|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 31, 2016 13:16:11 GMT -5
In the other league that a few of us are in, and I am sure in other leagues as well, they have an exception for salary relief for injured players. If a player retires unexpectedly due to injury, teams can get a 50% salary break once they no longer receive projections. The example being talked about in the MLBSA is Prince Fielder. He'll likely get a projection in 2017, which lucky for Ty is his last year under contract, but if he was under contract through 2018 or later, Ty could get a 50% salary break on his pay.
Is that something owners here might be interested in?
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Oct 31, 2016 13:56:38 GMT -5
I'm down with that.
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Oct 31, 2016 15:17:11 GMT -5
I am against this. Anything that makes a gm think twice before handing out a big contract is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Oct 31, 2016 16:02:37 GMT -5
I am against this. Anything that makes a gm think twice before handing out a big contract is a good thing. I agree with Brian. It's just another security blanket for monster deals. I once heard about a league that allowed a form of this in allowing long term deals to have a fixed annual insurance policy on a player (10% of annual pay), but I'm not sure I even like that.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 31, 2016 16:16:47 GMT -5
I'm leaning towards Team Bri-Han on this one. I think we currently have a neat dynamic where GMs can win a FA bid on an older player by going an extra year in free agency, knowing they probably won't get a projection that year, but it increases their chances of paying less per year up front.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Nov 1, 2016 10:34:41 GMT -5
I'm against this as well. Only out on a contract I see worth doing is the death clause which we already have.
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Nov 1, 2016 11:33:21 GMT -5
Im against this for all the above reasons. Like T-dog I think the Death clause should be the only option.
|
|