|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Dec 15, 2012 16:08:09 GMT -5
Alex and I have agreed to make a rule change, effective immediately.
A five-year deal won't always trump a one-year deal: the per-year salary must be increased by at least 50%, and vice-versa when going from a one-year deal to a five-year deal (decreasing by at most 50%).
NOTE: The bidding will be restarted on some players.
Thank you,
Alex and Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Dec 15, 2012 16:09:07 GMT -5
I understand that not everyone likes this rule (that's what happens virtually every time), but we feel as though it's necessary to keep contracts more realistic (and more tolerable) for older players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 16:14:46 GMT -5
I'm digging it Mike.I also agree with the sick of people bickering bit.It needs to stop we're going to have to learn to adjust to the rules as they are hence why we are the members of a league you and alex are LMs of.I also think at some point we have to deal with the things as they are this offseason we need to accomplish all of these little tweaks and everything so moving forward no more changing
|
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM (Jack) on Dec 15, 2012 16:28:25 GMT -5
me like
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 16:31:29 GMT -5
I don't mind the rule but the execution I have a slight issue with. We already started FA why change it now? Ik its early on in FA but before would have been a much better time to implement this rule would have came with a lot less resistance im sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Dec 15, 2012 16:33:31 GMT -5
I don't mind the rule but the execution I have a slight issue with. We already started FA why change it now? Ik its early on in FA but before would have been a much better time to implement this rule would have come with a lot less resistance im sure. Learning from mistakes. We didn't know this problem would arise. I might look like Nostradamus but I'm not actually ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2012 16:39:23 GMT -5
I don't mind the rule but the execution I have a slight issue with. We already started FA why change it now? Ik its early on in FA but before would have been a much better time to implement this rule would have come with a lot less resistance im sure. Learning from mistakes. We didn't know this problem would arise. I might look like Nostradamus but I'm not actually ;D I am not even sure it a issue really considering we will soon have the amnesty rule. But like I said no issue with it. I just think future rule changes need to be done in advance like I said a lot less problems that way I think. |
|
