Buy Out's

[Deleted]

We are seeing if it would be better for the league to allow Buy Out's for players that are in the middle of the contract that you may want to walk away from.  This would be only during the offseason and you would only be able to do up to 2 each offseason.  You would NOT be eligible for a compensation pick or the 20% discount if you win the player back in auction.  In return, you would be able to drop the player without a penalty.  The benefit would be more players possibly being available to free agents.  More flexibility if you are stuck with a big contract and want to rebuild.  We also could drop it to only 1 player per year if you want.  Please vote so we can implement this rule or not for this offseason.   

[Deleted]

I voted no only because of the 2 players idea.
If it was 1 player then I would have voted yes.

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

How would this be different than our current buy out system , as well , we have a waiver system too , which I thought was created to get outta big contracts

[San Diego Padres]

I’m a little confused as well. Would the buyout rules change if this were implemented? As in, are these 2 buyouts still 1/2 of the renaming contract every year, or complete buyouts with no or lesser penalties?

[Deleted]

We need to be careful about this rule, it could incentivize somebody to offer a huge contract to a player to win him in an auction and then drop him after one year

So let's say that someone bets 3+ @ 30M on a decent hitter (because the team has cap in 2018 or whatever) . Then after the season when he can no longer afford the player just drop him without penalty. I also don't like having 2, I think 1 is enough

Another issue with the rule would be that if I had 3 bad contracts (let's say 2 players per team are allowed to be bought out), then I could just ask another team with 1 bought out remaining to receive my player and a a bit of cash or something and then he could drop the player for me, therefore earning a quick buck (instead of having to hold on the player for years or paying the 1/2 penalty).

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

Nov 2, 2017 17:59:31 GMT San Diego Padres said:

I’m a little confused as well. Would the buyout rules change if this were implemented? As in, are these 2 buyouts still 1/2 of the renaming contract every year, or complete buyouts with no or lesser penalties?

if i am not mistaken , cant i buy out any player i want at anytime , off season or not ? and once again , if i am willing to buy out a player , and eat a penalty why wouldnt i throw him on waivers and see if someone else wanted the contract thereby coasting me nothing

[Deleted]

I guess I need to fully understand this first. But it sounds like this would mean we get to release a player or 2 in the offseason for no penalty at all. If that's correct I agree with everything Jorge said.

[Colorado Rockies]

I am in a league where we added this to the success of the league.
That league's goal was similar to ours, to make the league 100% consisting of our own contracts.
Through the buyouts teams were able to bid on quite a lot more players, making the UFA pool a lot more attractive and accelerating the leagues
goal to get rid of MLB contracts. If you look at the contracts, we will never have a 30M contract, we will have 20 max.

I am with Stu, one buyout might be enough. I personally think it would be a great addition and would lead to a lot more auctions.
We decide this together and will stick to the result.

[Deleted]

I don't like Hannes' idea about lowering the league's contracts through auctioning. When we started the league we had a cap, whatever it was I forget, and then soon after people wanted to have a yearly raise of the budget because they thought some of the real life contracts were expensive. Well after a few seasons I believe the contracts have somewhat balanced themselves out on their own; not to mention us owners getting a grip on our spending habits. If we have buy outs then I would suggest us lowering the yearly budget.

It wouldn't be fair to the owners who have big ticket contracts like myself with Stanton and Trout who obviously would not be considered in a buy out situation. I will say I would love to cut loose Jeff the Shark and his 18M but I knew when acquiring him I would have a contract issue with him in 2018. I don't believe having more available players with lower contracts would make our league any better because some people will still spend their money however they see fit.

[Deleted]

Another thought about contracts, people like using them as bargaining chips in trade offers. For example I'm trying to move Tanaka and his three yrs option contracts right now because I'm currently over budget for 2018. I would much rather trade the contract and get something in return instead of simply buying him out. Like I said before, I would love to cut Samardjia (however you spell his name) but now I need to deal with his bad contract or just cut him and take the penalty. You know the penalty that's been in place for three seasons now.

[Deleted]

There are a lot of other better ideas to strengthen the free agent pool and I just don't think this is a good idea. With the addition of the qualifying offer added last year I think that is already helping the free Agency pool. I just don't like the idea of getting out of a huge contract free to me that actually devalues free Agency, people will bid a ton of money on a 3 year deal and then get out of the contract when they can't afford it and turn around and do it again.

[Deleted]

I agree. Looking at all the different situations brought up. And we appreciate the respectful criticism and objections to it. That is why it’s a vote and discussion.

It is different from the waivers cause on waivers you don’t pay a penalty only if he’s claimed. This would be no penalty at all. Now I think with waivers we only had maybe 2 players that were claimed. Maybe there is a opportunity to improve that. We are open to ideas.

[Colorado Rockies]

Nov 2, 2017 21:20:58 GMT @minnesotatwins said:

I don't like Hannes' idea about lowering the league's contracts through auctioning. When we started the league we had a cap, whatever it was I forget, and then soon after people wanted to have a yearly raise of the budget because they thought some of the real life contracts were expensive. Well after a few seasons I believe the contracts have somewhat balanced themselves out on their own; not to mention us owners getting a grip on our spending habits. If we have buy outs then I would suggest us lowering the yearly budget.

It wouldn't be fair to the owners who have big ticket contracts like myself with Stanton and Trout who obviously would not be considered in a buy out situation. I will say I would love to cut loose Jeff the Shark and his 18M but I knew when acquiring him I would have a contract issue with him in 2018. I don't believe having more available players with lower contracts would make our league any better because some people will still spend their money however they see fit.

We are so lucky that Stu is here.

[Deleted]

Definitely lucky to have Stu in this league. And he is right about those big contracts, I know I would have never traded Giancarlo had I known I could get out of his contract at some point during the offseason. 

[Deleted]

I'll chime in a bit here: I voted yes because I like to get out of bad contracts. However, I also like smoking and drinking too much; two things that are very bad for me. Just like getting out of bad contracts is a bad thing. If I sign a guy or trade for a guy with a massive contract, I'm taking on that contract. That's a part of the game. That's what it's about. If I'm not a good GM, then I'm going to be saddled with those contacts and it will decrease my ability to put out the best team I can. A part of this endeavour we are on is being good GMs. Being able to dissolve two contracts would, in essence, allow me to smoke and drink all I want without any repercussions. Thus, if we're really about wanting to be good GMs, and we're really wanting to hold true to the spirit of fantasy sports, then we have to take the good with the bad. So, dissolving any contracts seems a bit counter productive to me. However, since I'm new I'll obviously side with the consensus on this.