Posted by AlCheez on 6/7/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Pretty sure everyone would love the opportunity to jettison a bad contract - doesn't mean it's a good idea for the game.

How about this: If HBD ever drops the total you're allowed to spend from 185 million, I'll support letting you clear a contract or two that season.

i see so much complaining about tard worlds that will never fill so i give you an idea. like i said; i won the World Series despite the bad contract from the PREVIOUS owner. BRING IT ON.

I would argue that allowing trades of draft picks would lead to more "tard worlds that will never fill," not less. 

i respect your point of view, i just would like to hear what others think.

What happens if a player has declined to the point where no one would claim him off waivers or trade for him, so I waive him and promote someone else to the 40man roster/ML team. As it is now, he is automatically released if he clears waivers and I do not assign him back to my roster. I guess this is so he has a chance to play for someone. What would happen to him if we aren't allowed to release players who make 1mil+? Will he stay in limbo? Wouldn't I prefer to have someone pick him up and save 327k?

I've never had this happen to me, but it is a situation I could see happening occassionally.

I'd suggest not signing players who will be completely useless to long-term deals like that.   Or, if you do, you're just stuck with him in AAA after he clears waivers.   This one off situation isn't nearly as damaging(or helpful in possibly getting 327k if he gets picked up) as the owner who's paying 8m for 3 seasons for a player to play for someone else.

How about you're forced to designate first, and he has to clear waivers. Then you're allowed to release him.

To gain a pro-rated 327k?   Maybe?

Yea, exactly.  If you have no use for him, then why not.  Get yourself an extra 150k.

I'd suggest not signing players who will be completely useless to long-term deals like that. 


The simple fact of the matter is more harm than good comes from releasing players.    Far too often it's just a dumb, rookie mistake.    Said rookie then dumps team while next owner pays for the player to play for someone else.   In MLB, it makes sense.   Get the bad attitude, useless player away from your clubhouse.   There's no cap so it's just dead money without the attitude.   In HBD, it's dead money to a team with limited resources.

So now you've decided more than halfway through the season you have no use for the guy?

Keeping that option in place seems hardly worth the team trashing potential.

So this guy "The hallmark of this game always seems to be players wanting to butt into other players moves" vetoed a deal.  WTF?