Rule change Proposal - ARB Extensions

[EastCoastGonzo]

Here is my rule change proposal for extensions. A lot of people have asked about doing extensions for ARB players. The trouble is doing that in a way that it confers a benefit on the manager and is realistic enough to not destroy competitive balance. The proposal:

Once a player has 1 year of Armchair service time, so is beginning a season as an ARB2 player they will eligible for an ARB extension depending on their service time, using the extension table. Examples below:

An ARB2 player can receive: 9 yr extension at 90% of their respective positions extension amount listed on the extension table.

ARB3 / 8 yrs at 95%

ARB4 / 7 yrs at 97%

ARB5 / 6 yrs at 100%

ARB6 / 5 yrs at 110%

FA / up to 5 yrs at x% (extension value determined normally)

So an example. Say you have a pitcher who you believe will be a rockstar, he finishes his rookie season and you decide to take the gamble and lock him up in a monster extension. His extension would be 9yrs / $8,800,000 = 79M. I think it balances the risk and reward correctly. You forego the cost saves of ARB2-3 for cost certainty in the future, and protection against a real life ARB number that may be 15M+ if he really is that good. If he pans out you get an ace for a below market rate, if he doesn't that's the risk you take but it won't be so terrible as to destroy your team.

I think trying to lock up a player right before he goes into FA should be costly, you have to pay them to forgo FA. But for certain teams it would be advantages, if for example the following off-season they would have 3 players eligible for extensions and wanted to keep all three, they could sign one to an above market extension before hand.

Players who receive an ARB Extension would not be eligible to be traded until the trade deadline of year 3 of their extension. So if you were to give a player an extension this off-season he could not be traded until June - August 2026. The rules for a normal FA Extension would not change, you could still trade that player after June 1 of that same year.

Extensions would still be limited to 2 per off-season, including 1 ARB Extension.

The extension years posted are fixed, so you could not do a ARB2 extension for say 4 years, it must be 9.


This rule change may require us to adjust how much or how salary is traded among teams.

[Shannonlwalker2]

Voted NO:  the competitive balance is already pretty skewed.   There are 10 teams that are good.  10-15 that are pretty lousy ( for 1 reason or another), and 5 teams are floating around mediocrity.  I feel the good managers will just continue to further the divide by locking up the best young talent for years (at significant discounts).  If the this WAS to play out, then I think it would be even harder to keep and find owners for the teams that are so far behind.
 Just conjecture on my part: if we want a truly competitive league. This should probably be tabled until we (the league) can secure descent, active, and consistent managers for all the teams in the league.

[EastCoastGonzo]

I hear what you're saying @Shannonlwalker2 but that split you described is pretty much how real MLB is, and I think that means that we are reflecting reality pretty well lol.

But I get what you're saying. I proposed this to try and address something people have been asking for for a couple years. I don't necessarily have a problem waiting to make it happen. Or even adjusting it.

The teams that don't have owners aren't as bad off as they seems anymore they all have average farms. In fact if we're being honest it's some of the owned teams that are way off at the bottom of the league...