My unnamed correspondent from yesterday has another question:
Dear Mr.EFL Answer Man:
What’s the rule about drafting someone whom you already pay? I pay the difference? Or, is it legal to draft Cingrani, trade him for Van Slyke and only pay what Van Slyke is actually making? How’s that all work?
— Unnamed EFL Owner
Dear UFO (Unnamed Fantasy Owner):
Let’s say back in February of 2016 you bid $4,250,000 per year for 3 years for Scott Van Slyke. Then in May of this year you repented and dumped him. Now, filled with remorse, you are rerepenting and want him back.
Currently your only relationship with Van Slyke is as someone who owes him money: $4,250,000 this year and next. Now that he is not on your roster, you could save some money if Van Slyke signs a new contract this winter. He’s currently being paid $1,325,000 by the Reds — his agents were having a better day when you signed him, I guess. He’s also stinking it up this year (.122 .250 .293 in 48 MLB AB’s, and only .242, .332, .396 at Oklahoma City). So let’s say his agents have another good day this winter and get him a $1,000,000 contract for next year. You’d save that $1,000,000 off your obligation.
But you are going to do right by Van Slyke and give him his job back with your EFL team. So you put him up at $1,000,000 for two years. Luckily for you the Wolverines owner hasn’t had time to do his scouting, so he matches your bid and you pass. Now the W’s have Van Slyke through 2018 at $1,000,000 per year, and you save $1,000,000 this year and next.
But imagine (if you can) that the Wolverine owner ISN’T asleep at the wheel. He passes just like everyone else. Now you’ve reacquired Van Slyke for $1,000,000. You owe him the money but you still get the credit off your old obligation so in essence you’re getting him for free!
But you are a man of action. The easy way to do things is for lazy, boring people. Instead of bringing Van Slyke up for bid, you bid on Cingrani, and win at $12,000,000 per year for 5 years. Then you trade Cingrani for Van Slyke (after the draft is over, of course). And here we come upon a flaw in the otherwise perfect EFL rules: we assume the Dodgers are willing to take on Cingrani’s contract no matter what it is. (We should calibrate the effects on the Dodgers to make them no more onerous than the Dodgers agreed to assume in the MLB trade, but that’s a level of complication we have not embraced, if you can imagine that.) So Cingrani’s contract disappears and you have taken on an obligation to pay Van Slyke according to his contract with the Dodgers/Reds: $1,325,000 for the rest of the year.
You must pay him that $1,325,000 as his “new owner.” As his “old owner” you still owe him $4,250,000 — but you get to credit your new obligation against the old one, so again it’s like you get Van Slyke for free since your total obligation to him has not increased.
The one difference is you’ve denied Cingrani to one of your fellow EFL owners. Which would also be a flaw in EFL rules if they ever had more than one flaw at a time.