Release Player/Sign Player

[AndyP]

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.

You offer the contract - you're on the hook. In MLB those clauses are only there if guys agree to them in the signing process - I'm sure DJ would agree that this wouldn't be out of the rules to offer to an agent. Guys signing players to 10 year deals in FA because they plan to buy out the last 4-5 is a completely different story.

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.

Agents can take personal affronts to what you say. It looks like bad faith negotiations to continually offer long term contracts and then trade people immediately after. If a GM is doing that, the agent should be a complete dick about making sure an iron-clad NTC is in there for subsequent clients or that he drives up the price if the GM refuses.

In real life you don't get to sign players to seven year deals and then turn around and trade half of those same players less than 2 or 3 years into the deal. Agents get wise, players get wise, and thus teams don't do it. FCM should take a harder stance on that kind of BS.

[mike]

Ya I see your point with the 10 year contract in FA when you know they will end up getting bought out. Something should be done about that. Maybe make it that any player that had to receive compensation to sign gets an automatic 100% buy out fee? Which would be easy to track since we could devote a thread to any of those players. That would likley take care 90% of those cases where gm's sign players with the intent of cutting them a few seasons into the contract.

I agree with you on the agent thing too which is why I have never moved a player that I personally signed when involving an agent. The worst I've done was cut Sizemore in the last year of his contract. Which by that point he was a bench player and would have likley wanted to get some real playing time elsewhere.

[dejota]

Ya I see your point with the 10 year contract in FA when you know they will end up getting bought out. Something should be done about that. Maybe make it that any player that had to receive compensation to sign gets an automatic 100% buy out fee? Which would be easy to track since we could devote a thread to any of those players. That would likley take care 90% of those cases where gm's sign players with the intent of cutting them a few seasons into the contract.

Most GMs bid in good faith, I like the idea but like many rules trying to prevent GMs from skirting the intent of the original rules a lot get's lost in translation.

I agree with you on the agent thing too which is why I have never moved a player that I personally signed when involving an agent. The worst I've done was cut Sizemore in the last year of his contract. Which by that point he was a bench player and would have likley wanted to get some real playing time elsewhere.

Tyler Sample.

[mike]

ah yes how did i forget that. granted he barry zito'd me so i dealt him.

[AndyP]

Most GMs bid in good faith, I like the idea but like many rules trying to prevent GMs from skirting the intent of the original rules a lot get's lost in translation.

I don't think there is a ton of bad intent....but I've been in leagues that bumped the requirement from 50% to 100% and it made things significantly more realistic. The 7 year deals became the exception rather than the expectation. It would also be a quick and easy way to stop people from pulling this shit of releasing a guy and then turning around to resign him to a team friendlier deal.

I know the agents have a really hard job to begin with, but I'd love to see them get tough with some GMs over their decision making. We have a tendency to have everyone who is negotiated with, sign with their team. It'd be nice to see some agents stick it to teams for justifiable reasons.

[GoIrish]

We can all agree on one thing here, we need to make sure DJ does not win another championship.

In all seriousness, I understand the rule that it sounds like DJ is going to put in place and it sounds like a good rule. I also would not be opposed to bumping the requirement to 100% for the buyouts.

[dejota]

Question: If we guaranteed contracts would it serve any purpose to prevent guys from re-signing released players considering it'd be more expensive to cut a player then re-sign him?

[dejota]

edited my post

[mike]

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.

[AndyP]

Probably not, the hope would be that the 100% stopped the situation from happening beforehand. Which I think it would be very effective at.