NDL Forum

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:15 pm**

None of us knew how contracts would be exactly and with some of the low pitcher ratings there are some high priced guys that guys would not have drafted had they known the price tag. I am open to allowing everyone to amnesty one contract and it MUST BE DONE BY SUNDAY. Do not release the guy on your own and do not send me the name of the person via message. If this passes I will create a thread to do it in.

I think it is fair to some guys who have some very low rated guys signed to contracts of 14 a year for 7 years but a decision this big I want to be voted on.

If you have more than one guy I am sorry, this will only be allowed for one player and it must be done by Sunday. I need this poll decided today so please vote.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:19 pm**

Would this mean we are releasing said player? Or just getting a more friendly contract and we get to keep that player?

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:29 pm**

the player hits free agency is my guess.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:29 pm**

It means that player will be released in to the FA pool and I will erase the contract from your books. I will not be modifying any contracts.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:58 pm**

Hmm is this a double bandaid with the profit sharing delay?

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:07 pm**

would you have drafted a OF in the 11th round who is rated 43 and has a 7 year 20 mil dollar contract attached to him? my guess is no way.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:10 pm**

Complete honesty.... I haven't even looked at my contracts yet.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:16 pm**

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:58 pm Hmm is this a double bandaid with the profit sharing delay?

Thats why I wanted the vote. I personally won't use it as my contracts are ok but some guys have huge contracts for guys who are not starter level players and they go 6-8 years. I can see their point as well.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:23 pm**

plasma1896 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:07 pm would you have drafted a OF in the 11th round who is rated 43 and has a 7 year 20 mil dollar contract attached to him? my guess is no way.

Probably not. But I also wouldn't have built my team so young and with a lower expected payroll if I had known that I wouldn't be rewarded through revenue sharing. I'd have certainly used 2-3 picks on high profile players, if for nothing more than future trade material.

Ultimately this still strikes me as a second victory for teams that invested heavily in winning now. Which I could go on a long rant about the importance of winning year over year in OOTP and how it is a snowball effect, but I'll spare the details. Meanwhile, I had accepted that I'd be going against the grain, but considered that I'd have time to be propped up financially and be able to make a push when necessary. Unfortunately, I could be in a very bad situation from a budget/cash standpoint when my younger players develop and I can't build around them.

I'll save time on the future argument that would suggest that allowing amnesty would afford a low payroll team the opportunity to sign said players, because we all know the players that are going to hit the market are most likely undesirable at their asking price.

I'm pretty sure I'm still in the camp that says it's a double dip and no. With that said, I'd happily vote yes and allow as many amnesties as you'd like if we reverted the revenue sharing decision. Then I'd be mostly unaffected by the choices.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:40 pm**

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:23 pm With that said, I'd happily vote yes and allow as many amnesties as you'd like if we reverted the revenue sharing decision. Then I'd be mostly unaffected by the choices.

This I agree with

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:49 pm**

I voted no and I got a 41 year old making 16aav over 3 seasons.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 pm**

"No" votes on this are mind-bottling.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:16 pm**

nick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:49 pm I voted no and I got a 41 year old making 16aav over 3 seasons.

No for me as well.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:40 pm**

dakshdar wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 pm "No" votes on this are mind-bottling.

probably because most agree with Reigns post regarding revenue sharing. All those votes would go to yes if Rev Sharing started this season would be my guess

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:24 pm**

I don't want to swap out rev sharing for this. I understand Reign's point as well as Plasma's. The rev sharing is more critical as we had no idea how final payroll's would look like. 10 teams would be slammed in the negative after 1 season with rev sharing on. It just gives guys time to adjust.

Perhaps another solution to this could be instead of the amnesty thing perhaps we could allow teams to shorten one contract from whatever length it is to 3 years so that it expires the same time the rev sharing kicks in. Not sure if that is more appealing or not.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:25 pm**

ReignOnU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:23 pm
plasma1896 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:07 pm would you have drafted a OF in the 11th round who is rated 43 and has a 7 year 20 mil dollar contract attached to him? my guess is no way.
Probably not. But I also wouldn't have built my team so young and with a lower expected payroll if I had known that I wouldn't be rewarded through revenue sharing. I'd have certainly used 2-3 picks on high profile players, if for nothing more than future trade material.

Ultimately this still strikes me as a second victory for teams that invested heavily in winning now. Which I could go on a long rant about the importance of winning year over year in OOTP and how it is a snowball effect, but I'll spare the details. Meanwhile, I had accepted that I'd be going against the grain, but considered that I'd have time to be propped up financially and be able to make a push when necessary. Unfortunately, I could be in a very bad situation from a budget/cash standpoint when my younger players develop and I can't build around them.

I'll save time on the future argument that would suggest that allowing amnesty would afford a low payroll team the opportunity to sign said players, because we all know the players that are going to hit the market are most likely undesirable at their asking price.

I'm pretty sure I'm still in the camp that says it's a double dip and no. With that said, I'd happily vote yes and allow as many amnesties as you'd like if we reverted the revenue sharing decision. Then I'd be mostly unaffected by the choices.

Good points but I also think you are a lock to be at the 75 million cash cap after year 1 so I am not sure rev sharing was really going to help you out.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:00 pm**

wdoupis wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:24 pm
Perhaps another solution to this could be instead of the amnesty thing perhaps we could allow teams to shorten one contract from whatever length it is to 3 years so that it expires the same time the rev sharing kicks in. Not sure if that is more appealing or not.

I was brainstorming this earlier as the best option as it makes it fair with the 3 year of us not doing rev sharing.

I would vote for this and I don’t have anyone that it would matter for

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:02 pm**

Free agency year 1 and 2 is going to be a doozy

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:13 pm**

DRiccio21 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:02 pm Free agency year 1 and 2 is going to be a doozy

I don't necessarily disagree but I think because of this and the lack of free agents right now, a lot of dudes on their final year will probably be extended.

Posted: **Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:26 pm**

GeorgesGoons wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:40 pm
dakshdar wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 pm "No" votes on this are mind-bottling.
probably because most agree with Reigns post regarding revenue sharing. All those votes would go to yes if Rev Sharing started this season would be my guess

But some of these contracts lock them in for more than just the window of time that revenue sharing isn't active. And it doesn't change the fact that no one knew what salaries would be and some seem arbitrarily punitive.

If the draft just used a "slot" salary system that would have been simpler and we wouldn't have to have this conversation.

NDL Forum

Amnesty One Contract

Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract

Re: Amnesty One Contract