Posted by deanod on 5/6/2012 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by iain on 5/5/2012 11:58:00 PM (view original):
Can we all agree that the highest single season salary (exclusive of signing bonus) should be the MO season?

Does that not fundamentally make contracts backloaded?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first sentence.

When you offer a contract with a mutual option that you fully intend to decline, you are making an explicit decision that you are throwing away 25% of the final season contract value.  So for example, if it's $12m for the final season . . . you're eating the $3m buyout, essentially saying "I'm willing to accept that I have a $182m budget in Sx."

I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it should not be an automatic thing.  It all depends on the both your immediate circumstances, and what you anticipate to be your future circumstances in Sx.

This is a good way to think if you like to run your team suboptimally.

Because all situations are exactly the same in deano-world?

Posted by jsturgis5866 on 5/6/2012 5:06:00 PM (view original):
And beyond what tec said, if you want the player to decline - saving you the cash - then it could be better to have a lesser number at the end.

I never assume that the value of the final season of the contract influences whether a player will decline.  I've had guys decline and end up demanding less than the guaranteed final season $ they walked away from.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2012 9:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by deanod on 5/6/2012 5:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/6/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by iain on 5/5/2012 11:58:00 PM (view original):
Can we all agree that the highest single season salary (exclusive of signing bonus) should be the MO season?

Does that not fundamentally make contracts backloaded?

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first sentence.

When you offer a contract with a mutual option that you fully intend to decline, you are making an explicit decision that you are throwing away 25% of the final season contract value.  So for example, if it's $12m for the final season . . . you're eating the $3m buyout, essentially saying "I'm willing to accept that I have a $182m budget in Sx."

I'm not saying that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it should not be an automatic thing.  It all depends on the both your immediate circumstances, and what you anticipate to be your future circumstances in Sx.

This is a good way to think if you like to run your team suboptimally.

Because all situations are exactly the same in deano-world?

I can't think of a single situation where that mentality is favorable in any way.

When you commit to $1M of extra buyout money in order to save $4M guaranteed you're making out ahead every single time.

That's not really what he's saying.

then why don't you explain what he was saying, mr. tec whisperer

It's sort of pointless as you and your MA buddy think all situations are the same and therefore your contract template is the be all to end all.   But I'll try.

He's saying that maybe adding that mutual option year isn't the best option.   Maybe that money would be better spent adding the amount to the front end of the deal.   IOW, rather than 5/50 with the last season being a 12m option, maybe 4/50 with no option is a better split.

that's even worse than what i thought he was saying

a 12.5M mutual option has a 3.1M buyout.  reducing the guaranteed money in the deal by $9.4M for the same # of years is always always always good.

i can't stress how impossible it is for a situation to exist where that's not a terrible decision, let alone a favorable one.

Have to agree with deanod here.  There may be some exceptions depending on future payroll constraints, but if you know you are going to decline the option, it always makes sense to maximize the money in that year.  You can't think about the option money as being thrown away.  That money is paid out like the rest of the salary.  If you move 1m from the main part of the contract to the MO year then you save 750k.  It really is that simple.  

I guess, in kahtrmen-world, all situaitons are the same.   

Seems insane to me that people think throwing away money in the final year is always the best route.    Insane.

I think what Is the key point to deano argument is that any situation where 4 @ 50 is better than 5@50 with a MO you would be better with 4 at 50 with an MO.

I think the only time that wouldn't be the case would be if you had a ton of mutuals all expiring and the total sunk cost of the options kept you from using the tactics you want to during that specific off season.

I agree that giving yourself more options is always the better route.   But, to the best of my knowledge, mutual option means the player can opt out.   There are times when I don't want that to happen.

The argument would be better stated if prefaced with "most of the time", or "more often than not", rather than "always". 

But once you start qualifying something with an absolute, such as "always" or "never", then you're limiting your options.  Or even worse, you're limiting the options of those who blindly follow that advice without thinking through their particular situations.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/6/2012 11:20:00 AM (view original):
Seriously(not to mean you don't have the prettiest drawings on the fridge), I don't care how you play the game.   If you think contracts are "1...2...3", that's fine.  However, people learning the game read these forums.   Definitive statements in a complicated game need to be correct.  Yours isn't.    deano had the good sense to back away from his.   Take a cue from him.

This?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/7/2012 8:01:00 AM (view original):
I agree that giving yourself more options is always the better route.   But, to the best of my knowledge, mutual option means the player can opt out.   There are times when I don't want that to happen.

Yes, but in the situations where you don't want the player to OPT out you would rather have him for 5@50 than 4@50. 

BTW:  Definitly think their are situations you don't want to have a mutual option.  This participar example though I'm struggling to come up with one beyond the far fetched one I mentioned before.

For example you definitly wouldn't want a mutual option in 3@9 contract where you paid out an 8mm dollar bonus.  Thats a contract structure I use fairly frequently and you obviously don't want the mutual included.