Releasing a player - only option to spread out the expenses?

[hefalumps]

I just got to my season's end (World Series is over but haven't proceeded to the offseason yet) and I've got about $10M in profits. There's a guy on my team who I want to release who has $2.8M over 2 years left on his contract, and I'd like to cut him now and pay it all before I roll over to the next season. I know I've done this before with older versions where the only option was to pay out the entire contract now and have it added to your season expenses.

But when I go to release this player, it doesn't give me a choice - it just tells me that the expenses will be spread out over the remainder of his contract. If that's my only choice, I might as well keep him - he's a serviceable utility guy, just making more than I think he's worth.

My question - am I doing something wrong? I thought in more recent versions you could choose between all at once or spreading it out. My only option is spread it out. Is it because I waited until the day right before the offseason starts?

By the way - I'm actually playing on OOTP23 still - I'm about to migrate my saved league over to OOTP24 and I'm curious if I'll have the same issue.

Thanks!

[hefalumps]

Well I just imported my OOTP23 game into OOTP24 and I'm seeing the same thing - can't just take the total hit of the contract now on the last day of the postseason - it's only letting me spread it out over the remainder of his contract. So in that case, I guess I'll keep him.

Does anyone know if this is only happening because of where I am in the season? For example, if I had tried to release him on the second to last day of the regular season, would it have given me the option to eat the whole contract now?

Guess I'll find out once I start moving forward in the game - but if anyone can tell me from their experience, I'd appreciate it! Thanks!

[Brad K]

I had it happen on 23. It was not the last day of the season.

[mars001]

Could go into Commission Mode and make the adjustments manually? Would that be cheating?

[KRSW]

There is either a budget shortfall due to the difference between revenue and budget, or there is salary retained by the opponent team when that player is acquired in a trade.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by KRSW

There is either a budget shortfall due to the difference between revenue and budget, or there is salary retained by the opponent team when that player is acquired in a trade.

Salary retained explains my situation.

[hefalumps]

Oh ok that might explain it.

I think in previous versions when eating the whole contract immediately was the only option, you could do it, even if it put you way in the hole for budget reasons, etc. And then when you switched to the offseason, the amount you went in the hole would get offset by the profit from the previous season, so if the amount of profit (revenue minus expenses) covered the entire cost of the contract, you could release the player and pay the remaining contract out of the revenue before they start figuring out revenue sharing, cash from owner, etc.

But if what you're saying is true, I only have $5K left in "Total Money Available", so that's probably why I'm not able to eat the whole contract now, even though my revenue minus expenses for the just completed season is over $11M.

I think I understand the logic here, but it kind of stinks. Because when I advance to the next day, we're going to lose money to revenue sharing, the owner is going to keep whatever "cash from owner" he sees fit, and I'll likely have a starting balance somewhere between $500K and $1M out of that $11M in profits, which still won't be enough to cover this guy's contract.

I get it - eating the whole contract now eats into the owner's profits from the current season, and maybe my owner doesn't want to do that (his priority is "Profit"). I would be curious to know if OOTP just by default doesn't let you eat the whole contract if it doesn't fit in the budget or if certain owners would be willing to use the profits from a season to pay off the rest of a bad contract so as not to hinder next year's payroll.

Curious what others think - thanks for everyone's help figuring this out!

[Bobfather]

Why not try to trade him, for a prospect? Even if you have to eat a bit of the contract.

[hefalumps]

Ah - the dreaded 10-and-5 No Trade Clause is why.

There was actually a short window after I first signed him (before I realized how much he'd declined) where we was open to a trade back to the team he was originally drafted by. But I ended up needing him as a starter for a stretch and after a brief hot streak, he went ice cold. By the time I wanted to try to deal him, he was full NTC mode.

[Matt Arnold]

I'm not even sure if we give the option to eat the whole thing anymore in any cases, mostly due to the above (it becomes a little too easy to basically trick the owner with a deal).

Good luck dealing with him

[hefalumps]

Thanks for the candid response Matt - I guess it makes sense if you look at how real life situations like this are handled - Aaron Hicks still getting paid by the Yankees, for example. It's not like the Yankees paid him the remaining few years on his deal in one lump sum when they cut him - they're still paying him this year and next! I guess I just got used to being able to use that loophole from older versions.

At least the guy plays a bunch of positions and has some speed - a well compensated utility player!

Thanks to everyone for your help with this.

[KRSW]

I am waiting for a future where we can save our unspent budget to acquire big name free agents when we contend. Isn't that exactly what IRL Rangers did?

[Brad K]

I can't imagine a situation where a business would pay a person now when they could pay them later. Even if the business doesn't have investments with Bernie Madoff.

[bwburke94]

Paying Bobby Bonilla later eventually got the Mets David Wright, so it wasn't all bad.