|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jul 22, 2015 21:56:58 GMT -5
I personally agree with you Fin the Commish is awesome thumbs up to him lol, certainly better then Rob Manfred and Bud Selig together And those bastards get paid!
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jul 23, 2015 8:25:54 GMT -5
Lets keep this simple and try to eliminate some of the by laws here. The following changes will be made:
1. Teams can offer players incentives in contracts but cannot exceed the following: Cy Young Award - No bonus MORE than $1,000,000 Most Valuable Player - No bonus MORE than $1,000,000 All Star Selection - No bonus MORE than $250,000 Plate Appearances (hitters) - No bonus MORE than $250,000, MAXIMUM Pas appearance allowed for bonus is 550 Innings Pitched (pitchers) - No bonus MORE than $250,000, MAXIMUM IP appearance allowed for bonus is 190
2. For contracts that include a vesting option, the following rules apply:
For starting pitchers (regardless of stamina): Games started: 30 games started MAX Innings pitched: 190 innings pitched MAX
For relief pitchers: Games finished: 30 saves MAX Innings pitched: 100 innings pitched MAX
For hitters: Plate appearances: 550 MAX Games played: 140 max
** Note **
This will eliminate the need for a calculator to do contracts or extensions, forget the percentages and set a hard number that can't be exceeded. For Starting pitchers, I determined the number of games started and innings pitched based on the top 100 last year. For relievers it was the same, top 100. Closers were based on top 25 average in saves. Hitters were done on a larger scale and took the average of over 200 players.
To make this easier as well, I will ask David (and if doesn't have time, I will do it) to create a cheat sheet on the PBL homepage where you can set as a favorite in your browser so you can just open it up and see a quick, easy and clean guideline when you offer extensions, etc.
This is pretty straightforward stuff here and I think a much cleaner, better way of handling things going forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 8:42:26 GMT -5
Lets keep this simple and try to eliminate some of the by laws here. The following changes will be made: 1. Teams can offer players incentives in contracts but cannot exceed the following: Cy Young Award - No bonus MORE than $1,000,000 Most Valuable Player - No bonus MORE than $1,000,000 All Star Selection - No bonus MORE than $250,000 Plate Appearances (hitters) - No bonus MORE than $250,000, MAXIMUM Pas appearance allowed for bonus is 550 Innings Pitched (pitchers) - No bonus MORE than $250,000, MAXIMUM IP appearance allowed for bonus is 190 2. For contracts that include a vesting option, the following rules apply:
For starting pitchers (regardless of stamina) : Games started: 30 games started MAX Innings pitched: 190 innings pitched MAX For relief pitchers:
Games finished: 30 saves MAX Innings pitched: 100 innings pitched MAX For hitters: Plate appearances: 550 MAX Games played: 140 max ** Note ** Giving a bonus to a batter for plate appearances is like here is 250k for going up to bat 500 times doesn't matter if you struck out in all of them
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 23, 2015 8:44:18 GMT -5
Lets keep this simple and try to eliminate some of the by laws here. The following changes will be made: 1. Teams can offer players incentives in contracts but cannot exceed the following: Cy Young Award - No bonus MORE than $1,000,000 Most Valuable Player - No bonus MORE than $1,000,000 All Star Selection - No bonus MORE than $250,000 Plate Appearances (hitters) - No bonus MORE than $250,000, MAXIMUM Pas appearance allowed for bonus is 550 Innings Pitched (pitchers) - No bonus MORE than $250,000, MAXIMUM IP appearance allowed for bonus is 190 2. For contracts that include a vesting option, the following rules apply:
For starting pitchers (regardless of stamina) : Games started: 30 games started MAX Innings pitched: 190 innings pitched MAX For relief pitchers:
Games finished: 30 saves MAX Innings pitched: 100 innings pitched MAX For hitters: Plate appearances: 550 MAX Games played: 140 max ** Note ** Giving a bonus to a batter for plate appearances is like here is 250k for going up to bat 500 times doesn't matter if you struck out in all of themThen dont give him a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jul 23, 2015 8:50:40 GMT -5
LOL. Simple as that....
Same can be said for innings pitched, why give an IP bonus to a guy with a +4 ERA? Sometimes teams value the ability of a player to stay healthy and on the field or on the mound and its worth the penny change to get it done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 8:59:43 GMT -5
That's the point if you want to give a player a bonus for the simple of fact of being out there doesn't matter if he's sucking, you should give him bonuses for games played that's the whole point, i personally prefer like for instance if there was a clause in Sotan Kóno's contract giving him like 5 mil in case he became the all time HR leader or like a bonus of 3 mil to Perez for every 300+ K season stuff like that
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 23, 2015 9:36:48 GMT -5
That's the point if you want to give a player a bonus for the simple of fact of being out there doesn't matter if he's sucking, you should give him bonuses for games played that's the whole point, i personally prefer like for instance if there was a clause in Sotan Kóno's contract giving him like 5 mil in case he became the all time HR leader or like a bonus of 3 mil to Perez for every 300+ K season stuff like that No one is forcing you to give bonuses in contracts. Some GM's like them. If the guy is striking out a ton and hes got a plate appearance or games played bonus... Sit him! Simple as that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 11:26:46 GMT -5
On the team option - what about eliminating multiple options. You can only have one option year (team option, player option or vesting) at the end of the contract. Keep it at 25% buyout but stop the multiple options to stop the manipulation of the last 2 years. From experience I know that having a team option followed by a player option does not work. You do get the salary break from a team option for the 1st year but the player picks up his option in the last year. That's why I have 24+ mil in misc player expenses this year. I took the team option last year for a bad 24m contract and it had one more year with a player option and the player took that option for 24m this year. I did not do this contract I inherited it but I thought if I took the team option it would void the player option. Nope he took it and that was the major reason I decided to rebuild and sale everything because no matter what I did I could not meet budget this year without losing a major piece and still not being able to replace players leaving in free agency. Who's this player you speak of that had a 24 mil player option this year? I think it was Sloan emerick. He was signed to a big contract before I took over the team and his ratings tanked. He had a team option followed by a player option at the end of the contract. I took the team option last year to save the salary then this offseason I see I have 24m in misc player salaries which was the cost of his full last year contract.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 23, 2015 15:00:42 GMT -5
Lets keep this simple and try to eliminate some of the by laws here. The following changes will be made: 2. For contracts that include a vesting option, the following rules apply:
For starting pitchers (regardless of stamina) : Games started: 30 games started MAX Innings pitched: 190 innings pitched MAX For relief pitchers:
Games finished: 30 saves MAX Innings pitched: 100 innings pitched MAX This is pretty straightforward stuff here and I think a much cleaner, better way of handling things going forward. Merely a question, not a complaint (as I too would like to minimize my use of mathematics - calculator or not)... There's always a way around these if you really do not want a contract to vest, but should it really matter or is the use of the pitcher determined by performance and not by trying to get out of a vesting responsibility?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 23, 2015 15:06:45 GMT -5
And not to introduce a brand new concept, but the Dodgers raised - at least in my mind - a VERY valid point. You would have to go long and hard to convince me that a PLAYER option following a TEAM option is not simply trying to coerce a player to sign with the intention of NEVER executing the team option and eliminating the last two years of a contract for the price on a single buyout.
But maybe that's just me.
I would suggest a PLAYER OPTION MAY NEVER FOLLOW ANY OTHER KIND OF OPTION YEAR or certainly not a TO.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jul 23, 2015 15:18:27 GMT -5
I agree to a player option should never follow any other option and Dave, you can add that to the rules as well. Quite obvious in my mind...
I'm not sure I follow your other post, what exactly is the question.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jul 24, 2015 7:17:06 GMT -5
As David has pointed out through research there are quite a few errors in this, see list below:
HAYES (CHIC) - features 200ip as a vesting year AND I believe an incorrect bonus payment "ip" LEON (SF) - features 200ip as a vesting year BIANCHETTI (KC) - features a 210ip bonus payment PEREZ (AZ) - features a 200ip vesting year PEREZ (SEA) - features an incorrect bonus payment "ip"
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.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 24, 2015 7:20:21 GMT -5
As David has pointed out through research there are quite a few errors in this, see list below: HAYES (CHIC) - features 200ip as a vesting year AND I believe an incorrect bonus payment "ip" LEON (SF) - features 200ip as a vesting year BIANCHETTI (KC) - features a 210ip bonus payment PEREZ (AZ) - features a 200ip vesting year PEREZ (SEA) - features an incorrect bonus payment "ip" 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. Why would contracts signed under the old rules be changed?
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Jul 24, 2015 7:48:00 GMT -5
As David has pointed out through research there are quite a few errors in this, see list below: HAYES (CHIC) - features 200ip as a vesting year AND I believe an incorrect bonus payment "ip" LEON (SF) - features 200ip as a vesting year BIANCHETTI (KC) - features a 210ip bonus payment PEREZ (AZ) - features a 200ip vesting year PEREZ (SEA) - features an incorrect bonus payment "ip" 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Jul 24, 2015 8:01:16 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. It was more in reference to Bianchetti which I think his whole contract should just be voided
|
|