I think Andy hit the nail on the head.
100% has certainly resulted in a new level of responsibility that's both realistic and has long-term benefits to league health. However, it expedites wrecking franchises and can really complicate a rebuild when paired with unlucky prospect development or injuries.
Lowered buyouts allows for GMs to only have to pay X% on the dollar on their mistakes while benefiting fully from the rare player who produces the life of his contract. I think Matty noted in another thread something about if contracts are guaranteed so should performance to some degree, and I could disagree with that assessment more. In baseball you pay 100% for both and in the end success is often about mitigating or not making mistakes on long-term deals. I think a far more reasonable course of action would be GMs limiting deals longer than 5 deals like GMs in the real MLB have learned to do, at least the one's who keep their jobs for longer than 3 or 4 seasons.
However, we still need to decide which is more beneficial to the league's health, both long and short term? The reason I haven't already approved this suggestion is because I feel we've addressed any short term issues by allowing trading of DPs and I really think we should give guaranteed contracts longer than one full season before passing judgement. At this point I think any poor impact is more of a side-effect and we're forgetting that we've cured the cancer that has been irresponsible contracts.
100% has certainly resulted in a new level of responsibility that's both realistic and has long-term benefits to league health. However, it expedites wrecking franchises and can really complicate a rebuild when paired with unlucky prospect development or injuries.
Lowered buyouts allows for GMs to only have to pay X% on the dollar on their mistakes while benefiting fully from the rare player who produces the life of his contract. I think Matty noted in another thread something about if contracts are guaranteed so should performance to some degree, and I could disagree with that assessment more. In baseball you pay 100% for both and in the end success is often about mitigating or not making mistakes on long-term deals. I think a far more reasonable course of action would be GMs limiting deals longer than 5 deals like GMs in the real MLB have learned to do, at least the one's who keep their jobs for longer than 3 or 4 seasons.
However, we still need to decide which is more beneficial to the league's health, both long and short term? The reason I haven't already approved this suggestion is because I feel we've addressed any short term issues by allowing trading of DPs and I really think we should give guaranteed contracts longer than one full season before passing judgement. At this point I think any poor impact is more of a side-effect and we're forgetting that we've cured the cancer that has been irresponsible contracts.
Houston Astros - 2012/2016/2023/2025 Champs!
Cumulative Record: 1894 - 1184 (.615%)
Cumulative Record: 1894 - 1184 (.615%)