A theoretical rule:

What does everyone think about the fact that a new owner, such as myself, taking over a team, will sometime run into the fact that the team's salary cap is often consumed by one player. I took over a team and am going to see 12 million over the next 6 years go into the hands of a 77 rated, defensively unsuitable shortstop.
I would propose that, if an organization changed ownership, an owner could be given an option to release a player being paid more than 10 mil for more than 3 years, and not suffer too much of a salary cap hit...or something. I don't know. I guess I don't have a sure proposal, but I think it's just something unfair about taking over a team. I've seen contracts of 17 mil over 5 years...ridiculous amounts.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Musings?

I hate to use this one, but it's about the only good reason not to have this.

Alias abuse.

Make a bad signing?  Get your team back with a new login and clean the slate.

I think that there should be some level (dollar amount/ Length of Contract)  offer that requires you to have the next season reserved to offer (and not be able to opt out of).  i.e. if you are going to offer any contract 4 years or longer in length or 8 million or greater in dollar value in teh 2nd season, you must have the next season reserved and not be able to remove that reservation.

Trade him, waive him, move him to 3B? If someone gavea FA contract that high, someone else was after him aswell,so he must have "some" value.

If a team has a player(or players)with an undesirable contract, you have the option not to take that team.

Posted by Crump123 on 7/18/2010 4:35:00 AM (view original):
Trade him, waive him, move him to 3B? If someone gavea FA contract that high, someone else was after him aswell,so he must have "some" value.

Sadly, this is not true... I have seen owners just toss out a max contract or double the demands without any competition.  Sometimes this might be a good strategy, but I've seen it used where it pretty clearly was not.

I think it's a concern to implement a major rule change that doesn't correspond with MLB's rules. Yes, it would be for the benefit of the game as a whole, but think of the other 31 owners in the world; not only do they have to live with their bad decisions, but now it's impossible to plan for the upcoming FA market because you might resign a guy thinking there will be no help on the market and then all of a sudden some stud unexpectedly shows up after being released, which would never happen in real life. So it kind of screws up the realism for everyone else.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/18/2010 6:38:00 AM (view original):
If a team has a player(or players)with an undesirable contract, you have the option not to take that team.

+1

I also agree that since you can view a team before you accept it, you play the hand out. In Speier's case I'd either move him to 2B - where his bat will be acceptable and his def should be a bit above avg (if overpaid) - or try to package him with one of your prospects and see if another owner will take the contract off your hands.

When inheriting a new team owners should not be able to pick and choose which contracts they desire to keep. If you are going to propose that rule then it should apply to all teams not just new owners. In major league baseball if a new owner takes over a team he has to honor the contracts of all players.

I would like the maximum move per year to be higher than $4 million. $6 million might work.