Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 16 Feb 2017, 6:20 am

Sharur wrote:6 dollars in year 3 doesn't seem significant to you? That's a 60% price increase on a $10 player, it's huge! Though I guess you do have a tendency to have a lot of money left over in the auction as well, so perhaps it doesn't feel as impactful for you as it does for me. It's also worth keeping in mind that this price differential is built in to any subsequent contracts, and will keep growing if you continue to decline the opportunity to sign a multi-year deal.


We have a system now where any player can do what you want, but it's expensive, but part of that expense is an insurance policy: it allows you to dump a signed player without penalty. You, essentially, want to get rid of the insurance premium. OK, I can see why you want to do that, but I'm sure you can see why I'm against it.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 16 Feb 2017, 8:38 am

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, can you elaborate/clarify?
Adjutant
 
Posts: 65
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 16 Feb 2017, 6:27 pm

I think George is just talking about the risk of multi-year deals. His insurance is that in never signing multi-year deals, he never has to worry about buying out contracts.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 17 Feb 2017, 1:13 pm

schulni wrote:I think George is just talking about the risk of multi-year deals. His insurance is that in never signing multi-year deals, he never has to worry about buying out contracts.


Right. Our system currently give you a great value for long-term deals, but there is risk of injury and non-performance that can torpedo your deal. Take that risk, or not. I choose not to. You, and others, choose to take the risk. That's fine. But don't tell me you want to have your long-term sweetheart deal, while at the same time not paying for the risk of that deal. That's a non-starter for me, though I can see why you want it.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 27 Feb 2017, 3:00 pm

But don't tell me you want to have your long-term sweetheart deal, while at the same time not paying for the risk of that deal.


I don't want that. I want to move to one year contracts only, which is basically the opposite of that.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Feb 2017, 2:45 am

Huh? What George is saying is that if you want to keep players long-term he wants you to have to undertake some risk in doing so. If you have 1 year contracts renewed every year there is no risk.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 28 Feb 2017, 8:27 am

There is both less risk and less reward, just like what George is doing right now when he keeps players on 1-year deals. Suppose all you could do is resign a player for a one year contract at +$5- that's hardly a low-risk long-term sweetheart deal, relative to what we currently have.