Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 11, 2013 7:31:52 GMT -5
I'm curious what people's thoughts are regarding how we should handle steroid suspensions when it comes to contracts? After all, IRL these players are suspended without pay.
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Aug 11, 2013 9:15:46 GMT -5
Nothing. For example arod. We all knew he has done it and there was a chance he could do it again. That should be factored in when bidding. Same for Braun. When I was bidding on him again I always knew there could be chance he would get caught again (I never believed him). just my two cents.
Nothing. For example arod. We all knew he has done it and there was a chance he could do it again. That should be factored in when bidding. Same for Braun. When I was bidding on him again I always knew there could be chance he would get caught again (I never believed him). just my two cents.
I think Kevin makes good points. Personally, I'm on the fence about this one, and I think he sums up the argument for half of what I'm thinking very well.
On the other hand though, we don't necessarily have to offer massive salary relief. We could simply offer salary relief for the games missed, which would mimic real life pretty well. We could offer 25% salary relief for one season only (even if the suspension spans two seasons) if a player gets a 50 game suspension - not enough to sign a new big name player, especially since it's only for one season, but enough to pay for a suitable replacement through free agency or trade (if one can be found). If a player gets a 100 game suspension, we'd offer 50% salary relief for that season, or 25% salary for each of two seasons if the suspension spans multiple seasons (GM's choice, if applicable). Only if a player gets a lifetime ban would a GM be able to drop the contract with no penalty.
These would cover all of the standard "three-strikes" punishments that MLB currently uses. However, the suspensions this year don't all follow the standard punishments, and would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Braun's 65 game suspension would likely have just resulted in a 25% discount, since it's fairly close to the standard 50 game suspension. Rodriguez's suspension, if it goes through, is for 211 games. Since he's signed (in Pro-GM) through 2014, his suspension would likely result in a 25% discount for 2013, after which he would be able to be released.
Like all other forms of salary relief, salary relief for suspensions would have to be applied for and would be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, we denied salary relief on Joel Zumaya at one point since the injury that his GM was applying for was already known about at the time he was signed, and we believed that his injury was already taken into account in the salary he received, so the application was denied. These would be considered on a case-by-case basis based on the information that was available at the time of the signing. If a player like Braun were a free agent this offseason, GMs would be welcome to ask the commissioners for an immediate ruling on whether or not salary relief would be available in the event that Braun receives a suspension in the future - in all likelihood it would, since Braun will have completed his current suspension by then and any further suspension would likely be due to future developments and evidence. This would allow GMs to bid on Braun without the specter of having to pay for a suspended player looming over the bidding and limiting the amounts people bid - everybody would be on a level playing field. If a player like Alex Rodriguez were a free agent this offseason though, we would probably rule that future salary relief for a steroid suspension would not be an option, since he would presumably either be in the midst of serving a suspension or else he would be awaiting a ruling on his suspension. This way, GMs bidding on him would know that they were taking a gamble. Although our preliminary rulings could never be 100% guaranteed, it would take something pretty significant to cause us to go back on our word.
Last Edit: Aug 11, 2013 20:46:19 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 12, 2013 9:00:10 GMT -5
I think I'm starting to lean towards doing this. We're not talking about huge discounts here (unless the player gets suspended for life), just enough to find another player on a short-term contract to replace the suspended player. And teams would still have to apply. Also, this would only apply to veteran contracts. If a cost-controlled player gets suspended, I guess we can give you the option to non-tender him with immediate effect, and it's up to you whether you do so. I don't see that happening much though. What do others think?
Last Edit: Aug 12, 2013 9:02:52 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Aug 12, 2013 10:22:13 GMT -5
Again, I think nothing but if it were to happen, I think it should be first time offense only. After that, player is known to take it and you are taking chance that they could probably take it again and that should be factored into signing them. Like any of the biogenis players, we all know they could do it again and that should be factored into when they are signed...you may already get them for less than market price now because of that risk so to make it even less seems absurd.
This doesn't help if you are only in year one and they screw up again though so maybe on first offense, the owner can drop immediately or take the reduction. Again, just my 2 cents.
Again, I think nothing but if it were to happen, I think it should be first time offense only. After that, player is known to take it and you are taking chance that they could probably take it again and that should be factored into signing them. Like any of the biogenis players, we all know they could do it again and that should be factored into when they are signed...you may already get them for less than market price now because of that risk so to make it even less seems absurd.
This doesn't help if you are only in year one and they screw up again though so maybe on first offense, the owner can drop immediately or take the reduction. Again, just my 2 cents.
Interesting. I see what you're saying - once it happens for the first time, people factor it into the price that they bid. I could be on board with this suggestion.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 12, 2013 10:43:03 GMT -5
What it basically comes down to is that we don't want teams to get two discounts - one for signing the player cheaper due to the risk and the second by applying. I think we can avoid that though by having teams apply.
Realistically, I don't know how much actual IRL teams would hesitate to sign a player like Ryan Braun if he were a free agent. After all, any suspension he would receive would be unpaid, so there's not really any risk to them.
Again, I think nothing but if it were to happen, I think it should be first time offense only. After that, player is known to take it and you are taking chance that they could probably take it again and that should be factored into signing them. Like any of the biogenis players, we all know they could do it again and that should be factored into when they are signed...you may already get them for less than market price now because of that risk so to make it even less seems absurd.
This doesn't help if you are only in year one and they screw up again though so maybe on first offense, the owner can drop immediately or take the reduction. Again, just my 2 cents.
Interesting. I see what you're saying - once it happens for the first time, people factor it into the price that they bid. I could be on board with this suggestion.
What do others think?
I think we should completely follow MLB and essentially wipe them from the cap for the time they are suspended*.
*I may or may not be serious and may or may not have a vested interest in how this turns out so my opinion may or may not be invalid
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Aug 12, 2013 16:26:00 GMT -5
So one problem I see, Let's use Braun's name for example (and it's only cause he just got caught). Let's say Braun is 20 mil a year and is caught in offseason and suspended first 50 games. His salary is now 15 million and 5 is used to sign someone else. Braun returns and is playing at a reduced salary even though he is producing at the "20 mil" per year. That team just got a bonus and extra 5 mil in cap for the year even though the player has returned and is playing to his potential. So they now have more cap room than other teams essentially and if that FA they signed is doing better than a different starter/bench player, they now have a better team. In this case, it seems they are rewarded.
MLB teams don't have to pay salary but I can't see how their cap would be reduced if they had a cap. If the Yankees don't pay AROD - They are still over the luxery tax cause the value if his contract. That is the same in cap terms, they just save money. It seems we would be adjusting cap space which is wrong.
MLB teams don't have to pay salary but I can't see how their cap would be reduced if they had a cap. If the Yankees don't pay AROD - They are still over the luxery tax cause the value if his contract. That is the same in cap terms, they just save money. It seems we would be adjusting cap space which is wrong.
At this point, A-Rod's salary is not being counted against the new $189M real life cap (or effective salary cap. That is the difference between a 17% and 50% luxury tax rate - note that is not a marginal rate, so this is basically a salary cap). Whatever pro-rated portion of his salary is not being paid is removed from the cap constraints, and the Yankees are able to spread the 25M or whatever to a new 3B or whatever other positions they may need. That is why Buck Showalter was so upset about the issue in that he believes the Yankees are unfairly gaining an advantage to sign say a Matt Wieters with money that they previously had committed.
However I disagree, this is a one year (and often less) removal of the contract from the money counted against the cap. This doesn't affect plans for future years and the multi-year contracts that are often signed in this league. Teams should be able to attempt to find a short-term replacement for their suspended stars much like real life teams have to. I haven't read much of the discussion that has taken place in this thread, but I am definitely in favor of discounted hits against the cap for teams with suspended players. That is a dimension that we would be taking right from real life.
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Aug 12, 2013 19:28:20 GMT -5
A-Rod's salary is not being counted against the new $189M real life cap (or effective salary cap. That is the difference between a 17% and 50% luxury tax rate - note that is not a marginal rate, so this is basically a salary cap). Whatever pro-rated portion of his salary is not being paid is removed from the cap constraints, and the Yankees are able to spread the 25M or whatever to a new 3B or whatever other positions they may need. That is why Buck Showalter was so upset about the issue in that he believes the Yankees are unfairly gaining an advantage to sign say a Matt Wieters with money that they previously had committed
