On Steven Roosevelt's New Contract, Backloaded Deals, and Possible Rules

There was a reasonable amount of world discussion about the contract recently signed by Steven Roosevelt - probably more than any one transaction that I have seen in my 14 seasons as commissioner of Upper Deck.  My own two cents regarding this particular deal, deals like it, and the fallout are numerous. They include:

Thoughts about Roosevelt's new deal

1. Roosevelt currently represents one of the best, if not the best, complete package at SS - a premium position.  He has won a Gold Glove at shortstop to go with six Silver Sluggers at the position, seven All Star Appearances, and even won the Home Run Derby once.  Over the past ten seasons, no other player has won both a Gold Glove and Silver Slugger at shortstop (though a few Silver Slugger SS have won GG at other positions), and few have made as many All Star appearances. It is easy to make the argument that Roosevelt is a generational talent.
2. For this season and at least the next one, he’s virtually guaranteed to be worth his salary ($23 million total).  Beyond season 34, even if Roosevelt’s defense begins to slip, his makeup suggests that he’ll still probably be an above average or replacement level bat with a good glove at the hot corner.
3. The final season of the deal is a mutual option, so even if he’s vastly diminished by age 36, it’ll be a $4.5m buyout, not an $18 million salary. All told, the contract guarantees $61.5 million over four years.  Should a new owner inherit this contract, I don't think it will be considered an albatross, nor for very long if it is.

Thoughts about backloaded contracts

1. There are pros and cons to front or backloading contracts. For a team who’s won a lot in recent seasons, as Richmond has, backloading is sometimes the only way to structure deals that fit within budgetary constraints. Personally, I don’t like to backload, but I have done it when necessary. It has not always planned out for me. 
2. This does happen in real sports, as well. People sign bad contracts that the next regime must work around. However, the risk/reward nature of free agency is very real, and I appreciate that realistic aspect of offseason strategy in Hardball Dynasty.

A defense of both owners

1. Ted is a former longtime owner in this world and is not the type of owner I’d expect to obliterate a team and run. He has been successful during both runs to date. 
2. I would add that Jt is another good, longtime owner who cares about the health of the world, which we can all appreciate, whether or not we agree with his sentiment or his approach.

Where do we go from here?

Every once in a while, a situation arises that makes a private world such as ours consider rule changes.  This may or may not result in a rule change, but for the benefit of Upper Deck, I figured that we may as well have a discussion about it.

The issue at hand is one that I have seen in other worlds - one GM or owner inheriting heavily backloaded and, in some cases, franchise-crippling contracts.  While I do not believe that that will be the case for Ted's deal with Roosevelt, nor that we have had this particular issue in Upper Deck, we can discuss possible rules to govern this behavior.

Possible Rules Changes

1. Implementing a salary cap.  Requiring that all owners cap their team's payroll at $100 million, for example, would surely keep the number of max contracts down, and would give some competitive edge to those owners who have been financially prudent, and/or whose teams have been rebuilding.
2. Setting a maximum contract value. In CAPB, they play with a $75 million max contract value, where now single season can top $15 million in salary. This includes signing bonus.  Deals signed prior to implementation would be grandfathered in.  Penalties for violation would have to be discussed.
• Personally, I don't know that I would support this for Upper Deck, though one consequence is that payroll stays relatively low.  With that said, I happened to inherit a team with two max contracts ($75m/5y) that were true albatrosses.
3. Enforcing a more rigid contract structure.  In this case, we could require that the fourth and fifth seasons of a five-year deal could not exceed $13 million per season, leaving the max contract as $86 million over five years ($96 including a first season signing bonus).
• In practice, this could equate to a front-loading policy, and could punish owners who have won recently and whose payrolls are likelier to be higher in current seasons.

These are those ideas that I have come up with to this point. Comment below or send me a Trade Chat to voice your opinion on a rule change.  If more owners support a rule change than not, we will vote on the most popular rule change, with a two-thirds vote (22 owners) needed to ratify the rule change.