Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 19:18:17 GMT -5
Our edited and recompiled 2.0 rules — which I'll be posting soon — state the following about releasing a player:
"When releasing a major leaguer, the releasing franchise will be responsible for half of that player's salary for the duration of the contract unless that player is signed to a contract by another franchise. In that case, continued responsibility for that player's salary may be reduced or even negated in full. However, if said player remains unsigned, you must continue to count half of that player's salary against your cap until his contract expires."
This means if you release a player with a multi-year contract, you're forced to pay out half of the salary owed with each year.
I propose a slight change. I would like to add an option (strictly optional) for a manager to pay the entire contract value in one year. Example:
You have Josh Jones on a 16: $4.0M, 17: $6.0M, 18: $5.0M contract. Normally you'd be forced to pay $2.0M in '16, $3.0M in '17, and $2.5M in '18. However, with this new option, you wish to release Jones but take the cap hit for 2016 only. When you post your release, you'd say something like "I release Jones and choose to pay out the entire contract in 2016 for a total of $7.5M." Thus, you'd be on the hook for $7.5M in 2016 but not owe anything for Jones in '17 and '18.
The potential revised text:
"When releasing a major leaguer, the releasing franchise has two options:
1. pay half of that player's salary for the duration of the contract unless that player is signed to a contract by another franchise, or
2. pay half of that player's combined remaining salary in the year released."
Potential problems
1. As worded, the releasing franchise could just use the loophole of releasing the player in the offseason before December 31 and not be on the hook for any money the following year. Of course, this is a huge problem. If we allowed a pay-it-all-in-one-year option, you'd have to set a deadline for that option. In my head, I envision adding something like this to the above:
2. A team could potentially take Josh Jones (16: $4.0M, 17: $6.0M, 18: $5.0M), release him on May 12, 2016, be on the hook for $7.5M, and then resign Jones to a much lesser contract such as Josh Jones (16–18: $0.6M). I don't know if this is a problem per se, but I mention it nonetheless.
Why?
I would like to allow a team a bit more flexibility in their releases and budget without creating an unfair advantage. At question is whether or not such a change would be overbalanced.
"When releasing a major leaguer, the releasing franchise will be responsible for half of that player's salary for the duration of the contract unless that player is signed to a contract by another franchise. In that case, continued responsibility for that player's salary may be reduced or even negated in full. However, if said player remains unsigned, you must continue to count half of that player's salary against your cap until his contract expires."
This means if you release a player with a multi-year contract, you're forced to pay out half of the salary owed with each year.
I propose a slight change. I would like to add an option (strictly optional) for a manager to pay the entire contract value in one year. Example:
You have Josh Jones on a 16: $4.0M, 17: $6.0M, 18: $5.0M contract. Normally you'd be forced to pay $2.0M in '16, $3.0M in '17, and $2.5M in '18. However, with this new option, you wish to release Jones but take the cap hit for 2016 only. When you post your release, you'd say something like "I release Jones and choose to pay out the entire contract in 2016 for a total of $7.5M." Thus, you'd be on the hook for $7.5M in 2016 but not owe anything for Jones in '17 and '18.
The potential revised text:
"When releasing a major leaguer, the releasing franchise has two options:
1. pay half of that player's salary for the duration of the contract unless that player is signed to a contract by another franchise, or
2. pay half of that player's combined remaining salary in the year released."
Potential problems
1. As worded, the releasing franchise could just use the loophole of releasing the player in the offseason before December 31 and not be on the hook for any money the following year. Of course, this is a huge problem. If we allowed a pay-it-all-in-one-year option, you'd have to set a deadline for that option. In my head, I envision adding something like this to the above:
"In the case of option two, the following must additionally be followed: If the player is released between January 1 and May 31, the entire contract can be paid off in that year; if the player is released from June 1 to December 31, half that year's contract is paid that year and the rest of the contract can be paid off the following year. Example: Josh Jones (16: $4.0M, 17: $6.0M, 18: $5.0M) is released on May 12, 2016. The releasing team can optionally be on the hook for $7.5M in 2016 only. However, if Jones is released on July 29, the releasing team must pay $2.0M in '16 and then can pay the rest off, $5.5M, in '17.
If a player exercises option two, there is no changing the option later. Additionally, the option to reduce or negate in full a contract due to another team signing the player to a new contract would be voided."
If a player exercises option two, there is no changing the option later. Additionally, the option to reduce or negate in full a contract due to another team signing the player to a new contract would be voided."
2. A team could potentially take Josh Jones (16: $4.0M, 17: $6.0M, 18: $5.0M), release him on May 12, 2016, be on the hook for $7.5M, and then resign Jones to a much lesser contract such as Josh Jones (16–18: $0.6M). I don't know if this is a problem per se, but I mention it nonetheless.
Why?
I would like to allow a team a bit more flexibility in their releases and budget without creating an unfair advantage. At question is whether or not such a change would be overbalanced.