|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 2, 2016 0:31:17 GMT -5
Just going to list a few real quick for people to yay or nay or give their two cents:
1. NTC Contracts cannot be waived - Right now owners can game the system by waiving a NTC player and as part of a deal, make an agreement that another team signs that player so Team A is off the hook for some of the salary. I've seen it happen. Or they can be waived during the Revocable Waiver period and another team can claim them and get them as long as they don't send compensation. I think NTC players should have to stay on your reserve or active roster and cannot be waived. You can waive or trade them after the season when the NTC disappears.
2. Change our calendar to a Weekly thing instead of by month. This would only affect the trade deadline, revocable waiver period, and the date in which players must be on your roster to be post season eligible. Making it the same week every year let's teams know exactly when deadlines are and we don't need to figure it out every season. Week 18 is trade deadline. Revocable Waivers are Weeks 19-22, and any player that isn't on your roster by Week 22 cannot be on your playoff roster. Simple.
3. Allow the $5MM buffer to be in effect starting Week 1 instead of Week 2. Right now teams are going into Week 1 with a sub optimal roster because they're leaving down XXX-3rd year players in favor of players with guaranteed contracts. Then for Week 2, they switch it up. Let's just let them do that in Week 1. There's really no reason not to except to be punitive to teams who overspent slightly. It would be less work for me and for about a half dozen owners each season.
4. Depending on what we do for Revoke Waivers, maybe increasing or eliminating altogether the $5MM max buffer at a certain point in the season. I don't think I'm in favor of doing away with it altogether any earlier than Week 16, but I might be swayed on that. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM on Nov 2, 2016 7:56:11 GMT -5
I'm good with all of them, especially not waiving NTC's and starting the $5 mil buffer week #1. I'm all for streamlining things and closing loopholes. Week to week makes a lot more sense than month to month. I'd be good with expanding the buffer instead of doing away with it for revocable waivers, maybe increasing it before the trade deadline? Doing away with it altogether has the potential for opening another can of worms.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Nov 2, 2016 8:20:40 GMT -5
I'm good with all of them, especially not waiving NTC's and starting the $5 mil buffer week #1. I'm all for streamlining things and closing loopholes. Week to week makes a lot more sense than month to month. I'd be good with expanding the buffer instead of doing away with it for revocable waivers, maybe increasing it before the trade deadline? Doing away with it altogether has the potential for opening another can of worms. All of this. |
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Nov 2, 2016 9:13:09 GMT -5
Just going to list a few real quick for people to yay or nay or give their two cents: 1. NTC Contracts cannot be waived - Right now owners can game the system by waiving a NTC player and as part of a deal, make an agreement that another team signs that player so Team A is off the hook for some of the salary. I've seen it happen. Or they can be waived during the Revocable Waiver period and another team can claim them and get them as long as they don't send compensation. I think NTC players should have to stay on your reserve or active roster and cannot be waived. You can waive or trade them after the season when the NTC disappears. 2. Change our calendar to a Weekly thing instead of by month. This would only affect the trade deadline, revocable waiver period, and the date in which players must be on your roster to be post season eligible. Making it the same week every year let's teams know exactly when deadlines are and we don't need to figure it out every season. Week 18 is trade deadline. Revocable Waivers are Weeks 19-22, and any player that isn't on your roster by Week 22 cannot be on your playoff roster. Simple. 3. Allow the $5MM buffer to be in effect starting Week 1 instead of Week 2. Right now teams are going into Week 1 with a sub optimal roster because they're leaving down XXX-3rd year players in favor of players with guaranteed contracts. Then for Week 2, they switch it up. Let's just let them do that in Week 1. There's really no reason not to except to be punitive to teams who overspent slightly. It would be less work for me and for about a half dozen owners each season. 4. Depending on what we do for Revoke Waivers, maybe increasing or eliminating altogether the $5MM max buffer at a certain point in the season. I don't think I'm in favor of doing away with it altogether any earlier than Week 16, but I might be swayed on that. Thoughts? #1: Why? If we place them on waivers we know we cannot receive compensation. If another team wants them and is willing to take on the contract so be it. This would also cut out teams with a surplus of cash being able to buy out a contract of a guy that didn't pan out. I agree with it as is, you cannot receive compensation for a guy under a NTC, but I see no good reason to keep a GM from waiving them without compensation. #2: I'm good with that, if it makes more sense for the EC to use weeks lets do it. #3: What is the point of the cap if a team doesn't have to hit it before the season starts. Yes it seems like nearly every year 1-2 gm's are at risk but even if they don't find a way to get back under we have a system set up for it. The committee picks the last FA (or FA's) that they signed and put them back into FA. Talk of a sub-optimal roster week 1 is on the GM not planning for his/her cap. Shouldn't we be punitive to teams that are over the cap when they know they have to be at/under the cap before the season begins? I'm all good with some type of change in-season. I say make it bigger or unlimited. I've yet to see a GM abuse it in my other league in 15 years and there is no buffer. The ones that went for it in a particular season were willing to go over and then figure out their cash flow in the offseason. Either way though, $20M or unlimited would be good in my view. #4. I'm against making a change for revokable waivers only, in relation to cap #'s. Either change it beginning week 2 or no change. The change offered to revokable waivers in my view is just going to benefit those of us that are active (Although I still do not like the limit of 12). Teams that are minimally active it will not do anything for them (or very little). I'd rather have no limit and let teams throw out anyone they want that is eligible for waivers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 10:31:50 GMT -5
I agree with Tracy on #3. I think the cap should be enforced for Week 1, it's the GMs fault if they overspent and are penalized a week for it.
As for #1, I'm not sure if NTCs have been abused by waiving a player but now that I look back, maybe this is in reference to me picking up Andy Wilkins after Oakland waived him after my A-Rod for a draft pick trade. To be honest, I didn't realize that Wilkins had a NYC and hadn't even thought about this situation until now, but see the point. The other side of it, though, is that the waiving team would still be hit with all future cash (except $1M for the following season), so I don't see how it's much of an advantage to either side. The waiving team gets $1M, the claiming team gets a player waived for a few months. This could all be spoiled if a team other than the intended team (in a hypothetical secret trade agreement) claims or signs the player first. I'm neither here nor there on this one, if the committee thinks it's a big enough deal to block this type of activity, I'm okay with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 2, 2016 10:43:16 GMT -5
Against #1 very much. Maybe if the NTC wasn't automatically baked into every multiyear deal, but since it is, I don't like losing the flexibility to waive a guy in the first year of their contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 2, 2016 12:22:20 GMT -5
(in a hypothetical secret trade agreement) It's not hypothetical. It happened in 2015. Connor waived a player, then made a trade with Scott, and as part of the agreement, Scott signed that player, thus lowering the amount Connor was on the hook for in 2015 and all of the 2016 salary. Hypothetically, the same could happen during the R-Waiver process too. Team A could waive a player and Team B pick them up. Then a week later, they make a deal where Team A is compensated for that player. It's a loophole that needs to be closed. Maybe changing it so they can only be waived in Week 26 so a deal like those above can't be done. If we've learned anything, it's that once a loophole is exposed in this league, it becomes a larger issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 2, 2016 12:52:11 GMT -5
1. I don't have any problem with this "loophole." Once someone is waived, they're exposed to the entire league, so which players are we actually talking about here? Guys that no other team will want at their signed contract?
2. And the reason I am so vehemently against any action to make NTC contracts unwaivable: the roster limit! We operate under a finite amount of roster space and add ~5 new draft picks each year. Free agency works so that you risk not being able to sign anyone of value if you wait until you're able to sign non-NTC contracts. So, it's essential to be able to waive these players at any point so you can fit players onto your roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 2, 2016 15:22:18 GMT -5
1. I don't have any problem with this "loophole." Once someone is waived, they're exposed to the entire league, so which players are we actually talking about here? Guys that no other team will want at their signed contract? Yes. That's who it was in 2015. And that's who I see it happening with more in the future. We can't say "no trade clause" for first season of a multi-year deal, and then allow them to be traded by circumventing that rule. That goes against the whole spirit of the NTC. And if we're going to say "no relief for players who retired due to injury" and "no leniency with a Week 1 buffer" but then say "you can waive players with a NTC that didn't pan out" we're being duplicitous. If we're going to tell owners that they must be held responsible for signing bad contracts, or even a good contract where the player ends up injured, or for going a few hundred thousand over their cap, we can't then let them off the hook in another section of the rules for doing the same thing. It's inconsistent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2016 16:27:00 GMT -5
1. I don't have any problem with this "loophole." Once someone is waived, they're exposed to the entire league, so which players are we actually talking about here? Guys that no other team will want at their signed contract? Yes. That's who it was in 2015. And that's who I see it happening with more in the future. We can't say "no trade clause" for first season of a multi-year deal, and then allow them to be traded by circumventing that rule. That goes against the whole spirit of the NTC. And if we're going to say "no relief for players who retired due to injury" and "no leniency with a Week 1 buffer" but then say "you can waive players with a NTC that didn't pan out" we're being duplicitous. If we're going to tell owners that they must be held responsible for signing bad contracts, or even a good contract where the player ends up injured, or for going a few hundred thousand over their cap, we can't then let them off the hook in another section of the rules for doing the same thing. It's inconsistent. Just to be clear, we are talking about during the revocable waiver period, correct? There should be no rule preventing a team from waiving a player from their roster so long as they are willing to deal with the financial repercussions. |
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 2, 2016 17:46:09 GMT -5
Yes. That's who it was in 2015. And that's who I see it happening with more in the future. We can't say "no trade clause" for first season of a multi-year deal, and then allow them to be traded by circumventing that rule. That goes against the whole spirit of the NTC. And if we're going to say "no relief for players who retired due to injury" and "no leniency with a Week 1 buffer" but then say "you can waive players with a NTC that didn't pan out" we're being duplicitous. If we're going to tell owners that they must be held responsible for signing bad contracts, or even a good contract where the player ends up injured, or for going a few hundred thousand over their cap, we can't then let them off the hook in another section of the rules for doing the same thing. It's inconsistent. The main difference here is that you're not taking money off of the books in this situation. The contract is guaranteed and fulfilled either through another team's purse or as a lump sum payment for the total contract amount. It seems to me you're hamstringing the league with a no movement clause to limit a potentially underhanded deal that requires a unique set of circumstances. The player needs to be overpaid enough to clear waivers (so he can be funneled to a particular team); the claiming team has to take on the risk that the waiving team won't renege on the deal once the player is claimed; and the official trade mustn't trip off any alarm bells for it to be reviewed/overturned by the committee. If you're hellbent on implementing this, then I suggest we drop NTCs from being baked into every multi-year contract. It can be an 'add-on' bonus or something in the contract calculator, but I am strongly opposed to a system where I'm forced to keep someone rostered. Just to be clear, we are talking about during the revocable waiver period, correct? There should be no rule preventing a team from waiving a player from their roster so long as they are willing to deal with the financial repercussions. If we're talking solely about revocable waivers, then whatever. I actually thought it was already a rule that you couldn't place NTCs on revocable waivers. |
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Nov 2, 2016 21:46:07 GMT -5
Yes. That's who it was in 2015. And that's who I see it happening with more in the future. We can't say "no trade clause" for first season of a multi-year deal, and then allow them to be traded by circumventing that rule. That goes against the whole spirit of the NTC. And if we're going to say "no relief for players who retired due to injury" and "no leniency with a Week 1 buffer" but then say "you can waive players with a NTC that didn't pan out" we're being duplicitous. If we're going to tell owners that they must be held responsible for signing bad contracts, or even a good contract where the player ends up injured, or for going a few hundred thousand over their cap, we can't then let them off the hook in another section of the rules for doing the same thing. It's inconsistent. The main difference here is that you're not taking money off of the books in this situation. The contract is guaranteed and fulfilled either through another team's purse or as a lump sum payment for the total contract amount. It seems to me you're hamstringing the league with a no movement clause to limit a potentially underhanded deal that requires a unique set of circumstances. The player needs to be overpaid enough to clear waivers (so he can be funneled to a particular team); the claiming team has to take on the risk that the waiving team won't renege on the deal once the player is claimed; and the official trade mustn't trip off any alarm bells for it to be reviewed/overturned by the committee. If you're hellbent on implementing this, then I suggest we drop NTCs from being baked into every multi-year contract. It can be an 'add-on' bonus or something in the contract calculator, but I am strongly opposed to a system where I'm forced to keep someone rostered. Just to be clear, we are talking about during the revocable waiver period, correct? There should be no rule preventing a team from waiving a player from their roster so long as they are willing to deal with the financial repercussions. If we're talking solely about revocable waivers, then whatever. I actually thought it was already a rule that you couldn't place NTCs on revocable waivers. Just back online. Agree with all of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 2, 2016 21:48:18 GMT -5
(in a hypothetical secret trade agreement) It's not hypothetical. It happened in 2015. Connor waived a player, then made a trade with Scott, and as part of the agreement, Scott signed that player, thus lowering the amount Connor was on the hook for in 2015 and all of the 2016 salary. That's sooooooooooooo Conner and Scott. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 3, 2016 0:46:20 GMT -5
It's not hypothetical. It happened in 2015. Connor waived a player, then made a trade with Scott, and as part of the agreement, Scott signed that player, thus lowering the amount Connor was on the hook for in 2015 and all of the 2016 salary. That's sooooooooooooo Conner and Scott. JIm I did run it by Joe first to make sure I wasn't breaking any rules with the gentlemen's agreement type deal. He said it was fine, but I had no protection if Scott backed out and didn't claim the player IIRC. As far as the rest of the suggestions, I've been pretty busy at work and haven't had time to read through them all yet, but am hoping to catch up this weekend and will post any comments/concerns I have then as I know everybody is anxiously awaiting what I have to say.... |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 6, 2016 14:09:21 GMT -5
I'd be for weekly time deadlines instead of by calendar date. The rest of this stuff I'm not very concerned with (assuming we're talking about NTC's can't be placed on revocable waivers but can still be regular waived).
However, on the topic of NTCs, I'm curious what people think about instead of a full season of NTC, we change it where you can't trade the player for the first 14 weeks or something instead. This happens all the time in real life, when players sign a contract, the team sucks by midseason, and then the player is traded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 6, 2016 16:10:33 GMT -5
However, on the topic of NTCs, I'm curious what people think about instead of a full season of NTC, we change it where you can't trade the player for the first 14 weeks or something instead. This happens all the time in real life, when players sign a contract, the team sucks by midseason, and then the player is traded. IRL, teams that sign players in normal free agency (non-single year QO basically) aren't allowed to trade those signed players without the player's permission before a certain date. Whether it be a one year, or multi year deal. Under the old CBA, it used to be that trading a player in the first year of a multi year deal nullified all subsequent years. We used to have an issue with owners signing marquee players, then immediately trading them for a king's ransom. That's why we had to incorporate the first year NTC. And I truly believe that if we allow any sort of trading in the first year, we'll see the return of that. It's one reason we had to get rid of the Top 15 Comp Picks. And IRL, players will stop signing with a team that continually turns around and trades them automatically. I think we need to continue to keep the NTC to protect players since this is another issue of Sim Players being unable to defend themselves against the Sim Owners. I really have no issue with NTC players being waived. That's not the reason I recommend a change. The issue is that it creates a loophole where NTC players are being traded. Maybe instead of saying we can't waive them, we say that if you waive an NTC player, you must buy out the entire contract and don't get any relief if they're signed by other teams? |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 6, 2016 16:28:15 GMT -5
We used to have an issue with owners signing marquee players, then immediately trading them for a king's ransom. That's why we had to incorporate the first year NTC. One of the many ScottDJRoss-based rules NSBL now has on the books  100% agree. Especially with significant cap increases to teams, and teams having a lot more cap room, there is going to be a TON of money thrown around again this year. Having a NTC is literally the only thing keeping GMs from dishing out consequence-free contracts. JIm |
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Nov 6, 2016 17:14:32 GMT -5
Im in favor of implementing a 10% buyout fee on option years...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 6, 2016 17:47:40 GMT -5
Im in favor of implementing a 10% buyout fee on option years... LOL I've been saying this for years. Unfortunately I always get outvoted. |
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 6, 2016 17:53:50 GMT -5
We used to have an issue with owners signing marquee players, then immediately trading them for a king's ransom. That's why we had to incorporate the first year NTC. One of the many ScottDJRoss-based rules NSBL now has on the books JIm Actually, I think that's a Sean-rule. Wait. Both? I know Sean signed Vlad Guerrero to a huge contract back in the first or second off-season we had. I think it may have even been the first $20MM contract, but I'm not sure. Maybe it was only like $18/year? But then Sean turned around and traded him before the season started. But now that you mention Scott, I have a vague memory of him doing something similar with Pedro Martinez. Maybe he just traded him in the middle of Season 1, and not before the season even began. I know I had Pedro early on in a deal with Boston before the league officially started its first season. I teamed him up with Prior and still never made the playoffs with them together. But I either traded Pedro or lost him in free agency. Maybe I did, and then Scott signed him and then turned around and traded him to another team. Looking at the 2006 Pitching Register, Pedro doesn't have a team listed, which means he was dealt in the middle of the year. That's the earliest stats I have. |
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Nov 6, 2016 18:16:07 GMT -5
Im in favor of implementing a 10% buyout fee on option years... LOL I've been saying this for years. Unfortunately I always get outvoted. I may be confused, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the GM that wins the bidding on a FA with an option actually paying the premium to include that option (4-5% +/- annually for the life of the deal?). In other words, our free agent calculator will cause the GM wanting an option year to overbid the GM offering the same term and money without the option attached. Why should the GM paying the player more have that option be forced to essentially be taxed for it again? On a 3 yr /10M PER contract, he's essentially paying a 12-15% premium (1.2 -1.5M) over the life of the deal to gain that option, no? Why should he have to pay it again in order to decline the option and put that player into the FA pool when he already paid for that right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 19:16:32 GMT -5
LOL I've been saying this for years. Unfortunately I always get outvoted. I may be confused, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the GM that wins the bidding on a FA with an option actually paying the premium to include that option (4-5% +/- annually for the life of the deal?). In other words, our free agent calculator will cause the GM wanting an option year to overbid the GM offering the same term and money without the option attached. Why should the GM paying the player more have that option be forced to essentially be taxed for it again? On a 3 yr /10M PER contract, he's essentially paying a 12-15% premium (1.2 -1.5M) over the life of the deal to gain that option, no? Why should he have to pay it again in order to decline the option and put that player into the FA pool when he already paid for that right? You're paying that extra money to get the player to agree to an option year that he wouldn't otherwise agree to. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 6, 2016 19:32:29 GMT -5
I remember it well. I had a Day 1 high bid on Pedro. The ScottDJRossExperience outbid me on Day 2 by some ridiculous sum. I bowed out.
Then, no more than 2 weeks later, Scott traded Pedro to some other team- while free agency was still going on. I went full Chris-Coughlan-at-an-all-you-can-eat-sushi-buffet on him.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 6, 2016 20:00:39 GMT -5
However, on the topic of NTCs, I'm curious what people think about instead of a full season of NTC, we change it where you can't trade the player for the first 14 weeks or something instead. This happens all the time in real life, when players sign a contract, the team sucks by midseason, and then the player is traded. IRL, teams that sign players in normal free agency (non-single year QO basically) aren't allowed to trade those signed players without the player's permission before a certain date. Whether it be a one year, or multi year deal. Under the old CBA, it used to be that trading a player in the first year of a multi year deal nullified all subsequent years. We used to have an issue with owners signing marquee players, then immediately trading them for a king's ransom. That's why we had to incorporate the first year NTC. And I truly believe that if we allow any sort of trading in the first year, we'll see the return of that. It's one reason we had to get rid of the Top 15 Comp Picks. And IRL, players will stop signing with a team that continually turns around and trades them automatically. I think we need to continue to keep the NTC to protect players since this is another issue of Sim Players being unable to defend themselves against the Sim Owners. I really have no issue with NTC players being waived. That's not the reason I recommend a change. The issue is that it creates a loophole where NTC players are being traded. Maybe instead of saying we can't waive them, we say that if you waive an NTC player, you must buy out the entire contract and don't get any relief if they're signed by other teams? This makes sense and is totally reasonable. I take back my suggestion. |
|
