Post by Milwaukee GM (Souriyo) on Jun 14, 2018 19:46:52 GMT
There has been some discussion of altering the buyout system in the league. Below I have laid out the current structure and a couple options. I have laid out the rationale behind these suggestions, and then there will be a subsequent vote from owners about the format going forward.
50% buyout cost: This is how the buyout structure is currently constructed. The main benefit of this is the immediate flexibility granted to teams regardless of contract. On the flipside, this does create no lasting penalty and allows for the unrealistic option of signing a player to a huge deal in free agency and paying out of that contract on the first day of the season. Normally if a team commits five years of length, they are on the hook for a majority of that deal, if not all of it.
The main goal of a change is to inject more realism into the contract structure and make teams think more about the length they are offering against the AAV. The two following proposals consider either one or both of those aspects.
Higher buyout cost (75% or 100%): This proposal gives the least flexibility to teams, because they are basically guaranteeing entire contracts, either up-front in case of a buyout or through the entire length. What this does accomplish is some more diligence when offering ANY contract, but doesn’t necessarily affect a team more for offering length instead of AAV. The theory is that a longer contract would be generally more desirable to a player than a shorter term, higher AAV deal for more security, which we may like to emulate.
50% buyout cost, but ONLY on contracts with less than three years remaining: This brings us to the proposal I am most keen on. Again, this eschews some of the concern of a player signing a long deal and then being released a few days later by forcing someone to be on the hook for the first three years of a five-year deal (first two of a four-year deal, and first of a three-year deal). That way, there is potentially more onus on shorter deals with higher value, because the longer deal (as is realistic) poses more inherent risk to the owner. If an owner signs a player to the full five-year commitment, they are stuck with that player for the first three unless they are able to move him. NOTE: This does not apply if the player retires or passes away. If they retire, the standard 50% buyout for the remainder would be enforced. If they die, there is no buyout cost and that roster spot is just opened up.
The purpose of the buyout system is to still allow owners an out on contracts that they may have signed or acquired despite the fact that the contract system is in place to avoid the movement of players in a willy-nilly fashion. In real sports, whether by cuts or buyouts or the amnesty clause, teams use this to save money, which is our goal too. However, we don’t necessarily want that to be abused and not punish an owner for signing massive contracts without considering the cap and how that could affect their team in the following year. If they can fairly easily get out of a bad contract without any headache, there’s less motivation to be diligent with their contracts to start with.
If this abridged buyout system is adopted, it would come into effect for 2019 and beyond, starting in the respective offseason periods for each sport. The end of the fantasy season marks the start of the new offseason, so if an owner wants to get out of a contract that would not fit the proper buyout standards, they would need to eat the contract before the end of the 2018 seasons.
50% buyout cost: This is how the buyout structure is currently constructed. The main benefit of this is the immediate flexibility granted to teams regardless of contract. On the flipside, this does create no lasting penalty and allows for the unrealistic option of signing a player to a huge deal in free agency and paying out of that contract on the first day of the season. Normally if a team commits five years of length, they are on the hook for a majority of that deal, if not all of it.
The main goal of a change is to inject more realism into the contract structure and make teams think more about the length they are offering against the AAV. The two following proposals consider either one or both of those aspects.
Higher buyout cost (75% or 100%): This proposal gives the least flexibility to teams, because they are basically guaranteeing entire contracts, either up-front in case of a buyout or through the entire length. What this does accomplish is some more diligence when offering ANY contract, but doesn’t necessarily affect a team more for offering length instead of AAV. The theory is that a longer contract would be generally more desirable to a player than a shorter term, higher AAV deal for more security, which we may like to emulate.
50% buyout cost, but ONLY on contracts with less than three years remaining: This brings us to the proposal I am most keen on. Again, this eschews some of the concern of a player signing a long deal and then being released a few days later by forcing someone to be on the hook for the first three years of a five-year deal (first two of a four-year deal, and first of a three-year deal). That way, there is potentially more onus on shorter deals with higher value, because the longer deal (as is realistic) poses more inherent risk to the owner. If an owner signs a player to the full five-year commitment, they are stuck with that player for the first three unless they are able to move him. NOTE: This does not apply if the player retires or passes away. If they retire, the standard 50% buyout for the remainder would be enforced. If they die, there is no buyout cost and that roster spot is just opened up.
The purpose of the buyout system is to still allow owners an out on contracts that they may have signed or acquired despite the fact that the contract system is in place to avoid the movement of players in a willy-nilly fashion. In real sports, whether by cuts or buyouts or the amnesty clause, teams use this to save money, which is our goal too. However, we don’t necessarily want that to be abused and not punish an owner for signing massive contracts without considering the cap and how that could affect their team in the following year. If they can fairly easily get out of a bad contract without any headache, there’s less motivation to be diligent with their contracts to start with.
If this abridged buyout system is adopted, it would come into effect for 2019 and beyond, starting in the respective offseason periods for each sport. The end of the fantasy season marks the start of the new offseason, so if an owner wants to get out of a contract that would not fit the proper buyout standards, they would need to eat the contract before the end of the 2018 seasons.