|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 25, 2016 7:11:33 GMT -5
We currently have a couple of FA offers that are $800K in Year 1 and $3.2M in Year 2. I am set to call them illegal. But then I noticed the Tigers picked up in FA Michael Bourne and Tommy Pham with the same contract and we missed it. What should we do in the Tigers case and the Pirates pending offer?
The total of salaries in the first half or the last half of the contract (in years) may not exceed 70 percent of the total contract dollars. If a contract covers an odd number of years, half of the middle year of the contract is counted in the last half of the contract
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on Mar 25, 2016 7:47:35 GMT -5
Because the tigers' bidl was missed I say we allow the pirates to stand then stress the rule next week. The pirates' owner is somewhat new so, I'm willing to give a mulligan to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 25, 2016 8:02:43 GMT -5
Works for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Mar 25, 2016 8:22:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 9:08:53 GMT -5
Agreed let it go this week and enforce it next week
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 10:26:32 GMT -5
I thought we had a rule that you can structure a contract any way we see fit if it's under 10M
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 25, 2016 12:07:45 GMT -5
Backend loading of contracts is a concern for this league. Those contracts sure feel good to the winner since those latter years can get loaded up, allowing current year salary to stay lower and manageable and help prop up AAS. However, these contracts can become major hindrances later on. As such:
1. The highest single-year salary of a contract may not exceed 2.5x the AAS.
2. The lowest single-year salary of a contract may not be less than 40 percent of the AAS.
3. For any contract that has an AAS of $20M or more, all contract years must be between 80 and 120 percent of the AAS value. All other rules still apply.
4. The total of salaries in the first half or the last half of the contract (in years) may not exceed 70 percent of the total contract dollars. If a contract covers an odd number of years, half of the middle year of the contract is counted in the last half of the contract.
For example, a franchise offers Joe Jones a five-year contract at an AAS of $13M, totaling $65M, and annual salaries of $6M, $6M, $6M, $15M and $32M. This contract is legal from the standpoint of lowest (40 percent AAS) and highest (250 percent AAS) yearly salaries. However, the last half of the contract totals $50M, or 77 percent of the contract. Therefore, the franchise's bid would be ruled invalid. An additional $4.5M of the back half would have been necessary in the first half of the contract for the bid to have been valid.
5. A franchise may only offer an AAS up to 30 percent of their salary cap (as declared in section 3) to a single player. Thus:
Tier 1 – Yankees ($155M cap): Max contract AAS = $46.5M
Tier 2 – Angels, Cubs, Dodgers, Mets, Mariners, Red Sox, Tigers, White Sox ($140M cap): Max contract AAS = $42M
Tier 3 – Astros, Blue Jays, Braves, Cardinals, Giants, Orioles, Phillies ($120M cap): Max contract AAS = $36M
Tier 4 – Brewers, Diamondbacks, Indians, Padres, Rangers, Reds, Rockies, Twins ($110M cap): Max contract AAS = $33M
Tier 5 – Athletics, Marlins, Nationals, Pirates, Rays, Royals ($100M cap): Max contract AAS = $30M
It says nothing about a $10M minimum. I believe the concern is back loading to make a run and quitting when that time is over leaving the team with horrible contracts that no one would want to take on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 13:01:29 GMT -5
Just to be certain, I searched the old rules for anything about "10 million" or "10M" and only found reference to the offseason allowance of being $10M over your salary cap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 15:02:33 GMT -5
To be honest, the 70% rule seems a little excessive to me. We already have the 80%/120% rule for anything that is over $20M and the normal 40% for lowest year and 2.5M for highest year for every bid. I don't think the structure of a $2M AAS contract really deserves to be vetoed, especially since it doesn't seem to be structured in an egregious way. Maybe we should consider removing the 70% rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Mar 25, 2016 17:21:50 GMT -5
To be honest, the 70% rule seems a little excessive to me. We already have the 80%/120% rule for anything that is over $20M and the normal 40% for lowest year and 2.5M for highest year for every bid. I don't think the structure of a $2M AAS contract really deserves to be vetoed, especially since it doesn't seem to be structured in an egregious way. Maybe we should consider removing the 70% rule. No one has suggested vetoing the contract. Just enforcing the rules as they have been written for a long time. I made my contract offers under a 65% rule. If the 80% rule was an option I certainly might have considered it. So two or three of these versus hundreds under the old rules should be the basis for change? Let's all go back and revisit all of our new contracts then. If we have rules let's follow them. I think the chance for a change this year passed when we did the other rule changes. If you want to change it let's address it for the 2017 season. |
|
