Offical Proposal and Poll

[Andy Barnes]

The issue at hand is a combination of concerns about the retirement procedure and the structure of buyouts vs the salary cap structure.

Current System

• Retiring players are treated the same as any normal buyout.
  
• Buyouts require a 50% payment of all remaining guaranteed years, made in a one time payment during the current season.
  

Issues

• Teams are penalized for a retirement that was no fault of their own
  
• Teams end up frozen in salary cap due to the high price of buyouts and retirements
  

Proposed System

• Retired players would require a 50% buyout of current season and a 0% (yes zero %) buyout of all remaining seasons.
  
• Buyouts would be 50% of current season and 25% of all remaining seasons, overall value would be rounded to the nearest $0.50.
  

Pro's

• Teams would not be penalized for retiring players
  
• Reduced buyout rates would free up more cap space which would introduce more available money into trading and free agency
  

Con's

• There would be a potential loophole in free agency when bidding for players with impending retirements
  
• Previous buyouts would effectively penalize teams, when compared to the new structure.
  
• Introducing more money to the market could penalize teams that saved money during free agency.
  

Ways to Address the Con's

• Restructured buyouts and retirements would be back dated to affect all teams equally
  
• Free agency bidding on players with a retirement looming would need to be addressed.
  
• Introducing more money to the market would actually help the league and make it stronger in the long run.
  

This proposal is a rather large change to implement in the league, but in the grand scheme of things, it addresses some major concerns and would put the league in a much better position moving forward. If this is approved, it would become effective immediately and all previous buyouts/retirements would be subject to alteration under the new structure.

A mandatory league vote will be needed, with all 20 teams submitting their vote. Those teams with multiple managers, would need to come to an agreement on their vote.

** This thread will be a discussion forum for the proposal, so make sure you have a clear understanding before you make your decision. Once a vote is submitted it can not be changed. Those that vote against the proposal, it is asked that you state your concerns and discuss other options. **

[Andy Barnes]

I know one of the concerns would pertain to restructuring the buyouts that have previously been processed. I went ahead and research the possible outcome of that issue. Out of all the buyouts that this league has performed thus far, only 5 will be effected by this proposal.

Evan Meek
Contract: 4yrs $3
Processed buyout- $6
Proposed Buyout- $4

Brandon Allen
Contract: 4yrs $2
Processed buyout- $4
Proposed buyout- $2.50

Marlon Byrd
Contract: 2yrs $5
Processed buyout- $5
Proposed buyout- $4

Travis Wood
Contract: 4yrs $1
Processed buyout- $2
Proposed buyout- $1.50

Russell Martin
Contract: 4yrs $2
Processed buyout- $4
Proposed buyout- $2.50

So all in all, there will be a total of $6.50 reintroduced to the salaries of those teams involved, which really isn't that huge of a change, it's definitely not something that will alter the landscape of this league dramatically. For this issue, i think the end outweigh the means.

[Will Rubin]

I have two issues with this, and have therefore voted "no"

"There would be a potential loophole in free agency when bidding for players with impending retirements": There needs to be a penalty for putting a 4 year deal on a guaranteed 1 or 2 year player. The sliding scale needs to be there, whether it's 50-50-25-20 or whatever, there can't be that loophole.

"If this is approved, it would become effective immediately:" It needs to wait until the off season. Period. Otherwise, it's an unfair advantage for this season (my team included).

[Andy Barnes]

Jul 13, 2012 2:08:49 GMT -5 Will Rubin said:

I have two issues with this, and have therefore voted "no"

"There would be a potential loophole in free agency when bidding for players with impending retirements": There needs to be a penalty for putting a 4 year deal on a guaranteed 1 or 2 year player. The sliding scale needs to be there, whether it's 50-50-25-20 or whatever, there can't be that loophole.

"If this is approved, it would become effective immediately:" It needs to wait until the off season. Period. Otherwise, it's an unfair advantage for this season (my team included).

i also asked that you are well informed before you vote. so addressing those issues should have been done before you casted your vote. Like i said in my reply post, there are only 5 buyouts that would be affected, and the minimal gain in returned salary is not nearly as influential as it would seem. The loophole issue is suppose to be addressed in this thread, and if both of these issues are fixed, you are still locked in with a No vote....

[Will Rubin]

It affects the trade market though, where the scope of contracts that could be traded and then bought out is increased, which is a disadvantage to teams that have already made trades.

[Andy Barnes]

i dont see how the scope of contracts would increase or whatever....all teams are afforded the same opportunity to the new buyouts, and if anything it would increase the potential buyers/sellers because of the possible increased flexibility. i dont see how that increase in buyers/sellers would have affected any of the trades already made. its not like a team made a trade because only one team was interested or able to make that specific trade

[Deleted]

Did we not just have this discussion a month or two back? What's changed that we're looking at it again?

I don't think the proposed changes have been thought out very well either. Just from a quick glance, I have the following issues:

1. Changing transactions that have already happened is a significant issue for me. You can argue that they aren't that important, but when all pickups cost $1, adding $2 to someone's budget is a big deal. You can straight out buy a half-decent prospect for $2 in this league.

2. The new buyout rates mean that contracts are pretty meaningless. You can buy out a three year deal on the last day of the first year of the contract for the salary that you've already paid. You can get out of a four year deal by adding 25% to the salary already paid. Both of these are not sufficient deterrents to stop people making bad contracts.

3. I'm opposed to treating people who have officially retired differently from other players. Many players never officially retire, or don't do so until they've been unable to get a big league job for several years. Barry Bonds, for example, is still not officially retired. I think it's a significant problem to say that one guy gets a cheap buyout because his guy officially retired and another doesn't, because his guy just stopped playing. Also, official retirement is pretty meaningless - guys can unretire if they want to.

4. It's absolutely untrue to say that people are not to blame in most cases when a player retires. I chose not to bid seriously for Rivera, because I would only be prepared to offer a 1 or 2 year deal, because I knew there was a good chance he would retire soon. If someone offered him a four year deal, then fine, but they knew the risks.

This is supposed to be a league for knowledgeable people who are able to think strategically. Rescuing people when they make a mistake goes against that for me. Giving Rivera a four year deal and being surprised when he doesn't pitch all four years is like being surprised that you don't get 400 innings a year out of Ben Sheets and Brandon Webb.

If you really think this is a big issue (and I don't) a sensible amendment would be to limit the lengths of contracts based on age (I could support this for new free agents, but not changing agreed contracts retrospectively). One league I play in allows a maximum of 4 years for players 30 or under, 3 years for 31-34 year olds and 2 years for 35+. Something like that should deal with any issues quite effectively.

If you feel we must have some sort of accelerated buyout (and I don't), then it would be better to base it on something like that a player hasn't played an MLB game in the past year, rather than the meaningless official retirement.

I haven't voted yet, because I want to see what others have to say, but I think there are very serious weaknesses to this proposal, especially that it makes buyouts too cheap.

[Deleted]

I'm siding with Simon on this, specifically with the point of
"2. The new buyout rates mean that contracts are pretty meaningless. You can buy out a three year deal on the last day of the first year of the contract for the salary that you've already paid. You can get out of a four year deal by adding 25% to the salary already paid. Both of these are not sufficient deterrents to stop people making bad contracts."

Another thought, it has only affected 5 guys because a lot of people are nervous about cutting long-term contracts now. That's what we want right? If we make cutting long-term contracts easier then we've taken away a lot of the risk. I'm also withholding my vote for now.

[Deleted]

It's simple for me. Rules were decided before the draft for a reason. Teams depended on those rules as written. No mid-season changes.

If we want to change something for 2013, I'd listen. I don't believe standing pat with the rules puts the league in any danger.

Short and sweet for once.

[Deleted]

Simon said it best, "This is supposed to be a league of knowledgeable people who are able to think strategicallly."

The rules were discussed thoroughly. I believe most of us have the e-mails to prove it as well. There is no reason to change the rules because things got tough. I traded Wright and Price away because cap space dictated the moves, not because I wanted to get rid of them. This is what it is going to come down to for a while in this league. It is going to be tough decisions that you are not going to want to do, but rather deals that you have to do because of the constraint of rules that we are playing in. Everyone is in the position they are in because of the decisions they made. It is time to accept it and then figure a way to make your roster work, because these contracts are around for 3+ more years.

[robwilkinson777]

I vote no simply because we are In the middle of a season. Maybe address it again after the season

[Deleted]

I too voted against. I am all for changing the rule however I dont believe it should be changed until after the season.

[Andy Barnes]

in order for this proposal to pass a league vote it would have need >65% of the managers to vote yes. That would mean 14 yes votes. With the 8 no votes, that goal can not be reached, thus this proposal will not pass. It can be readdressed and tweaked and proposed again during the Winter Meetings, with a possible implementation (if passed) for the 2013 season.