I would love to see this added to the game, the option of buying the remaining years of a guy's contract out so you can get him off your books for subsequent years. Say you take over a team, or a guy suffers a devastating injury, and they are signed to a multi-year contract. You have no intention of using the player and have excess payroll budget available during this season. For example this guy: www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx. I have no intention of ever using him as a starter and he's not even a great defensive backup and I could find an adequate solution that would be a lot cheaper than his $5.8 mil salary the next two years. Say I had an extra $11.6 million in payroll sitting around, I could buy his remaining years out this year, I'd still pay him everything in his contract, it would just mean I wouldn't have to worry about his contract the next two years. 

How does it sound?

Tankers are going to find ways to tank irregardless of this.

Anyone want to comment on this besides Mike and his "anything we come up with to try and improve the game is going to result in more tanking" argument? 

It just seems you always go to the "tanking" argument. Where is this widespread tanking going on? If you are in a good respectable league you shouldn't have to worry. If a world does not have an anti-tanking rule or wins floor then it probably isn't a league you would want to be in anyway. Plus if anyone used the argument "I had to buyout this guy's contract, thus I had no payroll money to sign anyone halfway decent, thus is the reason why I lost 130 games" is BS to begin with and any halfway respectable commish and members of the world should kick him/her out. Chances are it's not going to be used all too often, and only in unique circumstances. 

Option 1:
TeamTank sends Solid Vet (3 x 8M) contract to TeamNoobRape for a 25th-man bench player halfway through the season. TeamTank throws in half of the salary as well. TeamTank says its a fair trade because "they aren't contending this year and they got an ML-caliber player out of the deal." TeamTank loses a couple extra games down the stretch.

Option 2:
TeamTank buys out Solid Vet, and loses a couple extra games down the stretch.


I would prefer Option 2, because at least now TeamTank is just screwing itself, not other teams in the league by dealing away a guy for 10 cents on the dollar by accepting the first offer and screwing other owners. Tankers will find ways to tank, but I don't think the buyout is a terrible idea. Better than cash in trades.

True. I'm just saying I would rather see somebody exercise a buyout (pay for him to go on the open market) then pay for him to play for another team. One effects me in the way that it makes one team less competitive this year and thus lowers the overall quality of the world to some degree. The other effects me in that it lets another guy have a free player to use against me.

I would have liked to have the buyout option in Happy Jack. I had 3 years x 9M left on a 1B who was good for about .810 OPS. Not a crippling deal, but I had the money to buy him out without really compromising competitiveness in year 1, and then I could have replaced that guy with a 1B with a real bat.  Instead I spent the money on an extra reliever who was only marginally better than the AAA guy I was going to bring up and then dumped the rest into IFA.

I would like to see it, because, for the most part, both worlds I play in are pretty solid, and I don't think it would get abused. But, I could see this causing some problems in some leagues. It's not something I would actively campaign for.

I like this in the same way I like the unlimited change in budgeting idea; one time, as the new owner comes in option, then it goes away.