Release Player/Sign Player

mav3rek · 02-15-2011, 10:40 PM

I think a rule should be established that if you release a guy in season, you should not be able to resign him until the off season. To me this just makes sense. Why would a player you just released immediately resign with your team at a lower pay rate? IMO it just seems silly. Not to pick on PHI, and no offense Mstrpr, but they just released Zimmerman b/c he was too expensive. Now they want to resign him to a 5 year contract for less money? Why in the world would Zimmerman want to resign with them? I think that if Team A releases a player in season, they shouldn't be able to resign him until that offseason.

'PR' · (This post was last modified: 02-15-2011, 10:56 PM by 'PR'.)

I've seen it a bunch of times before. I'm not the first one, so I went what with the league tolerates. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the rule, but I in no way tried to get over the system in a way the league finds illegitimate. I also am no longer pursuing Zimmerman.

mav3rek · 02-15-2011, 10:48 PM

I wasn't saying you were the first either, just the one who happened to be doing it when I posted this. It's been done several times before but I think it's something that should be changed.

dejota · 02-15-2011, 10:52 PM

It will no longer be allowed starting this offseason.

mike · 02-16-2011, 03:18 AM

In the world of our free market system though why shouldn't it be allowed? You still have to buy him out so the player would get all that money upfront and then he also gets a brand new contract. It doesn't make any sense when another team could sign him for less money and he'd agree to it, but not the team that released him. The only way this would work is if we say that he has to make at least what he was making annually with his previous team.

'PR' · 02-16-2011, 09:39 AM

(02-16-2011, 03:18 AM)mike Wrote: In the world of our free market system though why shouldn't it be allowed? You still have to buy him out so the player would get all that money upfront and then he also gets a brand new contract. It doesn't make any sense when another team could sign him for less money and he'd agree to it, but not the team that released him. The only way this would work is if we say that he has to make at least what he was making annually with his previous team.

I totally agree. If we pay to release him we should have the right to re-sign him. We already paid the penalty it takes to cancel his contract, why couldn't we sign him if we are willing to give him more money than any other team. If I was to sign Zim again, it would've cost me a total of 26M-27M. I think it's fair for me to have a shot at him giving those circumstances.

dejota · 02-16-2011, 11:47 AM

If we didn't already follow BBM's lead an only force GMs to be responsible for half the remaining value, you two MAY have a point. Even then I don't see it, and with that function already built-in you're not going to have your cake and eat it to when it comes to cutting players.

***AndyP*** · 02-16-2011, 11:53 AM

No one would be making the "free market argument" if they were on the hook for the full 100%. I've said it before - we should make people pay for their decisions more, we've got too many GMs scooting around agent deals, NTCs, free agent contracts and the like.

Releases should be at the full amount of the contract, you shouldn't be allowed to resign a guy you cut, and if you sign a contract with an agent and then back out of it only a year or two later - the agent should be a total dick to that GM for at least a season or two. (Or for negotiations with at least one player)

If you do that it might force people to act more responsibly and reasonably in FA which would bring down agent demands overall - it's a win-win for everyone if we start holding people more accountable - just like it's done in real life.

***mattynokes*** · 02-16-2011, 12:52 PM

Here's two problems with Mogul's FA system

1. 50% buyouts instead of 100% buyouts
2. If a player is released, the releasing team is on the hook for the player's salary above the pro-rated portion of the deal. So if a player is signed by someone else all they have to (and can) pay is the pro-rated league minimum for the rest of the year.

I'd love to see 100% buyouts. It's more realistic. It holds teams more accountable for their actions and we'll see more realistic contract offers instead of trying to sign get an extremely cheap deal for long-term. Realistically speaking only the premiere FAs are signing 3+ year deals. Most of you bench guys that are being signed here for $1M/3 year type deals are only going to sign 1 year deals in real life.

mike · 02-16-2011, 04:04 PM

I actually agree with you 100% on this one Andy. My only problem is while yes in real life you pay the full 100% to buy him out but there is a million and one ways to get around this in real life. Some of which are, opt out clauses, buy out clauses, performnce clauses etc. Until mogul (or ourselves) can simulate these things (for all players not just agent eligable) then we can't really be on the hook for the full cost.

On the topic of agents: No way should an agent be mad or be hard to negotiate with just because you found a way to move a player or buy him out. Its up to the agent to get the best deal for his player and if he didn't want him being traded or bought out for only half..etc then he should have demanded some sort of clause be put into the contract. In no way is that the GM's problem for exhausting all their options when it comes to player personell.