair. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Jul 24, 2015 10:31:36 GMT -5
A suggestion. What if every year for roll call. The commish puts a link to the rules and by stating that we are back a year we are also saying we have read and understand the rules?
|
|
|
Post by Tim_GiantsGM on Aug 20, 2015 16:57:30 GMT -5
As David has pointed out through research there are quite a few errors in this, see list below: ... LEON (SF) - features 200ip as a vesting year
... I think the best way of fixing this is to give teams a deadline to self report any violations and it will be fixed without penalty. In the past, Rob was a huge help in this as he was willing to go through this tedious task. I'd be open to finding someone to help with this aspect and report to me to fix or address any issues. I will set up a CLEAR, easy to follow guideline to contracts to help out but , I will allow everyone from now until May 6th (in-game date, one month after opening day) to report any mistaken incentives. * The rule will be amended to say Stamina instead of endurance as David pointed out as well. During the Leon negotiations, Zevin proposed the vesting option based on 200 IP. Frankly, I just went with it without checking the rules. I had totally forgotten about maximums. It is perfectly fine with me if the Commish revises the base for the vesting option from 200 IP to 190 IP. Or, since the contract was signed before Derek created the new list, to 180 IP. Either is fine with me. Do what you think is fair. Thanks. Reminder: Derek, please change the vesting option for Juan Leon from 200 IP to 190 IP. Thanks.
|
|