For in debt teams

Instead of them not being able to sign anybody in the offseason, here is my plan.


They either get: one eight million a year contract to offer to someone
or two four million a year contracts to spend in free agency. They also get unlimited league minimum contracts


Kind of like in the NBA, teams in debt don't have to be non-exsistent in free agency. They can sign one good player, or two ok players, and then get guys in their low 80's for league minimum. This will allow them to win more games, and be on the faster track to being contenders again.


Just a note. They would not be allowed to use this money to resign players. Just to sign player in free agency.

I think another option a team like that should have is the ability to dump 1 or 2 bad contracts free of charge.

hoosier31 wrote:

I think another option a team like that should have is the ability to dump 1 or 2 bad contracts free of charge.

Maybe 1 contract when they join, and another one every offseason until they are out of debt.

I don't care for this plan mainly because it doesn't give the in debt teams the ability to resign "homegrown" talent, but I cannot think of a better way.

I think they should be able to use it on any free agents.

The problem isn't activity in free agency - it's the ability to effectively manage your team. Why take over Pittsburgh when all you can do is add payroll and have little ability to retain certain players or dump them?

This seems like a token helper rather then any serious attempt to resolved a problem.

OriolesGM wrote:

The problem isn't activity in free agency - it's the ability to effectively manage your team. Why take over Pittsburgh when all you can do is add payroll and have little ability to retain certain players or dump them?

This seems like a token helper rather then any serious attempt to resolved a problem.

This will help them be able to win more games, because after they lose all their players, they will have nothing.

Adding payroll is going to create an endless loop of problems. One 8 million dollar player isn't going to transform Pittsburgh. That team needs to be able to retain players and make small splashes.

I vote no, but I do think teams in debt should be able to re-sign their own talent. But that's not up for a vote on here.

As I said but somehow magically disappeared -

No free agent, no matter the price, is going to make the difference for these teams. San Diego has A-rod and Konerko - where has it gotten them? Put Jesus in a Pirates uniform and you're still in debt for three years. This token free agent thing would only deepen the existing problems.

OriolesGM wrote:

As I said but somehow magically disappeared -

No free agent, no matter the price, is going to make the difference for these teams. San Diego has A-rod and Konerko - where has it gotten them? Put Jesus in a Pirates uniform and you're still in debt for three years. This token free agent thing would only deepen the existing problems.

I agree, which is why I proposed the, 'cut a guy for free' idea... actually, I think a couple of these teams need about 4 or 5 of those passes, haha.

I say new owners should be able to cut a guy for free...but if you've gotten yourself into the mess then I would think otherwise.

i agree with uscsteve and hoosier31. gms that take over a team in debt should get special privleges until they are out of debt but if you put your team in debt then its your own problem.

uscsteve wrote:

I say new owners should be able to cut a guy for free...but if you've gotten yourself into the mess then I would think otherwise.

Rather than a sheer cut, what about a re-negotiation of salary/years
with the player? *shrug* I guess I'm concerned about dumping a
bunch of talent on the WW/FA list at once. If they are crappy, overpaid
players, not really as much of an issue. If five or six A-Rod-like players
get dumped because of an unwieldly salary, I'd be a little more alarmed.

Also, we're partially dealing with the real-life signings of some of these
players. For example, the Reds in real life offered up a questionable salary
to Griffey, Jr ... or the Royals to Meche. Those signings are still represented
in the game, not because a previous game manager made a poor
judgement, but because a real life team made a questionable signing.

Where do you draw the line on such a cut of a player? I'm very curious.

-Cinci'

While your right with Griffey type salaries, there were also some bad trades/waiver claims made by other teams i.e. Pit that if another owner came in, that was the fault of the owner in this league, not IRL. I think new owners should be given special privelages but am not sure about allowing big FA signings to be made by in debt teams. The unlimited major league min idea I think could be helpful because if u look at this past offseason there were quite a few guys out there that were bargains at major league min and could be upgrades for some teams in debt that are losing their superstars to FA.

Right - if you're talking about building a roster with FA - you don't need an 8 million exception to get that done. 4 million in room could buy a savvy GM 5-6 good players.

But giving them no option to retain quality players or ditch bad players from a previous GM - is only going to make those big free agent splashes deepen the problem. What needs to be allowed is roster purging or contract renegotiation.

OriolesGM wrote:

Adding payroll is going to create an endless loop of problems. One 8 million dollar player isn't going to transform Pittsburgh. That team needs to be able to retain players and make small splashes.

So you are proposing them being able to retain one of their players every year?

I could see that, if their contract demands are at a maxium of eight million dollars a year. Plus they would get unlimited league minium contracts in free agency to make minor moves

defense wrote:

OriolesGM wrote:

Adding payroll is going to create an endless loop of problems. One 8 million dollar player isn't going to transform Pittsburgh. That team needs to be able to retain players and make small splashes.

So you are proposing them being able to retain one of their players every year?

I could see that, if their contract demands are at a maxium of eight million dollars a year. Plus they would get unlimited league minium contracts in free agency to make minor moves

I think those are two good ideas - but first and foremost - they should have free reign to outright release as many players as they want. What possible harm could that be?

Granted some of might be able to find trade partners for certain players, but I think allowing the option for a roster purge is the starting point.