New Rule Surrounding Salary Retention

[aaronweiner]

Hi everyone. We're also implementing a new rule on salary retention.

We are requiring that any team receiving a salary-retained player have at least 50% of the total guaranteed salary listed on their books upon receiving the player. This means that any team that owns a player is obligated to pay at least half of their total salary in the duration of their ownership of that player.

This will eliminate 100% retention and higher retention values than 50%, which we think could be detrimental to turned over franchises, eliminates infinite salary cap avoidance, and, if it were to occur at some point in the future, would be effective in at least partially countering collusion.

This rule will take effect after the 2049 season but not during. All transactions before the end of the 2049 season will be grandfathered in.

[GoldenOne]

Bad news for trading in the league again! I'd rather just go back to no retention than do this.

[aaronweiner]

Bad news for trading in the league again! I'd rather just go back to no retention than do this.

That was something that we were considering. Also you still can.

[sjshaw]

Love it

[JimBob2232]

Thank you for making this effective at a future point in time - and not immediate or retroactive.

[GoldenOne]

I've re-written this several times but since I can already guess what the response is going to be, I'll just say I dont like it and isnt getting at the root of the actual problem with crazy contracts.

[tylertoo]

isnt getting at the root of the actual problem with crazy contracts.

I'm not trying to be snarky at all -- genuinely wondering what would be a better way to help curb crazy deals? Already they are limited by maximum years (6) and indirectly by the salary cap and budget limitations.

I think this is a reasonable tweak. It slightly lessens a GM's ability to trade their way out of a bad deal, which hopefully would make them think harder about offering such a deal in the future.

[GoldenOne]

isnt getting at the root of the actual problem with crazy contracts.

I'm not trying to be snarky at all -- genuinely wondering what would be a better way to help curb crazy deals? Already they are limited by maximum years (6) and indirectly by the salary cap and budget limitations.

I think this is a reasonable tweak. It slightly lessens a GM's ability to trade their way out of a bad deal, which hopefully would make them think harder about offering such a deal in the future.

When Ted made those deals, he had no intention of trading his way out of them, or even about leaving the BBA at that point. With the Raider deal, even Ron came to the conclusion that the prospects/draft picks Madison received for retaining Raider's contract was about equal to the amount of the remaining on Raider's deal.

If I want to retain 100% of a 1-year, 8M contract to get a better prospect, I should be able to. If I want someone else to retain 70% of a 3-year, 20M per year contract and empty out my prospect list, I should be able to. If I dont want to trade and retain anything at all, that's my choice.

What's to stop someone from moving a club and doing a stupid stadium deal and then leaving the BBA? Nothing. There are plenty of ways to screw over "the next guy" and retention is just one way. Its very rare that a new guy gets to take over a club that is running well and has a chance at winning. Maybe when the next club that is "in a bad way" comes open, instead of immediately handing it off to a new guy, maybe we offer it to someone that has some BBA experience and wants a challenge, or sees the light at the end of a tunnel. Maybe the GB could retain a list of current BBA members that would be willing to move should a new vacancy open up - right of first refusal or something.

[aaronweiner]

isnt getting at the root of the actual problem with crazy contracts.

I'm not trying to be snarky at all -- genuinely wondering what would be a better way to help curb crazy deals? Already they are limited by maximum years (6) and indirectly by the salary cap and budget limitations.

I think this is a reasonable tweak. It slightly lessens a GM's ability to trade their way out of a bad deal, which hopefully would make them think harder about offering such a deal in the future.

When Ted made those deals, he had no intention of trading his way out of them, or even about leaving the BBA at that point. With the Raider deal, even Ron came to the conclusion that the prospects/draft picks Madison received for retaining Raider's contract was about equal to the amount of the remaining on Raider's deal.

If I want to retain 100% of a 1-year, 8M contract to get a better prospect, I should be able to. If I want someone else to retain 70% of a 3-year, 20M per year contract and empty out my prospect list, I should be able to. If I dont want to trade and retain anything at all, that's my choice.

What's to stop someone from moving a club and doing a stupid stadium deal and then leaving the BBA? Nothing. There are plenty of ways to screw over "the next guy" and retention is just one way. Its very rare that a new guy gets to take over a club that is running well and has a chance at winning. Maybe when the next club that is "in a bad way" comes open, instead of immediately handing it off to a new guy, maybe we offer it to someone that has some BBA experience and wants a challenge, or sees the light at the end of a tunnel. Maybe the GB could retain a list of current BBA members that would be willing to move should a new vacancy open up - right of first refusal or something.

So much to unpack here. First of all, Ted left the BBA every month or so before he was removed by force. Let’s not speak of the Ted.

Secondly, the problem with 100% salary retention is that it hypothetically allows for an infinity cap. That's not even in the spirit of a salary cap.

And, finally, what’s stopping you doing all the things above at this moment is nothing. Knock yourself out. Next year what will be stopping you from doing that is this.

[aaronweiner]

And finally what you say about ownership is both potentially ideal and potentially not. New people become great owners sometimes.

[GoldenOne]

So much to unpack here. First of all, Ted left the BBA every month or so before he was removed by force. Let’s not speak of the Ted.

Agreed. But TWC wouldnt be having these epically horrible seasons if he hadnt intentionally set the team up to be destroyed and then left. That was basically just a 1-year shot with the intention of being so horrible later on that you'd be getting the top pick for many seasons. How is that not basically tanking after that first year or two?

Secondly, the problem with 100% salary retention is that it hypothetically allows for an infinity cap.

No, not really. You run out of prospects to trade to get a guy to retain 100% before too long and then you have to pay the consequences for many seasons. What it does is hurt the teams that are trying to build up a farm system by getting better prospects from being able to do that as well.

And, finally, what’s stopping you doing all the things above at this moment is nothing. Knock yourself out. Next year what will be stopping you from doing that is this.

What's stopping me is that almost nobody in this league likes to trade to begin with and now this will just make it harder. The same 4-5 guys that are active traders cant just keep swapping players, that doesnt work.

Why should it be that next season if I wanted to trade Ruiz and his 1-year, 16.5M contract I wouldnt be able to retain it all for a better prospect? Why shouldnt I be able to trade Destefani and retain all of his 1-year, 3.8M contract to get a better return? Why isnt that my choice? If you are worried that I trade Ruiz to someone that goes on to win the championship but is basically over the cap, why not add a softer cap that doesnt allow more than 120M, including the value of retained salaries, or something along those lines?

[GoldenOne]

And finally what you say about ownership is both potentially ideal and potentially not. New people become great owners sometimes.

Yes, but it makes it harder. It sucked being at the bottom for so long in Nashville (not saying that I am a "great owner") and it had little to do with retained contracts (we didnt have retention back then either so people werent as loose with the contracts they offered) and a lot to do with the crappy stadium deal I was handed. But nothing was ever done to fix something like that from happening ever again.

[aaronweiner]

So your answer is to hire accountants? Nope. Nobody's interested in becoming the salary police.

Our standard is, as it has always been, that if the game allows a contract, we allow a contract. You might ask then, what's to stop everyone from doing what Ted did? And I will tell you simply that Ted had one and a half feet out the door the minute he returned. That was one big happy science experiment for him. You might remember the eyerolls I gave in the Media Guide that year where I said "And we'll be chaining Ted to his desk and making him work on this in three years."

We're working on the assumption that most people are doing things to try to be competitive instead of performing financial experiments.

50% wasn't an accident either. If we simply outlawed "100%" deals everyone would have gravitated right to 90% retention. You want a player, you pay half his salary. Pretty simple. They allow this up to 15% of the salary cap in the NHL and not at all in the NBA or NFL.

The soft cap thing is interesting, but we maintain a level playing field in the BBA as much as possible instead.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong or we're completely right. But the rule's sensible and easy to maintain and makes sense. It still facilitates trades, just not in a way that's potentially imbalancing. And it smacks down anyone who might collude (I trade my five best players for your "four best prospects" and retain salary.)

[GoldenOne]

So your answer is to hire accountants? Nope. Nobody's interested in becoming the salary police.

Our standard is, as it has always been, that if the game allows a contract, we allow a contract. You might ask then, what's to stop everyone from doing what Ted did? And I will tell you simply that Ted had one and a half feet out the door the minute he returned. That was one big happy science experiment for him. You might remember the eyerolls I gave in the Media Guide that year where I said "And we'll be chaining Ted to his desk and making him work on this in three years."

We're working on the assumption that most people are doing things to try to be competitive instead of performing financial experiments.

50% wasn't an accident either. If we simply outlawed "100%" deals everyone would have gravitated right to 90% retention. You want a player, you pay half his salary. Pretty simple. They allow this up to 15% of the salary cap in the NHL and not at all in the NBA or NFL.

The soft cap thing is interesting, but we maintain a level playing field in the BBA as much as possible instead.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong or we're completely right. But the rule's sensible and easy to maintain and makes sense. It still facilitates trades, just not in a way that's potentially imbalancing. And it smacks down anyone who might collude (I trade my five best players for your "four best prospects" and retain salary.)

No, I'm saying dont let the BBA be someone's personal experiment. The GB should have absolutely stepped in and voided those contracts and said no, ​especially if, as you say, he had 1.5 feet already out the door. Tell him no, that's stupid, let him rage-quit then and save TWC the 3+ seasons of pain. I'm all for, being as hands-off as possible, but that was not the time to do it.

Let the 100% retention remain and make the rule that the GB has to review and approve anything over 50% retention. Not all retention is equal and should be viewed on its own merits. Yes, just like the last rule I complained about being implemented, it does still allow trading, it just restricts it even more.

And you're right, the NBA and NFL dont allow it. The NHL allows very little. All 4 of those leagues have extremely different CBAs and salary caps, etc. too. Irrelevant.

It wasnt that long ago that we didnt allow retention at all. I'd rather just go back to that.