Release Player/Sign Player

***mattynokes*** · 02-16-2011, 10:26 PM

(02-16-2011, 09:29 PM)mike Wrote: In that case then no it wouldnt. Might as well let them try and sign them back especially if a rival was trying to go after that player. Also it seems like we could be headed into at least some form of 100% buyout. If we do that everyone up until date x should be grandfathered in under the old system just to be fair to any gm. Not saying me personally but I'm sure there are some out there.

Yeah, I'd let them try and re-sign them as they'd only be paying them even more money. Grandfathering them in would work, but I think giving everyone a year or two to adjust would be better. I say this because if previous contracts are to be grandfathered in then it would create more work for the simmers to check when release players were originally signed.

mike · 02-16-2011, 10:28 PM

You could police that under the dont be an ass rule. If a gm is caught doing it they could be fined heavily.

dejota · 02-17-2011, 01:58 AM

Why grandfather it in?

mike · 02-17-2011, 07:20 PM

I'd say grandfather it in because if anyone traded for or signed a guy (especially traded for) thinking that they could cit him for 50% if the player didnt pan out then they werent doing anything against the rules in that line of thinking.

dejota · 02-17-2011, 07:37 PM

So we should reward poor intent?

'PR' · 02-17-2011, 07:45 PM

(02-17-2011, 07:37 PM)dejota Wrote: So we should reward poor intent?

But teams do it all the time in the real world. If they take a chance on a guy, they take advantage of the fact that they could cut him without too much of a hit if he doesn't pan out.

dejota · (This post was last modified: 02-17-2011, 08:02 PM by dejota.)

5 figure contracts do not qualify as "taking chances", they're investments. If you didn't intend on paying your part of the investment your intent is very much in question.

"Teams do it all the time in the real world"

Show me one contract that was given out where the team never intended on paying half or even a quarter of it. You can't because if you don't offer contracts in good faith as a GM you get fined, fired and/or sued.

***mattynokes*** · 02-17-2011, 08:05 PM

And most of the time in the real world players are getting a guaranteed portion of the contract, even if it's under the league minimum. Basically the only non-guaranteed contracts are true MiLB prospects. And they usually don't have anything to fear because the team has already invested a signing bonus in them, so the team feels obligated to develop the player until he either makes it or it becomes apparent he's no long worth putting time into.

mike · 02-17-2011, 08:10 PM

Yes but our league structure is different. Its not poor intent when the rule is only 50%. It only becomes poor intent if it was already the 100% we are looking to switch to.

dejota · 02-17-2011, 08:19 PM

But taking advantage of this rule is still poor intent. Doing so allowed some offers to be outbid in FA, or allowed GMs to resign players through the agent who would've otherwise hit the open market.