Each year of a contract can not deviate more than 25% of the average annual value of the whole contract

[TheGobOne]

Sorry Nick but signing a guy to 9/37/37 is

a) retarded
b) not even close to realistic
c) extremely unhealthy for the FA market

I propose that each year of a contract can not deviate more than 25% of the average annual value of the whole contract.

Let's take Nick's attempt to resign Cuevas as an example:

Nick is offering Cuevas a total of 37+37+9=83M over 3 years. This mean 83/3 (26.67M) is the AAV (average annual value). This means that ANY contract year cannot deviate by more than 26.67*25%(0.25)=6.67M. For Nick's contract to be legal each year has to be within 6.67M of each other - for example 22/28/34.

[nick]

no one cared when Herrera signed 7-40-40-40-40-40 tho

[wdoupis]

We have budgets and nothing is wrong with Nicks proposed deal. It is guaranteed money, no illegal options and he is working within his budget. This one ain’t passing

[shel311]

Nick is offering Cuevas a total of 37+37+9=83M over 3 years. This mean 83/3 (26.67M) is the AAV (average annual value). This means that ANY contract year cannot deviate by more than 26.67*25%(0.25)=6.67M. For Nick's contract to be legal each year has to be within 6.67M of each other - for example 22/28/34.

Honest question, what's the difference?

He's getting the same amount of money, guaranteed.

Also, since it's the same amount, how does it adversely affect the FA market?

[jeheinz72]

Yeah, eff this noise

[shel311]

Also, Strasburg in real life had a contract start at $10 mil and peaked at $45mil:

Since he signed his seven-year $175 million deal, he's earned base annual salaries of $10.4 million, $15 million and $15 million from 2016-18.

In 2019, that number balloons to $35 million, then down to $25 million in 2020 and back to $15 million in 2021 and 2022, before rising once again to the tune of a whopping $45 million in 2023!

Similar with Patrick Corbin:

Patrick Corbin: 2.5M signing bonus, 12.5m in 2019, 19M in 2020, 24M in 2021, 23M in 2022, 24m in 2023, 35M in 2024, 140m total.

Scherzer as well.

[GeorgesGoons]

no one cared when Herrera signed 7-40-40-40-40-40 tho

And I don't care about Cuevas deal. If that keeps him a Vice I'm all for it

Cuevas<Yang

[Ry]

I think Moose Jaw was planning a Cuevas signing.

[ReignOnU]

This is so 2028.

[The_Niddler]

Nick is offering Cuevas a total of 37+37+9=83M over 3 years. This mean 83/3 (26.67M) is the AAV (average annual value). This means that ANY contract year cannot deviate by more than 26.67*25%(0.25)=6.67M. For Nick's contract to be legal each year has to be within 6.67M of each other - for example 22/28/34.

Honest question, what's the difference?

He's getting the same amount of money, guaranteed.

Also, since it's the same amount, how does it adversely affect the FA market?

Honest answer:
I thought we had a rule that from year to year could not be greater than 25%?
That would keep stuff like this from happening.

It also keeps teams from giving a guy a back loaded contract, then backing out and only paying say $3.9M to get out of the large contract when he needs to since the buyout only has to be 10% of the highest guaranteed year or whatever our rules are.
If there are not rules about the % from year to year or the % for a buyout, there should be.

I am not sure how it adversely affects the FA market.

[The_Niddler]

Also, Strasburg in real life had a contract start at $10 mil and peaked at $45mil:

Since he signed his seven-year $175 million deal, he's earned base annual salaries of $10.4 million, $15 million and $15 million from 2016-18.

In 2019, that number balloons to $35 million, then down to $25 million in 2020 and back to $15 million in 2021 and 2022, before rising once again to the tune of a whopping $45 million in 2023!

Similar with Patrick Corbin:

Patrick Corbin: 2.5M signing bonus, 12.5m in 2019, 19M in 2020, 24M in 2021, 23M in 2022, 24m in 2023, 35M in 2024, 140m total.

Scherzer as well.

I get what you are saying here, but I thought we had a rule that stated it can only be within a certain % from year to year.
If we don't, carry on, nothing to see here.

[wdoupis]

The rule you are talking about Niddler is in regard to team options so it stops guys from giving a crazy team option that they will never execute. This Cuevas deal is not that and neither is the rule proposal.

[The_Niddler]

The rule you are talking about Niddler is in regard to team options so it stops guys from giving a crazy team option that they will never execute. This Cuevas deal is not that and neither is the rule proposal.

I would suggest we put in a rule where normal contract years cannot vary by more than 25% from year to year.
So if you offer him 9M the first year, the next years would look like: 11,250,000, 14,062,500, 17,578,125, etc.

I see we do have the option rule:
Max Dollars allowed on TEAM AND VESTING OPTIONS = No more than 25% GREATER of the average yearly salary of all guaranteed years.

[shel311]

I would suggest we put in a rule where normal contract years cannot vary by more than 25% from year to year.
So if you offer him 9M the first year, the next years would look like: 11,250,000, 14,062,500, 17,578,125, etc.

That's a little different but essentially what this OP suggests.

But again, I'd ask why? Look at the post I made about Strasberg and Corbin, that happens in real life, plus it's all guaranteed money.

I guess I'm still not seeing the reason we want to not have these contracts.

[wdoupis]

Yeah, that is what he proposed. I don't like that rule at all and it seems most don't either.

[jeheinz72]

Yeah - I don't see why it matters how guaranteed dollars are split up annually. It's guaranteed money.

[Cnasty]

His C option is definitely true and has been for a while.

Couple that with terrible draft classes and its a pretty rough state for the league lately.

[Neurotic]

Why is a 10-40-40 etc breakdown bad? The contract is fully guaranteed (minus options and retirement). Its the same as paying someone 30-30-30. All this does is let you manage your finances more efficiently. There isnt a good argument against this yet imo.

[The_Niddler]

Why is a 10-40-40 etc breakdown bad? The contract is fully guaranteed (minus options and retirement). Its the same as paying someone 30-30-30. All this does is let you manage your finances more efficiently. There isnt a good argument against this yet imo.

I do apologize, you are correct.
I was thinking his 39,39 years were option years. Since they are fully guaranteed, there is no different.

[TheGobOne]

Why is a 10-40-40 etc breakdown bad? The contract is fully guaranteed (minus options and retirement). Its the same as paying someone 30-30-30. All this does is let you manage manipulate your finances more efficiently. There isnt a good argument against this yet imo.