Free agent rule change effectiveness

[Deleted]

So possible rules changes I want to discuss and their effectiveness:

1. Front loading of contracts: Currently the rule is the same as back loading. Is front loading really a bad thing? If anything I think front loading may be good for the league as it will push large amounts in bad contracts up to the front. This also helps rebuilding teams to front load a contract and then trade the player on the back end of the contract for value. There would still be restrictions but greatly reduced. Thoughts?


2. Is this being effective?
The maximum salary that may be offered in a one year contract is 15M
Average Annual Salaries >15M must be offered a minimum of 2 years.
Average Annual Salaries >18M must be offered a minimum of 3 years.
Average Annual Salaries > 22M must be offered a minimum of 4 years.
Average Annual Salaries exceeding 25M annually must exceed 4 years in length.

My main problem here is the 1 year 15M offers and the winner being first come first serve.

[Deleted]

1. There should not be any differentiation between front-loading and back-loading contracts. The rules framework is currently this:

The highest single year salary of a contract may not exceed AAS times 2.5.

In addition to Rule 7 minimum salary limits, the lowest single year salary of a contract may not be less than 40% of AAS.

This works just fine, I believe. I'm in another league with very similar rules (have been in that one since 2008), though they also add the following to their rules:

The longest you may sign a player to contract at the league minimum is two years. The longest you can sign a player to a contract with an average annual salary of less than $500,000 per year is three years.

There is a structure in place, and GMs have the flexibility to work within that structure. That said, don't tinker with special rules or incentives for front- or back-loading. The flexibility is already there. (I like to front-load when I can afford it, personally, but back-load when I need to. I like having that option.)

2. Regarding the second point...

Mar 7, 2013 17:49:58 GMT -5 @jordan said:

Is this being effective?
The maximum salary that may be offered in a one year contract is 15M
Average Annual Salaries >15M must be offered a minimum of 2 years.
Average Annual Salaries >18M must be offered a minimum of 3 years.
Average Annual Salaries > 22M must be offered a minimum of 4 years.
Average Annual Salaries exceeding 25M annually must exceed 4 years in length.

The question here is: what problem(s) are you trying to solve? Any time I see rules additions, I ask that question. So I ask it of you.

[Deleted]

Front loading:

There is also this rule:

The total of salaries in the first 1/2 or last 1/2 of the contract (in years) may not exceed 70% of the total contract dollars. If a contract covers an odd number of years, 1/2 of the middle year of the contract is counted in the last 1/2 of the contract.

This rule was originally just the 70% on the back half then the 250/40% rule posted above.

[Deleted]

Why do we even have that stipulation about the 70 percent? If you just state that the salary of a player can't be more than 40 percent of the AAS in any given year, don't you pretty much resolve any issues?

Example: Bob Smith, AAS $12.2M, five-year contract = $61.0M

40 percent of 12.20 is 4.88.

Highest salary: 12.20 + 4.88 = $17.08M
Lowest salary: 12.20 - 4.88 = $7.32M

13: $7.32M
14: $7.32M
15: $12.20M
16: $17.08M
17: $17.08M

Are we trying to avoid a situation like this? If so, why?

[Deleted]

We are trying to avoid a situation like this:
6 years
AAS: 12.2M

13: 4.88M
14: 4.88M
15: 4.88M
16: 4.88M
17: 23.18M
18: 30.5M

or

AAS: 20M
13: 8M
14: 8M
15: 8M
16: 8M
17: 38M
18: 50M

Because by the time that player gets to the bad part of the contract the person that made the contract is most likely gone.

[Deleted]

I am completely against backloaded contracts like this because I dont think it is good for the league. However the opposite of that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Example:
13: 50M
14: 38M
15: 8M
16: 8M
17: 8M
18: 8M

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2013 23:11:07 GMT -5 @jordan said:

We are trying to avoid a situation like this:
6 years
AAS: 12.2M

13: 4.88M
14: 4.88M
15: 4.88M
16: 4.88M
17: 23.18M
18: 30.5M

or

AAS: 20M
13: 8M
14: 8M
15: 8M
16: 8M
17: 38M
18: 50M

Because by the time that player gets to the bad part of the contract the person that made the contract is most likely gone.

Well there's your problem! In my opinion, you should never, ever have this. Ever.

I realize now the other league I'm in IS different than this league, and I've just been interpreting the rules here incorrectly. (We HAVE to clear up these rules; they're a mess.)

What I propose: change the rule to "the salary of a player may not vary by more than 40 percent of the AAS in any given year, i.e. yearly salary >= 60 percent AAS; yearly salary <= 140 percent of AAS." See my previous example. You find out what 40 percent of the AAS is and that's how you determine max and min salary in any given year. Simple. Done. None of these extra rules about 70 percent in half the years and all that. It would be simple, effective, and we wouldn't have to worry about this front- and back-loading stuff.

Thanks for making me aware of this, because I've apparently been misinterpreting the rules here.

[Angels GM (Jason)]

I think what Shawn is purposing is very interesting. I would be in favor of a 60/140 rule. It sill gives a team flexibility in a deal and you don't have outrageous contracts like Dunn/Tex, in respect to front or back loading a contract.

If we do switch I would scratch the front/back loading rules we have now and just use the flat 40/140 (or what we decide) per year, not multiple variables.

Also I am in favor on changing the one year to a two year on a 15Mil AAS or higher contract, forces an owner to use more of a strategy when bidding.

[Deleted]

But then you still have a limit somewhere as to the maximum 1 year deal. Then people will bid that and its first come first serve.

My main thing with front loading is if it is really a bad thing? Sure it's not realistic but it can help teams with rebuilds. And helps put contracts at the beginning of deals. I am also all for simplifying. But someone could still put a nasty backload on a large contract with that proposal.
6 years 20m aas

12
12
12
28
28
28

[Deleted]

Mar 8, 2013 17:30:07 GMT -5 @jordan said:

But someone could still put a nasty backload on a large contract with that proposal.
6 years 20m aas

12
12
12
28
28
28

This is true. I threw the 60/140 number out there because that's what we use in our league. Admittedly, we also limit contract length to no more than five years in that league.

Arguably your above example is still not pretty, but my personal opinion is it's passable. A 70/130 rule would look like 14, 14, 14, 26, 26, 26. If you all really think it's important to not weigh too much, front or back, then I suppose you can add extra rules to limit it. But I am always a fan of logical simplicity. And I'll reiterate if we retain the extra weighing rules, I don't think it should make a difference whether it's front- or back-loaded. I say be consistent, either way.

[Deleted]

Well now I ran the math. This contract would work on the current structure as 84 is 70% of 120. So I guess this simplifies it but doesn't allow as much flexibility.