Change in Release Rule

[angels]

I believe the rules say if you release a player you still have to pay full price. I think it should be switched to maybe 50% of the contract? Thoughts?

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

I second this. I like the fact that there would still be a punishment, but it provides some relief if there is some sort of catastrophic injury or something like that

[yellomellojello]

I definitely think it should be full price. Sign a bad contract, you should be getting hit hard for it. As for catastrophic injuries, I'm not sure if teams take out insurance on top players. If so, I could see some relief being appropriate, with the amount depending on the player's position and previous injury history.

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

I guess the problem i see now with the injuries is how to tell if something is catastrophic. There are plenty of players who get hurt and don't come back the same (even from minor injuries). I guess that's just part of the luck involved with the game. Either way i'm happy.

[Chris (Former Cubs GM)]

I think u should b responsible for full contract. People would prolly get pretty loose in FA if they knew they could cut that player for half his salary.

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

50% for the life of the contract is still a hefty sum. If some of the UFA's go for as much as i expect them to, half their contract could still be in the 10-15 mil range

[Chris (Former Cubs GM)]

I don't care either way. I will b spending alot of $$ in free agency but wouldn't xpect to get let off the hook if I sign a bad contract.

[Kevin (Guardians GM)]

it should be at 100% - teams should bid appropriatly...like another team mentioned, people would be too loose in FA...

Trust me - I would love to dump Crawford for half his salary but I have to wait it out or trade him or waivers...my only options but I knew that when I signed him. It's the way it should be.

Just my opinion...

for injuries, there is this...

If a player on a long-term veteran contract misses an entire season due to injury, his following year's salary will be cut by 50%.

Read more: www.pro-gm.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rules&action=display&thread=915#ixzz1ZSMESD00

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

I think i'm having trouble with the injury rule more than the full contract for released players. I feel that the way the rule is structured doesn't actually allow for help.

"If a player on a long-term veteran contract misses an entire season due to injury, his following year's salary will be cut by 50%. Subsequent salaries will remain at 100%. If the player appears in even one game in the major leagues, this will no longer be an option."

So if game 3 of the 2011 season, player x dislocates his ankle stealing second, misses the rest of the season, but is ready half way through the 2012 season, there is no relief. I think that the injury rule should be similar to the prospect rule. 25 games, 130 ab's or 50 innings constitutes a "year" of service. Any injury that doesn't allow a player on a veteran contract to complete these requirements should allow for relief.

I'm all for keeping the contracts as 100 percent if dropped, i just think their should be some sort of relief for serious injuries.

[drewosborne]

Full price boys. You make the mistake you pay the price.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

It's going to stay full price. If there were overwhelming support for changing it we could consider it, but I'm strongly against it myself as well.

On the other hand, I am willing to rethink the injury relief rule somehow. Tucker, I like your suggestion of having it be based on the same qualifiers that we use for years of service (130 ABs, 50 IPs or 25 games). But what do you think the relief should be in those cases? Should it still be that the team gets a 50% salary relief the following year, as it is now?

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

What if it was a smaller percentage over the life of the contract. As opposed to 1 year at 50%, you got the life of the contract at 15%

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Hmm, that's really rather good. So you suggest a 15% discount on all subsequent years. I'd personally rather up it to an even 20%. So the updated injury relief rule would read thus:

2) If a player on a long-term veteran contract has a season in which, due to injury (at the discretion of the commissioner), he accumulates no more than 130 ABs, no more than 50 IPs, or no more than 25 games as a pitcher, all of his subsequent salaries on that contract will be cut by 20%. If a player misses yet another year (no more than the above totals), 20% of the new, discounted total will be taken off. You must inform the commissioner if you wish to apply for this discount.

Thoughts? I'm in favor of this change.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

An addendum to the rule: if the injured player's salary is being paid in part by another team, only the part that your team is paying will be used when calculating the 20% discount. The team that traded away the player would not receive any discount.

[Kevin (Guardians GM)]

I like the idea but not that way....there is no way to justify if the injury affects the other years or not. it should be for the year they are injured only in my opinion. For example Player A signs and is injured that year. They could come back and be great and the team now gets that discounted for the next four years. That is not right. If a team is worried that injury will affect them then make the team have an injury option to drop the player but only that year he is injured and he becomes a FA so everyone can bid appropriatly, not just give the team that had him an automatic discount. Just my 2 cents

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

They way it's written now though only offers relief the year after the injury. The problem i see with this is that if player A is on a 20 mil contract for 2 more years, he is hurt for 1, and then allows a team to have 10 mil extra for free agency. That is a ton of money. If he has a contract longer than two though, it basically says you have an extra 10 mil to spend one a one year contract (you wouldn't be able to sign said player longer than a year because the contract goes back to the original price)

The longest that a contract can be is 4 years, so assuming you have him under contract for 4 years, he is hurt the first, under the new system you would be getting 3 years for a smaller amount, meaning you have less to spend for UFA, but could spend it on a longer contract.

OLD SYSTEM
Player A 20,000,000 (2015) - Misses the whole year, so he is now 10,000,000 for the 2013 season only

NEW SYSTEM
Player A 20,000,000 (2015) - Misses the whole year, so he is now 16,000,000 for the subsequent 3 years (A total savings of 12 Mil, roughly the same)

To me the main point of this is that the one year doesn't handicap you by having to sign a UFA to a one year contract. But it also doesn't allow one team a large sum of cash to snipe a UFA. Like you said, if he comes back and is the same player, not only do you have him for 10 mil cheaper, it allowed you an extra 10 mil to go get Votto for 40 mil for one season as opposed to the next highest bidder at 30 mil for 4 seasons. Either way you're getting a discount on the player for the next year, i just think it balances it out a little

(sorry for the long, horribly written post)

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Oct 5, 2011 18:40:39 GMT -5 Kevin (Guardians GM) said:

I like the idea but not that way....there is no way to justify if the injury affects the other years or not. it should be for the year they are injured only in my opinion. For example Player A signs and is injured that year. They could come back and be great and the team now gets that discounted for the next four years. That is not right. If a team is worried that injury will affect them then make the team have an injury option to drop the player but only that year he is injured and he becomes a FA so everyone can bid appropriatly, not just give the team that had him an automatic discount. Just my 2 cents

But that's unrealistic, teams don't get to drop players with no penalty just because they were injured. What they do get is a portion of the salary covered by insurance. Tucker's suggestion gives you back some money, just like insurance would, but it spreads that money out over the remainder of the contract (because that's the only way it's really useful).

[drewosborne]

It should be for the year of the injury only. But then it would be hard to regulate. And what happens if this guy is injured a few years in a row? Does the % go down every time? let's say I've got Greinke and have him signed for 4 years. Then he gets hurt year 1, and year 2. Does it go down more than one time? 20% off the remaining, then 20% off the remaining again?

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Oct 5, 2011 16:45:24 GMT -5 Ben (Rays GM) said:

If a player misses yet another year (no more than the above totals), 20% of the new, discounted total will be taken off.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

It can't be for the year of; there'd be no way to regulate that. It can either be for the following year or for the life of the contract. I'm really liking the life of the contract idea personally.

[drewosborne]

So it'd be a one time deal. Not a repeater?

[Ben (Rays GM)]

No. If the player misses a year then his following years will be discounted by 20%. If the player misses another year then 20% will be taken off that. So if a player is making $20 million, he'd be discounted to $16 million for all subsequent years. If he missed another year and still had time on his contract, he'd go down to $12.8 million.

[Jon (Astros GM)]

Here is a good test to try it on. John Lackey was just ruled out for 2012 for Tommy John surgery. I have him signed through 2012, so 1 year remaining. Do we have a rule for this or would this potentially fall into this new system?

[Ben (Rays GM)]

You only have him signed through 2012, so unfortunately him missing the 2012 season wouldn't get you anything back in either system. Both systems give money back for the season or seasons following the injured season, and you won't have Lackey anymore.

[Jon (Astros GM)]

I could non tender him or outright release him though correct, still be on the hook for his salary though right? And im fine with that, but typically the only "catostrophic" injuries to players that miss all and part of a season are pitchers with tommy john surgery. I havent seen too many others miss multiple seasons. I would think that this rule or potential rule should give some relief even if its the last year. For example, I would have to release him and let him become a FA, where other teams could sign him for the future and I could recieve a X% reduction. Its just a thought.

[Jon (Astros GM)]

Also to add to that. If you release a player and he ends up coming back during the season, whatever relief you had gets readded to your salary cap. So it would deter someone to just cut someone for missing 4 months as a way to get X cap space. I just think this could be an adendum to the potential rule. If Lackey were to pitch 1 time in September, I would have X added back and then if I am over the cap I suffer the penalty. I would have to be pretty confident He is out for the season. I think this could only apply to injuries that occur before opening day. Again, this is just me thinking.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

You could release Lackey and be off the hook, but you can't non-tender him. Non-tendering is for cost-controlled players and it means you don't have to pay them.

I really don't like the idea of offering salary relief before or during the season, I really think it should be for subsequent seasons. Injuries are a part of fantasy baseball, regardless of the format - if you draft a guy first round and he gets injured, it sucks but you're not getting that pick back, nor any other kind of compensation. However, you'll probably avoid him the following season, or at the very least wait a little longer to take him. In the same vein, if you're counting on a player for this season and he goes down, tough. But it's a bit too harsh to make you suffer 100% for that for multiple seasons.

[Jon (Astros GM)]

I agree with you. I was just thinking different things and figured I could use Lackey as an example. I just know that most players dont miss more then 1 full season. So all this talk about multiple seasons and discounts is almost a moot point. If someome gets hurt then they get hurt. No relief at all