|
Post by Commish on Jul 17, 2018 18:01:21 GMT -5
If you remember, our previous league had custom NTC.
Our rule was something like this: if you sign a player during Free Agency, you are responsible for "buying out" his contract if you wish to trade him in the future. The total was equal to his remaining salary minus his final year. Once traded and bought out, there was no NTC needed in the future. This was to prevent lesser teams from signing huge deals in the offseason only to trade the guy immediately for picks or prospects.
e.g. If I were to sign a player in FA to a $10mil over 4 year contract, I would need to have $30 million in the bank to trade him immediately, $20 million in year 2 and $10 million in year 3; in year 4 there would be no penalty.
We also prorated the current season's salary depending on when he was traded : Before May 15 - 100% Before July 1 - 75% Before July 31 - 50% After July 31st – All players must clear waivers before they can be traded. Players who clear waivers can be traded regardless of NTCs.
Obviously none of our inherited players or contraction picks would fall under this rule.
Should we bother with this rule going forward?
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM on Jul 17, 2018 18:17:33 GMT -5
I remember debating this rule endlessly....10+ years ago. The execution seemed very complicated and difficult to keep track of everything. This would call for the creation of a bank again and someone would need to monitor and correctly add/deduct $$, figure correct buyout values, etc. I'm just saying it's a lot.
If we are to keep a NTC we should probably simply considerably.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Jul 17, 2018 18:31:09 GMT -5
I read through the rules and agree it seems a bit unwieldy (although creative). My bigger concern is that NTCs would seem to inhibit trading. I’m not opposed to having some rule where you can’t trade a newly signed player before a certain date (I.e., not before July 1 of that year), but don’t like the idea of being restricted in whom I can deal moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by CubsGM on Jul 17, 2018 18:49:29 GMT -5
A good Trade Council should handle this better.
|
|
|
Post by MetsGM on Jul 17, 2018 19:00:47 GMT -5
A good Trade Council should handle this better. As long as we keep arbitration and compensation, I see no problem with trading a recently signed player after a specific date.
|
|
|
Post by AsGM on Jul 17, 2018 19:29:17 GMT -5
While the NTC is very cumbersome, it did serve a very important part role. It stopped tanking teams with lots of available money from grabbing top free agents with expressed purpose of flipping them for picks or prospects. Which creates an extremely unrealistic style of play in my opinion.
Maybe we tweak it so any Type A arby player that is signed has a simple one year NTC (and must be in the lineup). Then after that can be dealt as seen fit by the GM with no strings attached.
|
|
|
Post by AngelsGM on Jul 17, 2018 20:43:22 GMT -5
I like what the Mariners said
|
|
|
Post by CardinalsGM on Jul 17, 2018 22:13:20 GMT -5
I wrote the original rules on this years ago. It worked to stop people who had a bunch of money from buying up the top FA's and flipping them for picks/prospects. We wanted to hold people accountable for the contracts they signed -- that's why we had a buyout. It allowed for people to still trade players but you had to pay for it. A sign and trade was still possible... but actually made the original signing team still have to pay something for it.
It was also supposed to give us some reason to use money...and make it worth something. OOTP 6.5 is pretty weak on the financial side of things... and our cash was essentially worthless.
I think it's important to keep people from doing the sign and trade.
|
|