Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Mar 6, 2015 9:46:05 GMT -5
Given points raised by other GMs regarding issues surrounding my duel role as both a commissioner and a GM, I have withdrawn the request for this rule change and will attempt to find an alternative solution (trading Braun somewhere else) to the issue.
It occurred to me this morning that there's an issue with the mega-deal that went down last night, in which the Giants acquired Ryan Braun and other pieces for Mike Trout. The problem is that the Giants traded Ryan Braun to the Rays earlier in the offseason, covering $40 million in salary and front-loading it all to 2015. As per the original rule in which front-loading became allowed:
"if you do choose to front-load cash-commitments when trading or buying out a player, you will not be allowed to re-acquire that player through any transaction until after the player's contract would have expired."
This provision was explained when the front-loading rule was originally conceived:
However, what we don't want to have happen is for teams to front-load their own contracts. For example, if I had $80 million this offseason and wanted to sign Clayton Kershaw, I would not be allowed to sign him for $20 million a year for four years and then front-load it all so that I'm paying him $80 million now and getting him for free later. But there's a loophole here: I can sign Kershaw for $20 million per season, trade him to Ringo while front-loading the contract, and then have Ringo trade him back to me for a late round pick. Obviously this would be frowned upon, so we'd have to prohibit teams from re-acquiring any players whose cash-considerations they front-loaded.
Basically, Alex can't reacquire Braun because he already front-loaded Braun's contract, and reacquiring Braun would result in a situation in which Alex basically takes some of the money he originally owed Braun in 2016 and moved it to 2015 while still keeping Braun.
Of course, the scenario outlined in the second quote isn't what's happening here. This is an innocent case of a player being reacquired by a team that previously traded him, but it is prohibited by this rule. I propose an amendment that would make it possible for Alex to reacquire Braun, by restoring him to his original contract. To do that, I'd have to eat $6.4 million (the difference between Braun's annual salary of 33.6 million and the salary covered, $40 million). Once I did that, Braun would no longer be front-loaded by Alex: he would have covered 33.6 million in 2015 and nothing in 2016. So, I'd own Braun for 0 million in 2015 and 33.6 million in 2016. Now I'd trade Braun back to Alex, covering the entire 33.6 million salary in 2016 but front-loading it all to 2015. Alex is no longer front-loading Braun - I am.
This is a complicated solution. I don't know if this is something that would ever come up again. If it does, it would still need to be approved by the office of the commissioner on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the money is truly being re-worked in a way that would legally release the original team from the clause that prevents them from re-acquiring the player. What I'm asking from all of you guys is for the power and the option to do that. I can't in good conscience let this trade pass without your permission having come to this realization. However, I think this solution is still true to the spirit of the rule, it gives other teams more flexibility in the future (while still preventing teams from using the loophole to front-load their own contracts, as was the goal of the original rule).
I also just want to say that I realized this issue myself this morning, and though I could have kept it quiet until it was "too late," that wouldn't have been the right thing to do, so I outed it myself. In so doing, I think I've earned a little trust that I'm doing the right thing here, and that this rule would be used honestly and upheld by the commissioners' office with integrity. I'm also willing to eat the $6.4 million to make this happen with no additional cost to Alex or profit to myself. I'm asking you all to please approve this rule and give me the opportunity to do that.
Thanks, Ben
Last Edit: Mar 6, 2015 20:09:50 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Mar 6, 2015 10:05:01 GMT -5
Proposed solution outlined:
Original trade: Giants trade Ryan Braun 33.6 million (2013-2016) to Rays. They cover $33.6 million in 2016 and 6.4 million in 2015. They front-load the entire commitment ($40 million) to 2015.
Reworked trade: Rays return the $6.4 million to the Giants. Instead of covering $33.6 million in 2016 and front-loading it to 2015, the Giants cover $33.6 million in 2015. Rays agree to pay Braun's entire salary for 2016.
New trade: Rays trade Ryan Braun back to the Giants, covering his entire salary of $33.6 million in 2016 but front-loading it to 2015. This is allowed, because in the re-worked trade above the Giants never front-loaded anything.
Net change: the Rays end up paying an additional $6.4 million to the Giants.
This would be allowed only because neither team ever received any financial benefit from the restructuring of the trade. Both were paying more money in 2015 in the original trade than they would be after the re-worked trade. As such, neither was unfairly enriched at any time, past or present (this is key, and would be the responsibility of the commissioners' office to uphold in any future trade affected by the rule change) by the trade in its original form. As such, taking advantage of this rule to gain cap space at any time in the game would not be possible.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Mar 6, 2015 10:07:55 GMT -5
That said, no pressure to anyone to vote one way or the other. If this does not pass, it may be possible to find an alternative way to restructure the deal, bringing in another team (two have expressed interest already) to acquire Braun and send another player to San Francisco. However, we'd like to avoid that if possible in the interest of not drawing this out more than necessary, and I don't see why that should have to happen with this as the alternative. I'm willing to eat the money that I need to to make it right.
Last Edit: Mar 6, 2015 10:13:22 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Mar 6, 2015 10:16:20 GMT -5
First off I can't see the votes but I don't think any team in this trade should be able to vote on this as I feel it's a conflict of interest.
I'm voting against it soley because the rule was in place before the offseason began. I don't feel an amendment should be added to benefit a party in a trade as they see fit. It specifically said in the rule no team can re aquire a player that they dealt and front loaded a deal. My option is that this deal needs to be reworked so the Giants don't get Braun back.
After the season if we want to amend the rule to reflect this I have no problem with it. But as it stands now I don't believe this trade should pass. Thank you Ben for doing the right thing and bringing it to the leagues attention but I don't feel this was a legal trade as the way the rules sit.
First off I can't see the votes but I don't think any team in this trade should be able to vote on this as I feel it's a conflict of interest.
I'm voting against it soley because the rule was in place before the offseason began. I don't feel an amendment should be added to benefit a party in a trade as they see fit. It specifically said in the rule no team can re aquire a player that they dealt and front loaded a deal. My option is that this deal needs to be reworked so the Giants don't get Braun back.
After the season if we want to amend the rule to reflect this I have no problem with it. But as it stands now I don't believe this trade should pass. Thank you Ben for doing the right thing and bringing it to the leagues attention but I do now feel this was a legal trade as the way the rules sit.
That's fair, my vote is withdrawn and I ask that the Giants and Diamondbacks refrain from voting as well (to this point, they have not yet done so).
I'm also not convinced that a simple majority should necessarily pass this amendment. I'm curious to see where people stand on it, and then we can go from there.
I'm voting against it soley because the rule was in place before the offseason began. I don't feel an amendment should be added to benefit a party in a trade as they see fit. It specifically said in the rule no team can re aquire a player that they dealt and front loaded a deal. My option is that this deal needs to be reworked so the Giants don't get Braun back.
After the season if we want to amend the rule to reflect this I have no problem with it. But as it stands now I don't believe this trade should pass. Thank you Ben for doing the right thing and bringing it to the leagues attention but I don't feel this was a legal trade as the way the rules sit.
Regarding this part of your post, I totally agree with you in general but I feel like in this case the rule in question was intended to prevent a specific circumstance that's clearly not what's happening here. If this were a matter of "I don't like this rule, let's get rid of it" I'd certainly concede that I was out of luck. I just feel like when we write our own rulebook, there's always the potential for unforeseen circumstances to arise (potentially impacting any of the 30 GMs), and we should have a system in place for dealing with them in the moment, not the following year when it's too late. Especially when it's a small change like this one. Maybe a two-thirds majority should be required to make it happen or something like that, I'm not sure. I just feel like there are bound to be errors in the rules, and we should be allowed to do our best to correct them, as long as we have the league's blessing. Like I said, this was my error and I'm willing to eat the cost to correct it.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Mar 6, 2015 11:01:50 GMT -5
I understand what your trying to say. We try and evolve this league with the times. What I'm getting at is your trying to set a precedent that says when we see a rule that we may not realize we're breaking we can make a deal then ask for an amendment. I can't predict the future and say what rule might be affected in the future.
This just takes me back to your previous deal with Yanks. We had controversy there. You used his "overpayment" to aquire trout. We had other GM's that all said they didn't agree with the deal but said we won't veto because there isn't collusion. Well to the casual observer it could be construed that there could be that going on. By no means am I saying there is. But we had so many people that did not agree with that deal and now your using most of those pieces to aquire trout. Now your asking us to amend a rule that was set in place prior to or league year so that a "minor" adjustment can be made on your behalf. Yes your eating salary for one season but that means basically nothing. You already made these major deals and are a juggernaut. You can sit on that coverage and then compete for years to come.
I feel the fun is being taken out of this league lately. I have others who seem to agree with me. Where does this stop? That's two deals in a row now on your end with controversy. This is not an attack on your character or integrity. Your a great commish and leader I think your trying to win and make the best team possible. But IMO we have a rule in place, your deal doesn't fit the said rule, it should be reworked.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Mar 6, 2015 11:03:58 GMT -5
By the way I expect this to pass and there to be an amendment. Most people here either don't care or don't want to piss off the commish. For me it isn't about that. I would argue this for anyone, not just going against Ben.
I understand what your trying to say. We try and evolve this league with the times. What I'm getting at is your trying to set a precedent that says when we see a rule that we may not realize we're breaking we can make a deal then ask for an amendment. I can't predict the future and say what rule might be affected in the future.
This just takes me back to your previous deal with Yanks. We had controversy there. You used his "overpayment" to aquire trout. We had other GM's that all said they didn't agree with the deal but said we won't veto because there isn't collusion. Well to the casual observer it could be construed that there could be that going on. By no means am I saying there is. But we had so many people that did not agree with that deal and now your using most of those pieces to aquire trout. Now your asking us to amend a rule that was set in place prior to or league year so that a "minor" adjustment can be made on your behalf. Yes your eating salary for one season but that means basically nothing. You already made these major deals and are a juggernaut. You can sit on that coverage and then compete for years to come.
I feel the fun is being taken out of this league lately. I have others who seem to agree with me. Where does this stop? That's two deals in a row now on your end with controversy. This is not an attack on your character or integrity. Your a great commish and leader I think your trying to win and make the best team possible. But IMO we have a rule in place, your deal doesn't fit the said rule, it should be reworked.
By the way I expect this to pass and there to be an amendment. Most people here either don't care or don't want to piss off the commish. For me it isn't about that. I would argue this for anyone, not just going against Ben.
These are all fair points, and while there are some that I'd hope are not true, I can certainly see how they might be. I absolutely don't want to take the fun out of the league, nor do I want people to feel pressured to vote one way or the other just because I'm the commissioner. I can assure you that no collusion took place here, that the deal was completed in good conscience, and that the purpose of this amendment is because I realized after the fact that we had an issue caused by a single sentence on a rule that was made over a year ago and had never come up before now. But if changing this rule doesn't sit well with people, then we shouldn't do it - even if the majority approves it. I'm searching for other options involving moving Braun to a third party, and if that's my only option, so be it. At Brian's suggestion I think I'll leave the ultimate decision to the other commissioners (him, Smitty, and Tucker), and will leave this poll up merely as a way to gauge the opinion of the rest of the league.
Last Edit: Mar 6, 2015 11:29:24 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Brian (Blue Jays GM) on Mar 6, 2015 11:34:49 GMT -5
I'm very on the fence about this and have not yet voted. I'd like to hear more opinions from the league so please if you feel strongly either way I want to hear what you have to say.
Also, Ben and I have agreed that because he is too close to the situation, the decision for whether or not to change this rule will rest with Smitty, Tucker, and myself.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Mar 6, 2015 11:35:13 GMT -5
Well regardless I seem to be the only one with an opinion. If history goes like it has this deal will pass and when the next thing comes up that benefits a commissioner it will probably pass too. However minor this may seem to you its opening Pandora's box on any rule we have in this league. How can you not give someone an option to vote in an amendment for any rule that might get broken? Hey the May 15th rule, I want to make a deal for a signed offseason FA 3 weeks early, we need a vote. See what I'm getting at?
I'm also voting 'no' for reasons similar to what Jon has already addressed. We can address this during the next offseason, but as it stands we should not change the rule midstream.
Well regardless I seem to be the only one with an opinion. If history goes like it has this deal will pass and when the next thing comes up that benefits a commissioner it will probably pass too. However minor this may seem to you its opening Pandora's box on any rule we have in this league. How can you not give someone an option to vote in an amendment for any rule that might get broken? Hey the May 15th rule, I want to make a deal for a signed offseason FA 3 weeks early, we need a vote. See what I'm getting at?
I don't think it's fair to say that these things always benefit the commissioners. Believe me, it's a double-edged sword, and there have been a number of times where I felt something was unfair to me or my team but bit my tongue because it didn't seem right to use my position to make a change like that, even though if it had been another team making the request it might well have been something that I'd have gone to bat for. In this case, I thought it was something minor enough and still within the spirit of the rule, otherwise I wouldn't have made the original request to change it. Given the points you raise, I'm more than happy to cancel this request and continue with my alternative solution (finding a Braun replacement).
In the interest of defending my own integrity here, I'll respond to the May 15 comparison - the big difference is that that rule achieved one purpose and one purpose only, while the rule in question here is an instance of a rule doing something beyond its original intention (closing a loophole). But interestingly enough, the May 15 rule was originally June 1. That rule was changed midstream as well, not because I really wanted it done but because other people did. Honestly my intention and my priority is the best interest of everyone involved in this league. The fact that I am also a GM in this league means I do deserve to have my interests considered as well. However, because of the complications given my role as a commissioner, I am happy to withdraw the request for this rule change, and will be sure to think twice before making a similar request in the future.
Last Edit: Mar 6, 2015 12:01:22 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Mar 6, 2015 12:05:41 GMT -5
Which is within your right. I know your not happy about it and the league could feel your wrath in the future but I felt to voice my opinion of what was right. I was using a random example. I could of picked any rule. I just feel that unless it's s major issue needing immediate attention, most if not all basics rules should have a period of discussion and vote in the offseason prior to FA for the following year.
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Mar 6, 2015 12:09:44 GMT -5
I voted no simply because the rule is in place. I agree that this situation is not why the rule was written but either way the rule just says players that were front loaded can't be traded back to original team. As far as all the other concerns that have come up I guess I'm just hoping its a odd couple months for the league from the crazy FA prices to the just plain absurd trades that have happened lately. This deal I didn't think was that bad. I think Oren did great , Ben gets the best player in the game and Alex may have lost this deal overall but definatley jumped back into being a top 5 team
and the league could feel your wrath in the future
This isn't fair and it's beginning to feel like you're attacking my character. My "wrath" has never been a factor in any decision in the history of this league. I had made the decision to reverse this request when the poll was still 3-1 in my favor. Given the way the poll stands now (3-6 opposed) and the fact that I've withdrawn the proposal, hopefully we can refrain from any future suggestions that my being a commissioner leads to any kind of unfair special treatment.
Last Edit: Mar 6, 2015 12:14:46 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Mar 6, 2015 12:22:12 GMT -5
Your last sentence in your prior post insinuated a screw you attitude. I never questioned your integrity. You seemed to have sour grapes that you didn't get your way saying in bold "minor" rule change. Well it isn't minor to me and the other 5 people who said no.
Your last sentence in your prior post insinuated a screw you attitude. I never questioned your integrity. You seemed to have sour grapes that you didn't get your way saying in bold "minor" rule change. Well it isn't minor to me and the other 5 people who said no.
The edit to the top post was put in bold so people would see it right away, nothing more. I can see how including minor wasn't the best choice, but it honestly didn't come across to me that way as I was writing it - just trying to show that my reason for asking was because I considered it minor, and would never have asked if this had been something more extreme.
I'm more than okay with the decision not to change the rule. I had my qualms from the start, but felt it was worth considering given the significance of the trade (and the hard work that went into it last night). I think I was within my right to gauge opinion, but perhaps should have gone about it differently. Sorry to anyone I upset in the process, and thanks to all who voted and chimed in!
Post by Billy (Cardinals GM) on Mar 6, 2015 16:44:22 GMT -5
I understand where Jon is coming from here. I agree that rules should not changed in order to make a trade valid and any possible amendment to the rules should be made after the season.
Something I have also noticed, and I hope this isn't taken as an attack on anyone, is that there does seem to be a trend of deals involving the commissioner and co-commissioners being passed even if there are objections to the trade. I don't think this is a case of abusing power but I do think people hesitate when they see who is involved. It is pretty obvious that this could be true given that those teams are completely filled with great talent with a lot of it coming from trades. Again, I'm not attacking anyone here so I apologize if it comes off that way. It's just something I've noticed.
This leads me to another idea that I think should eventually be implemented. I get that we want to allow managers to run their team however they want to but I think a line has to be drawn. My proposal would be to allow vetoes on deals that fellow managers feel are detrimental to one team. There have been more than a few questionable trades that have been passed and I feel it has lead to a big split between the top and bottom teams. In addition to that I think the managers involved in the trade should explain why they made the trade before others chime in. If the trade makes sense for both teams and both managers seem to have a good reason to make the trade and they seem to have a direction they're heading with their teams then it should be passed. But obvious lopsided trades shouldn't be passed just because there is no collusion (which is almost impossible to prove).
I hope I didn't offend anyone and I don't mean to call anyone out. I love this league and think we have all done a great job in running it, especially Ben who has done a tremendous job. A couple bumps in the the road are to be expected when a league of this size has been around this long.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Mar 6, 2015 20:08:20 GMT -5
Well, I'm happy the trade was able to get completed without necessitating the rule change, but I regret asking for the change at all, frankly, and I apologize for doing so. It was frustrating to wake up this morning and suddenly realize that all the hours of hard work last night to get the deal done might be for nothing due to what was more or less a technicality, and one that perhaps nobody would even notice but me, but I had to call myself out on it anyway. Since it was such a small thing in my mind I thought it wouldn't be an issue to go with the easy fix (and eat some extra money), but I totally see why it was an issue for people, and I'm glad that those people spoke up and weren't afraid to vote against it. Once I saw that people were going to have a problem with it I quickly decided that it wasn't something that I should be pursuing, which is why I cancelled the poll. Frankly, I don't think a poll was the right course of action in the first place, and think an informal discussion might have been a better choice, or better yet just biting the bullet. I apologize for not realizing it sooner. Oh well, live and learn. I assure you that I really was trying to do the right thing here, and although this was an error in judgment, I hope it doesn't cause you to question my integrity as a commissioner. I intend to do everything I can to prove to you that the best interest of the league remains my top priority, and I will be sure to use better judgment in the future!
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Mar 6, 2015 20:32:57 GMT -5
Thanks Ben. This is a great league that's well run. You guys do a lot. A small thing you didn't realize will not define anything. As long as everyone is happy that's what matters.
Well, I'm happy the trade was able to get completed without necessitating the rule change, but I regret asking for the change at all, frankly, and I apologize for doing so. It was frustrating to wake up this morning and suddenly realize that all the hours of hard work last night to get the deal done might be for nothing due to what was more or less a technicality, and one that perhaps nobody would even notice but me, but I had to call myself out on it anyway. Since it was such a small thing in my mind I thought it wouldn't be an issue to go with the easy fix (and eat some extra money), but I totally see why it was an issue for people, and I'm glad that those people spoke up and weren't afraid to vote against it. Once I saw that people were going to have a problem with it I quickly decided that it wasn't something that I should be pursuing, which is why I cancelled the poll. Frankly, I don't think a poll was the right course of action in the first place, and think an informal discussion might have been a better choice, or better yet just biting the bullet. I apologize for not realizing it sooner. Oh well, live and learn. I assure you that I really was trying to do the right thing here, and although this was an error in judgment, I hope it doesn't cause you to question my integrity as a commissioner. I intend to do everything I can to prove to you that the best interest of the league remains my top priority, and I will be sure to use better judgment in the future!
No worries Ben. You've done a great job with the league thus far and I think everyone here can agree that we're lucky to have you as commissioner. Like I said earlier, bumps in the road can be expected from time to time when a league like this has been around for so long.
