Illegal Contract - Mazara TEX

[David - Cleveland]

While a one-year deal, it was signed in June, which is not in the ARB window to avoid arbitration and therefore illegal.
It will be voided. That actually helps short-term, but free up the payroll.

See my post below!

[JF_Expos]

Sorry but this ruling doesn't work.

example:

player A is due arbitration after his 3rd season

player A signs a 1 one year extension BEFORE the allowed period (illegal)

the ruling is to take out the salary and make that player a min salary guy


That means a illegal signing it's like saving millions this yr and millions in future yrs since arbitration starts with the current salary of the player. That just doesn't make sense.


The problem is that there's ot penalty. David is better start watching every signings by Cleveland because I'm starting that right now (Could have saved Lindor 9.1M$, Lorenzen 2M$)

We know that TEXAS wouldn't have signed Mazara to a 6.2M$ extension if he thought he wasn't getting a better deal than going through arbitration. So at 6.2M$, it's a good deal for them. The penalty should be that we add like 50% or 100% of the current contract to Mazara's contract.

If we take 50%, the new Mazara salary would be 9.3M$
If we take the 100%, the new Mazara salary would be 12.4M$

That's a deterrent. No way I'd try to do that in the future with a rule like that...

[David - Cleveland]

As I mentioned in a Slack exchange after "fixing" this illegal contract (and added here for future reference)...

The post above is correct, there is actually no pentalty to ruling in this was. And I would like to also thank JF for first raising this through a Slack DM to me in the first place.

In this specific case (and I did notice some others when I was searching for this one oddly enough), the contract was allowed to cross into a new financial year. Thus, the penalty is pretty much useless at this time and, as pointed out, actually benefits TEX either way (lower than arb contract OR voiding it now in favour of a $535k contract). I will reverse this decision tonight and reinstate the original contract because of this! But I will also leave this sitting here as a reminder.

Had the contract been noticed when it was signed, middle of the previous season, before the arbitration window opened, then it would still have been a "tentative" signing (shown in the right-hand window). At that point it can be voided and the contract would revert to the minimum *PLUS, the reason for this rule in the first place,* the game AI would continue to calculate the player's value before they get to arbitration annually.

I will continue to watch every contract, as best he can, as they are signed. I would appreciate any help offered as was the case here, if a bit late, should you see one that skirts the rules.

I would kindly ask that GM strategy not be to continually test this ruling because that is not in the spirit of the very few "house rules" we have in ABL, yet at the same time, is why there is a "house rule" of this kind in the first place.

Thanks again for bringing this contract to may attention in the first place @jflegault_cleveland - I will try to catch them in future as they happen.

This is a glaring example of why, when you do implement rules in an online league, you must diligently enforce them.

[Deleted]

I appreciate JF calling this out, and David being open-minded to make a lateral change.
#teamworkmakesthedreamwork