Check out this video, it's amazing. If this doesn't put tears in your eyes, you're crazy (or not a Yankee fan). My favorite part are two Mattingly homers (around 5:00 in). There are few players out there with a better swing than Donnie.
Yankee Mike brought up an issue that I promised I would open up for discussion. Whether it leads to a change of some kind, I don't know. But I thought it would be productive to hash it out and get everyone's input. From Yankee Mike-
My idea is that if you trade a multi year contract away and you receive less in return, you should assume that value just as you do if you receive a larger value in return. (applying towards next year)
My idea is when I traded a 2 year player for a 1 year player, I thought that extra year would come off my books for next year, freeing up the credit I lost when dropping a 2 year player in a separate transaction. I made a decision to make this trade based on next year, clearing knowing my team was not going to win it all. If we are dealing with a cap of 50 credits and trades can impact that for the following years, I think it should go both ways with assuming a contract.
I am relating this to a salary cap. I do agree there should be a penalty for dropping multi year contracts, but if you can wisely pull of a trade ridding yourself of a multi year contract, then that should balance into the credits as well.
If the team assumes a contract, then two teams should not be "paying" for the same player in the following year.
Make sense?
9 comments:
I think the best way the current rules can be explained is by comparing "contract years" to "salaries" in MLB.
I give you BJ Ryan as a classic example. The Blue Jays had him signed for a couple more years at $10M or so, but he was an albatross on their roster. The Jays would of loved to trade him, and not have to pay ALL of his remaining dollars, but he had no market so the Jays were forced to eat the remaining dollars and give Ryan his outright release.
In our league when you "waive" a player you are essentially giving him his outright release, and you are penalized for any additional contract years said player is assigned.
There can be multiple reasons for trading away a 1YR, 2YR or 3YR contract player in our league. Classic example is if you are out of the race and want to shed your 1YR contracts in lieu of long-term contracts in a rebuilding effort. Your trading partner in this example may be a team that is on the cusp of the playoffs and is willing to rent that 1YR player for his stretch run. Just because the stretch run team traded away a 3YR contract for a 1YR contract doesn't mean he is rewarded with additional credits the following off-season. That's the price you pay in a trade deal, and thus should be taken into consideration during valuation of trades.
I actually like the idea of being able to "free up space" in a contract trade.
Trades are not easy to make in this league and this adds a little incentive to strike a deal before the deadline.
I'm open to it.
I thought if you trade a 2 year player on your roster for a 1 year player you do not get penalized? It makes sense that if your team sucks and you want to build your roster for next year that you can trade a stud in a final year for a prospect with a couple years left on his contract.
I do not think you should be penalized for trading a contract with years remaining - it is called strategy. The whole purpose of the contract structure is to allow guys to build for the future while also competing in the current year.
I do not like Yankee Mike's proposal at all. If anything, there should be no penalty for trading a contract with years on it. I never thought that was how the penalty structure was set up in the first place.
I think the biggest thing on this issue is that everyone needs to understand the distinct difference between a "trade" and a "waiver".
In a trade you are trading all the talents of the ballplayer as well as his contract, while assuming all the talents of a player and his contract. A trade might also include a draft pick consideration as exampled once during last seasons transactions. Anything else outside of the trade parameters is not up for consideration.
A waiver is a penalized transaction if you are waiving a player with multiple years on a contract. You're penalized because you signed the player, or assumed the contract (via trade) and no longer want to be party to that contract. If you get another idiot owner to take on the contract, via trade, then you aren't penalized but mostly "waiver" players have no market value for a trade.
It would be like me waiving Chien-Ming Wang last season. He was an absolute bust - didn't even pitch again, yet I had him signed for 2010 too. Instead of being penalized for my moron signing I held onto him and now I can only hope he throws lights-out in DC!!!
3K - I think you made my point:
"In a trade you are trading all the talents of the ballplayer as well as his contract, while assuming all the talents of a player and his contract."
This is my point exactly, you assume the incoming player's contract when making a trade. If I had traded a two year player for a one year player, then what happens to that space for next year? If I assume the one year deal, then that space should free up next year, correct? Therefore, if I lost a credit for waiving a player, then that free space should cover that. Knowing full well we cannot go over 50 credits. If we do not do this, then it is as if both teams are paying for that second year.
Making trades can go both ways and working with a cap and multi year league, I feel this is the way to go.
Fen Ed, I am not talking about being penalized for making trades. You get penalized for waiving multi year contracts and I agree with that.
"If I assume the one year deal, then that space should free up next year, correct?"
Simply no. Mike what you're attempting to do is blur the lines between trades and waivers. I get what you're trying to do. The rules of the league actually state that a team can be over 50 credits during a season, but that every team is limited to 50 credits at the start of each season.
The only person penalizing you for your trades is you. The entire reason that a penalty is invoked on waivers of 2 or more contract year players is so that owners don't just add/drop players at will. It's an attempt to create more trades (my opinion), as well as make the signing of contracts at the beginning of seasons more challenging. Otherwise people would just max out every player without ever having to think about the consequences.
I feel like everyone is talking both sides, and maybe even agrees?
If I trade a 2-yr for 1-yr player, I like the idea I get an extra credit in the draft the following year because I will own a 0-yr player.
If I trade a 1-yr for a 2-yr, I will have 1-yr against my 50 credits where I wouldn't have before.
Isn't it that simple? You don't have to have less than or equal to 50 credits all year, as someone pointed out - just a number that governs the draft.
Therefore, isn't it a non-issue? Isn't this really the way it is? For this year's draft, I don't own an extra credit because of the 2-yr I would've had, right?
Am I confusing anyone other than myself? Again, I think its a no-brainer to say 50 credits at draft ... minus penalty for dropped contract years. The idea there is that you're taking a hit to get rid of a player you don't want that is eating up a roster position so you can get someone that would be able to contribute. Drops are handled perfectly right now.
I am going back to read the rules, pronto. I'll follow up.
Wade, you're right. You got it and like you, I'm in total agreement with the way the system works (well, with exception of a serpenting draft, heh).
Yankee Mike is suggesting is that he should somehow not be penalized for dropping a 2YR contract because he traded a 2YR contract away for a 1YR contract, hence the contract he traded away makes up for the contract he dropped.
Unfortunately it's apples and oranges for Yankee Mike.
Wade is right, the 1 year player the person traded for is coming off the books at the end of the season, thus making it a moot point.
I think Yankee Mike just failed to realize that (understandably so as our league is a bit on the complicated side).
Post a Comment