House Rule Idea

[Phantom9in]

Hello all, I came up with this idea for a house rule after I traded for an all-star LF and signed him to a 6 year extention at $10mil per year. Two weeks after I got him, he went on the DL for 3 weeks. Two weeks after he came back from the Dl, he went back on it for 6 weeks. When he finally came back from this DL stint, I noticed he would barely make a little league player, so, I instituted the Injury Buy Out Clause(IBOC), editted his contract to a 1yr/$1mil and released him. About two or three days(IRL) later, I realized that I should use the IBOC when something like this happens, only I have revised it to be: 10% of the REMAINING contract value(not including bonuses or options) OR $1mil, whichever is more. What do you guys think?

[johnnybourbon]

Originally Posted by Phantom9in

Hello all, I came up with this idea for a house rule after I traded for an all-star LF and signed him to a 6 year extention at $10mil per year. Two weeks after I got him, he went on the DL for 3 weeks. Two weeks after he came back from the Dl, he went back on it for 6 weeks. When he finally came back from this DL stint, I noticed he would barely make a little league player, so, I instituted the Injury Buy Out Clause(IBOC), editted his contract to a 1yr/$1mil and released him. About two or three days(IRL) later, I realized that I should use the IBOC when something like this happens, only I have revised it to be: 10% of the REMAINING contract value(not including bonuses or options) OR $1mil, whichever is more. What do you guys think?

I vote yes. I'm looking more towards IRL for this. Methinks that IRL an organization will just let a contract run out tho...using someone like Bartolo Colon on the White Sox last year as an example. Buy out clauses, i think , are part of contracts in real life though, to allow the release for any number of reasons...and even things like clauses that void a contract ala That Boone guy who got hurt playing basketball or any number of motorcycle rider clauses.

[DCG12]

I hope this doesn't sound too harsh but my first reaction was "how old are you?" I mean really you have to cheat because you can't stand to have to work to overcome a bad break.

People post house rules on here from time to time in order to make the game tougher not to make it easier.

I guess it's your game and whatever makes you happy is ok. I just hope you not going to post next week telling us how you are a great gm and just went 130-32 and swept the playoffs. Bottom line is I guess I wouldn't do it unless it was coded into the game and AI teams get the same benefit.

[johnnybourbon]

Originally Posted by DCG12

I hope this doesn't sound too harsh but my first reaction was "how old are you?" I mean really you have to cheat because you can't stand to have to work to overcome a bad break.

People post house rules on here from time to time in order to make the game tougher not to make it easier.

I guess it's your game and whatever makes you happy is ok. I just hope you not going to post next week telling us how you are a great gm and just went 130-32 and swept the playoffs. Bottom line is I guess I wouldn't do it unless it was coded into the game and AI teams get the same benefit.

...and it's an option that can be toggled of course.
I wouldn't consider it either, except for the fact that it exists in real life baseball.

[Jabs]

True, this may seem like it is making it easier on the human GM here after the unfortunate injuries. But you could look at this from another angle. IRL, don't teams take on insurance policies on their high priced stars to protect themselves from this exact situation? I believe so....I see this Buyout Clause that Phantom has developed as just a form of insurance similar to what is already used IRL.

Now the difference here is the AI teams will not have this same luxury, so if you are doing this just for human owned teams, then you are creating an unfair advantage. It could be something to implement for online leagues.....

But, as I've read on many other posts on this board. Phantom, it is your league and you can play it however you wish.

[RchW]

Actually, I'd like to see a reverse application of this rule to help the AI teams. One of the worst aspects of the AI is its tendency to sign declining superstars to huge contracts. The resulting financial mayhem cripples them for years. Can anyone tell me how to allocate the money returned if I were to use a 10% buyout rule for AI teams?

For example say I release player X who is owed $50,000,000 over the next 5 years. Where would I put the 9 million/year they would gain from this?

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by RchW

Actually, I'd like to see a reverse application of this rule to help the AI teams. One of the worst aspects of the AI is its tendency to sign declining superstars to huge contracts. The resulting financial mayhem cripples them for years. Can anyone tell me how to allocate the money returned if I were to use a 10% buyout rule for AI teams?

For example say I release player X who is owed $50,000,000 over the next 5 years. Where would I put the 9 million/year they would gain from this?

You would just edit the contract to $5,000,000 for 1 year and then release said player. Since the future years have not occurred, the money has not been spent. If the player was already released before editing the contract (or released by AI), return $45,000,000 to Cash.

[johnnybourbon]

Originally Posted by statfreak

return $45,000,000 to Cash.

that sounds like a helluva loophole that we can exploit

[Phantom9in]

Originally Posted by statfreak

You would just edit the contract to $5,000,000 for 1 year and then release said player. Since the future years have not occurred, the money has not been spent. If the player was already released before editing the contract (or released by AI), return $45,000,000 to Cash.

This is a good idea, I think the AI is too quick to dump a player that gets a CEI and has too "eat" the remainder of the contract, so this is a good way to get them some of their money back.

[Phantom9in]

Originally Posted by johnnybourbon

that sounds like a helluva loophole that we can exploit

Not really, this is only used for they AI teams. Use the IBOC for human teams, and the cash refund for AI and it kinda balances out. Which reminds me, gotta go refund the Marlins $5mil for the CEI release of Cody Ross.

Also, my idea for the IBOC is only for a significant talent drop due to injury, like a 5star player getting hurt and dropping immediately to a 1star player, not a player who gets hurt and drops from a 5star to a 1star 4 or 5 months AFTER he returns from injury.

[ShaneCarson]

In my historical league, I signed Bert Blyleven to a 3 year deal worth 2+ million a year in 1976, easily the richest contract per year given out to this point.

He played until July of '76, posting absurd numbers only to go down with an injury for 14 months. So he is not only missing all of this season but all of next season as well, which is basically when we signed him for as that is when we saw our opportunity to win.

Needless to say, I won't be editing anything. As they say, "thems the breaks."

[endgame]

I'm no expert on the financial biz of baseball (or OOTP for that matter), but teams IRL do take out insurance on at least some of their players in the event they end up on a DL for extended periods and are able to recoup some of those losses. As long as a system you have in place doesn't offer you substantial advantage over the AI, personally, why would I have a problem with it? Actually, in the final analysis, it's your game. You can have any rules you want, but you did ask the question so you live with the answers, I suppose. See Dontrelle Willis' "anxiety disorder."

[TNCubsFan]

Didnt Marcus say that the AI wasnt penalized for releasing players? It helped to offset the worst of the AI sign and release, and sign faded superstar to huge contract money problems.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Also IRL teams can not get insurance unless they are willing to pay a very large premium. So say if you want to insure a contract you have to pay 20% of the contracts yearly average to the Insurance company. That would be money coming out of cash available.

[Phantom9in]

Well, if the AI does not get penalized for releases like a human GM does, then my IBOC is an equalizer, HOWEVER, I can understand a 20% of remaining contract being a better number to use than the 10%. I guess I will have to look at teams that get players with CEI that release them and see if it effects the finances, if it doesn't, than my IBOC will stand(but at 20%), if it does have an effect, then I will not use the IBOC and "take it as it comes".

[PhillieFever]

I think you should have to live with the deal you made,good or bad.It's always a risk signing a player long term,and sometimes you get burned.By instituting your plan,it makes it very easy for teams to sign players to ridiculous contracts,because if they get hurt,they know they're off the hook.I vote a resounding NO!

[James M. Rousseau]

I don't see how theres anything wrong with this, because IMO players seem to fall too much after injuries?

I mean, how often in real life do we see 6 week injuries dramatically kill a players talent? not as often as it happens in this game..

[Athletics17]

Is this rule just for your team or is it for all the AI teams who get screwed with them too? Maybe that would stop all the trade offers for overpriced veterans playing in AAA.

[Phantom9in]

Like I said, if the AI can release a CEI or seriously long injury player with NO hit to its finances, then I will use the IBOC at 20%, however, if the AI does take a finance hit, then I will not use it at all.

[TNCubsFan]

Originally Posted by Phantom9in

Like I said, if the AI can release a CEI or seriously long injury player with NO hit to its finances, then I will use the IBOC at 20%, however, if the AI does take a finance hit, then I will not use it at all.

Use it like the team does. Insure the contract for 20% of its yearly average at the moment of signing. Take that money, right then, out of your budget. Make it interesting which contracts to insure and the ones no to.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Phantom9in

Like I said, if the AI can release a CEI or seriously long injury player with NO hit to its finances, then I will use the IBOC at 20%, however, if the AI does take a finance hit, then I will not use it at all.

There is no hit to a human player for a CEI. What am I missing?