|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2016 19:53:50 GMT -5
You use Josh Donaldson, I use Jhonny Peralta. There are plenty of examples, such as Albert Pujols, that show why contracts that pay the same amount every year are not equal to all parties. Player X is 32 years old and you want a 6 year deal. The production at 38 most likely won't be at the level of age 32, so that's why I feel like front loading contracts shouldn't just be outright eliminated. I'll pay you now but later when you aren't at the same level, I want that $ so I can spend it on other areas to improve. Of the proposals I've seen so far,I prefer Shane's proposal of limiting the term of the contracts and thus increasing the salary while also eliminating that additional time needed for Zevin so that Derek can use it how he wishes. I believe this addresses the concern with negotiations, still allows for creativity on the GM side, and also increases salary for each player. I think we really wouldn't have to change the rules we have in place, other than putting the cap on 3 years to resign your own player. A win-win-win scenario! Sorry, not familiar with the Peralta contract IRL, so I had to look it up. Free agent, age 32, signs with STL for $15-15-12-10 (in round figures) over four years. * Oddly enough the 15-12-10 is very close to 20%, so maybe, as you pointed out Sean, my proposed 20% might work on a front-load as well. It's more complicated than simply flat, but no more complicated than the Back-load concept? But, let's leave that alone for now. Donaldson is 30, obviously late bloomer, and the rest of his MLB story is above. BUT a crucial distinction, for me anyway, is that he is NOT a free agent but still under team control, so not an apples to apples comparison in this instance. I merely suggest for simplicity my proposal apply universally, but the intent is to protect the controlled players and extensions, as was Zevin's. I totally see the Pujols deal as horrific (and there are others of course) but his team signed that free agent deal! As did STL with Peralta, a free agent. Plus if you are apprehensive about performance in later years, then don't do six years (I did cite several other options). The elephant in the room is the "next" Harper, Trout, Donaldson, Strasburg, Greinke, etc. in PBL sign a heavily/obscenely front-loaded contract, after their final arb year and still under team control, so that in their prime they are making a fraction of the value the current MLB version is. In my opinion that's not flexibility, it's game-breaking, IF the intent is to simulate MLB to any degree, which is essentially what the league did by using the MLB start. Good discussion. I know he's up to his eyeballs, but I would love to hear input from Zevin?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2016 10:26:10 GMT -5
Perfect Timing. An extension that essentially captures everything I have proposed in this thread has just been completed. I will LINK TO MY COMMENTS ON IT HERE. I am admittedly biased, but I think the timing is right for this Zevin alternative proposal.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 8:19:07 GMT -5
After some additional thought, and review of other leagues I'm in, and to keep things as simple as possible (which was requested earlier and is always a good thing) here's a re-worked contract rule that I think is very tight. The intention being to get through arbitration, establishing player value in the game, after which hopefully longer, veteran contracts will preserve player value. The 5/100 Rule - Until a player has reached 5 years & 100 days of ML Service Time no more than a two-year contract may be negotiated.
All contracts will have the following stipulations: 1. No front-loading whatsoever (including option years). 2. Back-loading limited to maximum increase of 20% year over year (including option years). 3. All team option years offered must include a 20% buyout. 4. A player option year may not follow any other type of option year.Any illegally negotiated front or back-loaded contracts will have all years of the contract changed to the value of the highest year as a guaranteed contract by the Commissioner.
Any illegally negotiated option year contracts will be changed to guaranteed years and to the highest yearly amount of any contract year, be it option or not, by the Commissioner.
If you are unsure of the legality of a contract offer, please contact the Commissioner before submitting the offer for clarification. Vesting year contracts may be offered, with the following maximum stipulations:
1. Starting Pitchers a. Games Started – 30 games b. Innings Pitched – 180 innings c. Games Finished – 10 (complete) games
2. Relief Pitchers a. Games Started – 10 (spot start) games b. Innings Pitched – 75 innings c. Games finished – 30 games
3. Batters a. Plate Appearances: 500 plate appearances b. Games Played: 140 gamesIncentive Clauses may be offered, and must be based on the vesting goals above, with the additional stipulation that the maximum of any incentive bonus is limited to $250,000.
Any illegally negotiated vesting option year contracts will be changed to a number that guarantees the bonus will be obtained in every year of the contract, by the Commissioner.
The vesting and incentive stuff is pretty standard right now, so do not focus on that.
The 5/100 is a framework that I believe works!
- Incredibly SIMPLE
- Everyone can easily view these numbers
- Walks a player through the arb process to establish value (be it on a one or two year contract - flexibility)
After that, the non-front-loading clause preserves the value, while the ability to offer any range of years, options, incentives, etc. provides the flexibility for ALL GM's to run their teams in a challenging way. And after 5/100 there is much more risk involved in signing outrageously long extension contracts under these conditions, which I also believe is a very good thing!!!
Please have a look at your team to evaluate any players you have that might be in the position of 5/100 in the next while. Again the intent is to get through arb with player value! Think big picture...long term health of the league...player value on par with MLB financial structure..."non-human ZEVIN"! I've linked this in the first post too! Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 8:58:23 GMT -5
Im still not understanding why you're so against front loading of a contract?!?!
It happens in real life. If it abides by the same 20% rule then how is that ANY different than back loading?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 10:27:41 GMT -5
Im still not understanding why you're so against front loading of a contract?!?! It happens in real life. If it abides by the same 20% rule then how is that ANY different than back loading? Anthony, OOTP is not real life, by a long shot. We all realize that of course. I am against certain kinds of front-loaded contracts, like younger players being extended with heavy, in fact, any front-loading. In my opinion, it's unrealistic as a young player should still be attempting to maximize his income early in his career OR if the team is offering to extend him because they like his production! Especially true of a lengthy contract offer. Or he would logically seek free agency if a deal cannot be reached, to his advantage, where again he can maximize his income with a new contract in a competitive environment. I do acknowledge Sean's earlier point that a 30+ free agent might be a candidate for moderate front-loading as the number will hopefully be higher to begin with. If he would agree to that in the game? In order to keep the rule as simple as possible, I proposed no front-loading at all. I would be willing to compromise however, if this actually went anywhere, of course. In fact, I just may like this even more, despite the extra line. THANK YOU for the input on this!!! Seriously, THANK YOU both!!! How about: The 5/100 Rule - Until a player has reached 5 years & 100 days of ML Service Time no more than a two-year contract may be negotiated.All contracts will have the following stipulations: 1. No front-loading of extensions whatsoever (including option years). 2. Front-loading limited to maximum decrease of 20% year over year (including option years) for free agent contracts only. 3. Back-loading limited to maximum increase of 20% year over year (including option years) in all cases. 4. All team option years offered must include a 20% buyout. 5. A player option year may not follow any other type of option year.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 10:49:22 GMT -5
Ill use the Braves as an example. I have 29 million right now in projected payroll (will be less after nontendering several players.) so that will leave me 30-40 million to add payroll (no way in hell im adding that much though...)
But anyways, why shouldn't i be able to front load a contract to a guy, to save me a few million in the years when Mario Soto is eligible for arbitration and making a boatload of money? Thats what im not understanding... Im trying to be financially smart here.. There is a time and a place for front loading contracts and NOT just for free agents.
To be honest, outside of a veteran or two that are 40 and popular, I don't have anyone that legally can be extended.
I just dont understand why i and other teams should be handcuffed if i wanna pay a guy MORE money now while its available.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 11:22:13 GMT -5
Ill use the Braves as an example. I have 29 million right now in projected payroll (will be less after nontendering several players.) so that will leave me 30-40 million to add payroll (no way in hell im adding that much though...) But anyways, why shouldn't i be able to front load a contract to a guy, to save me a few million in the years when Mario Soto is eligible for arbitration and making a boatload of money? Thats what im not understanding... Im trying to be financially smart here.. There is a time and a place for front loading contracts and NOT just for free agents. To be honest, outside of a veteran or two that are 40 and popular, I don't have anyone that legally can be extended. I just dont understand why i and other teams should be handcuffed if i wanna pay a guy MORE money now while its available. Two points I guess, and I hope I am clear? First, thanks for highlighting Mario Soto. He is a prime, possibly best, example of a player that should be totally protected in online OOTP in order to maximize his income to the fullest. He is clearly a STUD and should, in my opinion, be walked through free agency on no more than two year contracts. He SHOULD be paid extremely well through arb, in no way front-loaded at all, even over two years and if you offer an extension once he has cleared 5 years 100 days, then you should be paying him to the eyeballs. He's a STUD! And, should he ever demand way too much that it becomes a burden on your team, that's a challenging decision about how to manage your roster and to generate the wins and money to sustain it. If you have a bunch of these studs, then a humongous challenge. But it should be. If eventually you are forced to make financial decisions on any and all of these contracted players and choose to let him walk to free agency, you would qualify him of course, get a draft pick when he declines and he will possibly be another Bianchetti in free agency. I love that whole concept, start to finish, and think that is a great example! So thank you again. To me, that's highly appropriate for a stud player in the league. Second, a quick review of your salary list does indeed show that you would not have many opportunities to extend players as the majority are all very young and still entry level or arb. You have a team for the future. So right now you will have a ton of money and offering multi-year extensions to all those types of players is specifically what I suggest should be avoided. Every young player, whether good to very good to SOTO, should be trying to maximize their dollars early in their career, especially if they are producing. They're good and should be paid. OOTP doesn't do well in this area, as we all know. I guess, rightfully so, you are thinking only as the GM, while I am proposing a hands-off alternative to Zevin, to maximize player values and protect them where the AI is really bad in OOTP. With a WHISL or other veteran players, as you're doing, you can augment your youth, while they develop, with free agents on any length of contract and, now that I have compromised, front or back-loaded as set out above. Then when the youth gets better, you go with them, while they walk through their initial contracts to become more and more valuable. It should be a real challenge to juggle great talent on a World Series calibre team! And it should be a challenge to balance veteran and young stud contracts to achieve that goal. And if your team is all youth, that's a problem for you, as I think you're describing. You have young players that deserve to be paid mega bucks, just not right now, so you have tons of cash. And likely your owner is edging the budget down because of that. You can put that cash into development and/or scouting to use some of it up but correct, in your specific case extending young players is not yet part of the plan. I hope I have explained my point of view for you?
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 11:27:55 GMT -5
You missed the point of my entire post. I never said ANYTHING about extending Soto and used his Arbitration as an example as to why i should be allowed to front load OTHER contracts to make room for his bloating salary
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 11:33:27 GMT -5
Sorry, I might have gotten ahead of myself.
Anthony,
Do you agree in principle with the 5/100 concept above as a way of protecting young players, SOTO being a fantastic example?
And would you agree that in no way would a SOTO ever accept a front-loaded contract of any kind, pretty much ever (until he's possibly 40+)?
Posted at same time. Already answered. At least we're on the same page.
So who are you thinking about front-loading? And roughly by how much?
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 11:33:50 GMT -5
If say Giraldo Corner was 35. Hes a declining player, hitting about .170... Hes popular with the fans and since im trying to boost revenue and get fans to the game.. Why cant he be locked up to a front loaded deal (since i have the available funds)? That's what im not understanding, that's what I find frustrating about this entire debate. Why am i forced to pay him either MORE down the road or a flat rate when he isnt going to be the same player 2 years from now? I have the money now... Why cant I spend my money now?!?!?!?!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 11:35:11 GMT -5
Im not arguing about the 5/100. Im fine with that. Im arguing about front loaded contracts. I see no reason that they shouldnt be allowed. Period. Regardless if its an extension or free agent signing. As long as it goes by the 20% clause, I don't see any issue with it
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 11:54:43 GMT -5
If say Giraldo Corner was 35. Hes a declining player, hitting about .170... Hes popular with the fans and since im trying to boost revenue and get fans to the game.. Why cant he be locked up to a front loaded deal (since i have the available funds)? That's what im not understanding, that's what I find frustrating about this entire debate. Why am i forced to pay him either MORE down the road or a flat rate when he isnt going to be the same player 2 years from now? I have the money now... Why cant I spend my money now?!?!?!?! Croner - OK We're getting specific, but I'll argue my point. You signed Croner to a one-year contract for $2M prior to this season as a free agent. My proposal would allow you to sign a free agent to a front-loaded contract of any length and any initial amount, with a 20% year over year decrease. Had that been in place prior to this season, no problem, you could have signed him in that way. You could let him walk and, should this proposal be in place prior to next season, sign him that way. He is 42 and .170? Or just find another player of that type, possibly better, after this season and he's walked. My intention all along, and trying to maintain the spirit and intent of ZEVIN, is to protect valuable talent, especially in their prime, when extending. Once they hit free agency, as with Croner, then the market dictates their value. But I guess I am also protecting against really absurb front-loaded deals for 42 year olds too. You're highlighting an exception, and I'm sure other examples could be brought forward too, but I will still stay with my amended proposal as now being very solid!
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 11:59:51 GMT -5
Or, as I suggested long ago in this thread, you could extend him with a series of one-year deals, two-year deals, do one or two and option years, etc. There are many alternatives to front-loading something longer!
Again, for simplicity, I (emulating Zevin) am protecting against a 27-year old stud (or similar) from being front-loaded, when they should be maximizing their salary!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 11, 2016 11:59:54 GMT -5
Again, youve missed my point. I created a hypothetical because I don't have ANYONE to resign and actually haven't resigned any player in the last 3 or 4 seasons.
In my hypothetical he was 35 and I wanted to resign him for the fans...
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 11, 2016 12:00:48 GMT -5
Again, youve missed my point. I created a hypothetical because I don't have ANYONE to resign and actually haven't resigned any player in the last 3 or 4 seasons. In my hypothetical he was 35 and I wanted to resign him for the fans... Double-posted again. See above.
|
|