NDL Forum

I'm not saying I'm innocent by any stretch of the imagination. I've definitely made deals that benefited me financially. I'm sure it's all in the eyes of the beholder. Take a look at Pete Denson's contract or Jose Ortiz.

If I had to defend it I'd probably go with fact I gave him a 10 year deal and his buyouts years are the same price as all but the first two years of the deal rather than making the $26M years his last two.

Bottom line is majority of people will look for a way to make the contract benefit them. What I'm saying is a lot of the could be curtailed if that particular rule was more clearly defined.

My point being your deal didn't have any actual rule in place for it so it's fair game for guys to get creative when there isn't a true rule in place and where do we draw the line?

Nick's right about the 25% part, I got lazy and didn't bother to do the calculations. We can release Cintron and Morales and I'll renegotiate if needed. Not sure what to do on the others but I'll deal with it if they have to be released or a fine

I dont see a problem with the Cintron deal either.

He went from $20mil in the last guaranteed year of the contract to $22mil.

That isn't an unreasonable jump imo.

It sounds like you're suggesting we re-visit the rule so that the option only needs to be within 25% of the last guaranteed year and not 25% of the average guaranteed year. Nothing wrong with that, but it does require a revision to go there.

Yes as that's where we have seen issues in the past if I remember correctly and the bigger issue imo.

Doesn't mean the rule doesn't have a place currently but I feel that's a better spot for it.

Cnasty wrote:

nick wrote:
ya but hes manipulating that rule by having it 5/10. Most ppl in this league give 2/3/4/5/6 type contracts

Not sure I agree with that in seeing a lot of deals lately they aren't simply increasing in 1,2,3 type increments.

Also a lot of guys are front loading deals in large amounts and then dropping them by say $5-10mil and not saying it is wrong as you are paying it early but are those deals also considered unrealistic?

Point being is that it never ends and how do we police it?

I do this... always considered it the "signing bonus" theory by frontloading year 1. Surely up for discussion though.

Front-loaded MLB contracts aren't common but there are a few out there.

yeah, i don't see what the problem with front loading contracts is. Guy is getting paid, isn't that what matters?
backloading aging vets is just like paying hot potato and the one who gets stuck with him when he declines loses.
I can see the issue with player options at the end that are high. It is almost like why we had to institute the rule for team option. Guys had no intention of ever paying them. In 17 it seems like EVERY player option is declined even when it is in the players 100% best interest to take it.

A year ago I gave Cooper a 2 year 22 mil per year deal. 2nd year was a player option. He declines it after playing like 4 games last season. Then declines the 12 per arb deal. and now his demand is like 9 per over 3. was his desire for a long term deal that much?

Esparza declined a 12 mil option... probably doesn't get signed this offseason. Guys just aren't agreeing to player options.

shel311 wrote:Front-loaded MLB contracts aren't common but there are a few out there.

mlb doesn't have to deal with owners who can slash their budgets by 10-20 million on a whim either. We need to get the idea that we are MLB out of our heads sometimes. If someone isn't gaming the system it should be allowed.

Cintron's deal is illegal.

Morales is also illegal.

Most of the ocd contracts with 2 po's are illegal

ReignOnU wrote:Cintron's deal is illegal.

Can you mathematically explain why as we didn't seem to figure that out between the 3 of us earlier

Cause its not based off last yr it's based off avg of guaranteed years

Cnasty wrote:

ReignOnU wrote:Cintron's deal is illegal.

Can you mathematically explain why as we didn't seem to figure that out between the 3 of us earlier

See the calculation from Nick and I both.

I think the rule needs to be tweaked but I also think these 2 guys need to go back in the FA pool after getting more details and OCD admitting this.

With that being said he has other guys and that cannot be changed but it goes back to how do we police this? I can't watch every single extension and we have caught these on a case by case basis.

I think in this case with these being 2 high profile FAs and it swung why they signed they go back to the FA pool.

Maybe the rule is not wrote correctly, but I swear that it was discussed and the 25% was only for TEAM option years and not player option years?
Or is that how it was and we changed it to all option years?

They posted the math earlier (I didn't check it, just did it in Excel real fast when I posted that).

The POs were greater that 125% of the average of all guaranteed years.

I don't recall on all/team. I'd have likely argued it as team tbh.