|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 15, 2021 13:40:45 GMT -5
As has been discussed by a few owners on the board, we are discussing have a Contract Amnesty period where a team can rid itself of contracts that are guaranteed. This is a one time thing only, if we do it at all. This will be done to hopefully level the playing field and get more teams competitive each year, hopefully starting immediately. If there is a tie with the two high vote getters, we will run a new poll with only those two choices in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 15:44:25 GMT -5
I voted for two amnesties to new owners only, but I'd prefer only one.
I'm pretty strongly against any established team being left off the hook for their own mistakes, but we get some pretty bad team that we try to find new owners for and there should be something that allows for some hope...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 19:56:12 GMT -5
Im also voting two but prefer 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Motor City Kitties on Jan 15, 2021 20:17:44 GMT -5
Just for a little clarification - amnesty could also apply to a Franchise player ? I’m honestly good with anything that would make a franchise more attractive to new owner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 22:02:23 GMT -5
I voted dont need amnesty contracts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2021 10:35:47 GMT -5
I’m voting no contract amnesty. We should all follow the same expectations. We (new owners) just need to read the rules, make mistakes, get corrected, learn, and then adapt to the league. Reading rules and teaching will go a long way to getting everyone on board as quickly as possible. Believe me, there are some things that I’m still trying to figure after 4 days on the job. And trust me, I’ll make mistakes.... but I don’t want a change to be made because I’m new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 16, 2021 15:33:18 GMT -5
I voted dont need amnesty contracts. Just so you are clear on the rules, you can not release Troy Tulowitzki (or Dustin Pedroia) just because they are retired. The contract is guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 16, 2021 15:37:25 GMT -5
We (new owners) just need to read the rules, make mistakes, get corrected. I totally agree with that statement, but a team should not be saddled with $27 million worth of contracts it did not give, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 16, 2021 15:38:19 GMT -5
amnesty could also apply to a Franchise player ? It would apply to any player on that roster. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2021 18:36:34 GMT -5
We (new owners) just need to read the rules, make mistakes, get corrected. I totally agree with that statement, but a team should not be saddled with $27 million worth of contracts it did not give, IMO. This IS a good point in relation to Tulo and Pedroia... especially if a team took that on (out of their control). It’s a mixed bag, right? You don’t want to give an owner an out for making a bad decision, but we also don’t want to handcuff/“penalize” a team that didn’t even make the decision. Can we be situational? In the case of Tulo/Pedroia, we grant amnesty. I don’t know, I’m just spitballing ideas. Very good discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2021 19:36:27 GMT -5
I totally agree with that statement, but a team should not be saddled with $27 million worth of contracts it did not give, IMO. This IS a good point in relation to Tulo and Pedroia... especially if a team took that on (out of their control). It’s a mixed bag, right? You don’t want to give an owner an out for making a bad decision, but we also don’t want to handcuff/“penalize” a team that didn’t even make the decision. Can we be situational? In the case of Tulo/Pedroia, we grant amnesty. I don’t know, I’m just spitballing ideas. Very good discussion. The situational-ness would be in allowing amnesties only to new owners. You can’t undo your own stupidity, but you can undo *some* of the stupidity you inherit. Allowing a new owner one amnesty is becoming pretty common in dynasty leagues. Makes it just a bit easier to sell a bad team to a new owner... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2021 19:45:35 GMT -5
I changed my vote in favor of amnesty. There is room for it, for the betterment of the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2021 19:51:52 GMT -5
If this amnesty means we could drop retired players i want to change vote then. I think we should have a free drop if they retire. We can't predict when they retire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ohio Spiders on Jan 17, 2021 11:45:02 GMT -5
I personally feel that you shouldn't be let off the hook for players retiring. That's part of your risk when you decide how long of a contract to give. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Motor City Kitties on Jan 17, 2021 14:05:19 GMT -5
Is there an opportunity to have owners offer up amnesties and have the league vote ? Its kind of cruel to have to pay for dead players (as has happened in the past), but you shouldn't get a free pass for offering a guy on his last legs a 5 year deal. But just because a player is out of the league doesn't mean he won't come back. Some owners may choose to hold onto someone. Look at Rasmus, I gave him a long term deal - because I'm dumb - and he retired, un-retired, and re-retired. There are also guys who to to Japan and such, and return to be decent MLBers. On the other hand....new owners should have a possibility to get out of a horrible situation that they didn't create. I would propose before FA begins owners post a potential amnesty, stating reasons why they should get the benefit (player died, new owner paying a guy who retired 2 seasons ago etc...), and then the league can vote on every case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 17:07:21 GMT -5
The way the vote is trending we will either have no amnesties or amnesties only for new owners. That seems about right and should not require any new complications to the rules. As for established owners, there really is no reason to even think about amnesties, except in the case of sudden death. In that case, things would be pretty straightforward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 20:19:48 GMT -5
I am not in favour of amnesties. It’s like owners or GMs in MLB that inherit the team from their predecessors. It is something you have to cope with and be creative with.
You can always send a guy on waivers and maybe someone will claim him. It just happened with Elvis Andrus.
Or try to trade a bad contract and attach a pick or a prospect to it. I was offered that last year with a guy in KBO I inherited from the previous owner but I decided to swallow it.
I wouldn’t mind helping a new team out that way.
Perhaps it is wiser to clearly state what contracts we are talking about, i.e. player, contract years and AAV. And then we can discuss this more directly because I think a lot of people are interpreting this amnesty in many different ways if I understand the comments correctly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 20, 2021 14:38:54 GMT -5
It is 10-8 now with 2 votes to go, so it will be a tie or a NO on contract amnesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by SLC Bums on Jan 20, 2021 16:02:03 GMT -5
Here’s the thing....I’m going to be brutally honest... everyone wants to run their teams their own way and that’s totally cool... but reality is several owners aren’t trying to actively make their team better over the last 12 months only 8 owners made trades... but we have several teams that Do free agency set a lineup Show up do half the draft and sit back, their teams don’t get better or worse they just don’t exist... then we get a new owner terrible team, cash strapped, no prospects and they are stuck, can’t trade, not enough money for FA, can draft but that helps down the road maybe when they do make a trade it’s with the owners at the top who are now getting even stronger and putting new owners even farther behind, these new owners need a chance, I originally said I was good with one amnesty but what I’m good with is a10 million dollar amnesty for a new owner that allows him to get an asset or two in FA to start a build!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2021 18:34:33 GMT -5
I do agree with Earl and that is a pretty solid assessment of the league, or it has been at least. Some of the new owners seem pretty active. Hopefully they won't get frustrated by those owners who don't participate beyond the minimum.
The point about MLB ownership changes really calls up a pet peeve of mine in leagues like this. We are not, and cannot be, MLB. Our new owners often take over teams that were crushed by someone's stupidity. We don't play for any cash. We're trying to have some fun. We should let new guys get rid of one of the mistakes of the previous regime. That's actually a pretty standard rule in most of the leagues out there similar to this. I'm not really sure why it would be controversial, especially in a free league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 27, 2021 15:56:28 GMT -5
It looks like some voters changed their minds and we have a YES vote for allowing the 4 new team owners contract amnesty of up to two players. If an owner uses this on a player, he has no rights to match him or get free agent compensation. This is ridding you of the contract you did not give.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 16:57:02 GMT -5
I think at least two of those votes were for only one amnesty, but that was not one of the options.
Perhaps a new vote for either two or one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 17:39:47 GMT -5
I voted No, but I am fine with any final decision you guys make. I would just like to suggest that maybe the selected amnesty contracts should first be exposed to waivers. Maybe the "dead" contract is not that dead and I wish to take my chances.
|
|
|
|
Post by SLC Bums on Jan 27, 2021 22:21:12 GMT -5
I voted No, but I am fine with any final decision you guys make. I would just like to suggest that maybe the selected amnesty contracts should first be exposed to waivers. Maybe the "dead" contract is not that dead and I wish to take my chances. that's a good idea!! |
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 28, 2021 9:16:37 GMT -5
I voted No, but I am fine with any final decision you guys make. I would just like to suggest that maybe the selected amnesty contracts should first be exposed to waivers. Maybe the "dead" contract is not that dead and I wish to take my chances. I'm gonna allow this. All you NO voters should be lining up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 9:47:42 GMT -5
If we are not even going to discuss, let alone vote, on the difference between one and two amnesties, I'm going to change my vote also...this should leave us in a tie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 28, 2021 9:49:32 GMT -5
If we are not even going to discuss, let alone vote, on the difference between one and two amnesties, I'm going to change my vote also...this should leave us in a tie. THE VOTE SAID TWO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2021 9:59:15 GMT -5
And when I voted, I specifically said I wanted one as did at least one other owner. I don't know why one was not an option and certainly why it wasn't discussed since it was noted by a couple of owners in what was a close vote anyway.
Also, it seems rather short sighted to then decide to allow the amnestied guys to essentially be exposed to waivers without any discussion. We operate by whim here when we do anything at all.
Why should those guys be open to waivers? Don't we already do enough here to take advantage of new owners? So now if they happen to make a mistake based on a failure to understand the value of a player, some other, more experienced owner is going to swoop in and grab this player so that the difference between the haves and have nots can get even greater?
If I claim a guy who was amnestied, can I then trade him? Can I drop him and get the comp pick? Have we thought any of this through?
|
|
|
|
Post by Greenville Drive on Jan 28, 2021 10:10:01 GMT -5
Daytona, you really stir the pot on some nothing issues. I fully expect you to claim either Tulo or Pedroia, your choice of which one will contribute most to your team.
Nothing I do here is short sighted. This league started in 2008, well before your opinions came in. Things like amnesty should have been done before. It is why a few owners voted NO. They admitted "I had to live with bad contracts". But they too would have welcomed the pardoning of these contracts had they been offered at that time. This amnesty is about what is best for the whole league.
If a new owner drops a guy and he is claimed, it does not mean he messed up or the experienced owner is smarter than him. We all have different values on players. He may personally not like a guy, who knows. But this allows a new team to shape in his eye, good or bad.
If you claim a guy who is amnestied, sure, you can trade him. But why would you think you can drop him and get a comp pick. The salary goes with him and are guaranteed for at least 2021 so this question should not have even been asked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 6:33:10 GMT -5
I voted No, but I am fine with any final decision you guys make. I would just like to suggest that maybe the selected amnesty contracts should first be exposed to waivers. Maybe the "dead" contract is not that dead and I wish to take my chances. I'm gonna allow this. All you NO voters should be lining up. Max Muncy on waivers tho ... !!! |
|
