|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM (Michael) on Feb 27, 2011 20:01:32 GMT -5
lol but why should a team have to pay an extra $5m? It is uncomparable to your spitting analogy. So what there was no rule in place. Now, there is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Feb 27, 2011 21:59:50 GMT -5
No, this is a terrible rule idea honestly. A player has a contract, you can't just decide his original team owes him more money for no reason. What if a player's contract goes to 20M in 5 years but it's only 10M right now? Does the original team owe 10M this year, and the difference every year of the contract? It's pretty ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM (Michael) on Feb 27, 2011 22:01:39 GMT -5
No...but for one year, the team that traded for the player pays for the contract he thought he was paying for. Cubs passed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick(Cubs) on Feb 27, 2011 22:02:06 GMT -5
No this is only if a error in the contract is made. so if i trade you albert pujols and tell you he makes $10M this season. then you find out he actually makes $15M, i would have to pay the $5M that i screwed up on because i did not make sure my players contracts were correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM (Michael) on Feb 27, 2011 22:05:53 GMT -5
Exactly
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM on Feb 27, 2011 22:08:12 GMT -5
Right, that's fine. But if a player is making more money next year, that's the responsibility of the team acquiring him to research.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM (Michael) on Feb 27, 2011 22:09:13 GMT -5
Yeah...I always make sure to do that!
|
|
