I have a player who was out of options so I put him through waivers. He cleared. I then tried to demote him and get the following message:

"You are attempting to outright Malik Baines to the minor leagues. He has the choice of becoming a free agent instead of accepting the assignment. We asked the player what he would do and he responded that he would elect to become a free agent. You may either keep him on your roster or release him."

I know this was always stated as a possibility because this is how it works in real life, but I've never seen it before in this game. I'm pretty sure in real life when someone elects free agency, it means they nullify their contract. Is that how it works in HBD? If I release this guy, will the system know to take his contract off my books?

I've got a ticket in, but that likely won't get answered until tomorrow at the earliest. I'm just wondering if anyone else has seen this and what the results are after releasing the player. Thanks

No. What he's doing is forcing you to either keep him on your major league roster or release him. Either way, it's not a loophole to get a bad contract off your books.

I believe this may have been confirmed via a ticket.

Thanks. That's stupid if true. I wonder why WIS is giving players power that they don't have in real life. It wouldn't be a loophole, it would be real. If WIS doesn't want people dumping contracts this way (which is probably a good idea), then they need all players to accept the assignment (which is pretty much how I thought it worked until this incident). This is unrealistic and adds nothing to the game. I'd have no problem putting the guy in AAA. But having to release him AND pay him despite clearing waivers? Unrealistic and dumb.

Thanks again for the response. I guess I'll discuss it with WIS through the ticket.

Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 5/09/2010
Thanks. That's stupid if true. I wonder why WIS is giving players power that they don't have in real life. It wouldn't be a loophole, it would be real. If WIS doesn't want people dumping contracts this way (which is probably a good idea), then they need all players to accept the assignment (which is pretty much how I thought it worked until this incident). This is unrealistic and adds nothing to the game. I'd have no problem putting the guy in AAA. But having to release him AND pay him despite clearing waivers? Unrealistic and dumb.

Thanks again for the response. I guess I'll discuss it with WIS through the ticket.

It absolutely does add something to the game. It's called dealing with a bad, unmovable contract, which happens in real-life all the time.

In MLB, teams are much more open to releasing a player and eating a contract than are HBD owners. In fact, the conventional wisdom in HBD is to not release a guy with season on his contract. Quite the opposite of real-life.

How often do you see 30+ year old MLB players with multi-million dollar contracts being demoted to AAA? Now, how often do you see it in HBD?

You're dealing with the bad contract regardless. I'm not sure what you think it adds to HBD to have the fake player get paid to retire vs play in AAA. What gameplay element do you think this adds? It's not going to force anyone to keep him on the ML squad. And for 99% of players in HBD, they accept the assignment anyway. They should either make this very rare situation match real life rules or make that 99% a 100%.

I guess I'll just say I respectfully disagree and leave it at that. I'm walking away thinking "coding error" and lot more than "what great depth this feature artificially adds to the game".

Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 5/09/2010
Thanks. That's stupid if true. I wonder why WIS is giving players power that they don't have in real life. It wouldn't be a loophole, it would be real. If WIS doesn't want people dumping contracts this way (which is probably a good idea), then they need all players to accept the assignment (which is pretty much how I thought it worked until this incident). This is unrealistic and adds nothing to the game. I'd have no problem putting the guy in AAA. But having to release him AND pay him despite clearing waivers? Unrealistic and dumb.

Thanks again for the response. I guess I'll discuss it with WIS through the ticket.

Why are you saying this is unrealistic? It's EXACTLY the way it works in real-life. You cannot break a contract just by saying "Eh, I really don't want you nor do I want to pay you anymore". If you release a guy, you have to pay the remainder of his contract. And in real-life, the players have the right to refuse a minor league assignment. That's a negoiated right in the Basic Agreement.

If anything, they should make a change so that more veterans under a major league contract refuse minor league assignments after they clear waivers so that you have to either keep them or release them. Make the percentage of players who refuse assignments match real-life, which is probably somewhere in the 90% or higher range if I had to guess.

My understanding was that "electing free agency" meant voiding your contract. Meaning...the player can accept the assignment if he wants to get paid under his current contract. In that case, the team is still obligated to pay him under the terms of the contract. They are not "deciding they don't want to keep him or pay him". BUT...if the player doesn't want to take the assignment, they have the option of voiding the contract and becoming a free agent. I'm not saying that teams can release a player and not pay him. I never said that. It's not even a team decision, it's a player decision.

Admittedly, I'm not 100% sure that this is how it works, it's just how I interpreted the language. You may be right. If it's this way in real life, then I don't have a problem with it.

Here is a link to the current CBA that I found:

http://mlbplayers.mlb.com/pa/pdf/cba_english.pdf

I'm not a lawyer, so I still don't know if I'm reading it correctly, but this topic seems to be covered on page 78 and seems to indicate that players electing free agency are not entitled to what is called "termination pay".

Not sure what "termination pay" is, but a guaranteed contract is a guaranteed contract. The MLBPA is such a powerhouse union precisely because it has forced owners to agree to pay what's in the contract. In MLB, a 5-year, $100M contract is a 5-year, $100M contract. In the NFL, it could end up being a 2-year, $25M deal if the player's performance declines. After Ryan Howard becomes 2010 David Ortiz in a season or two, the Phillies will not be able to get out of paying him, whether he takes a demotion to AAA to relearn how to hit or not.

But, i think the point is the player is deciding to waive his contract because he doesn't want to be demoted.

In the situation cmthieme is describing there is no way to demote the player, i think. It's not so much about getting out of paying him, but more about getting out of having him stuck on the ML roster.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

To be clear, you designated him for assignment with waivers or you just waived him?

To be clear, I never once expected to be able to dump his contract nor said teams can do that in real life. I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up. My understanding is that "electing to become a FA" is the equivalent of opting out of your contract in real life. The player can either keep his contract and accept assignment or opt-out and become FA. It's the player's choice. This may or may not be true in real life. I can't seem to find a definitive answer one way or the other and the languauge in the CBA is confusing.

FWIW, WIS said that in real life the player can refuse the assignment AND keep their contract. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I'm not interested enough anymore to worry about this any further, mainly because there is a way around it in HBD anyway to get them in your minors.

In MLB, a 5+ year ML veteran can refuse a minor league assignment. In that case, the team must either keep him on the 25 man roster or release him. Upon releasing him, they are forced to pay his remaining salary as well. If he is signed by another team, the original team must pay the difference in salary, provided he is paid less by his new team.

Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 5/10/2010
To be clear, I never once expected to be able to dump his contract nor said teams can do that in real life. I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up. (1)My understanding is that "electing to become a FA" is the equivalent of opting out of your contract in real life. The player can either keep his contract and accept assignment or opt-out and become FA. It's the player's choice. This may or may not be true in real life. I can't seem to find a definitive answer one way or the other and the languauge in the CBA is confusing.

FWIW, WIS said that in real life the player can refuse the assignment AND keep their contract. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I'm not interested enough anymore to worry about this any further, mainly because (2) there is a way around it in HBD anyway to get them in your minors.

1) There is the problem. Your understanding is incorrect.

2) And that is another problem. For the sake of realism in HBD , more veteran players should be refusing minor league assignments and forcing owners to release them, as they do in real-life. It would add a level of strategy to the game in that major league quality players who are released will end up on other major league rosters at minimum pay rather than rotting away in the minors.