I have a question about extensions in general, and extensions which are less than the current contract, in particular.
We currently have a rule in place which states that an extension given at the end of the current contract must be at least 70%. This is covered in this revision:
Item IX G-2.0
A player may be given an extension that is less than their current salary. However, such an extension has three restrictions.
1) The eligibility period for granting a player an extension below their current salary is only in the last year of their contract.
2) On top of the minimum and maximum years for contracts, the longest this type of extension can be is two years.
3) New salary may be no less than 70% of previous salary. Therefore, a player with market value of $2.5m, current one-year deal of $5m, can have an extension for two years equal to $3.5m (0.7 * 5 = 3.5).
But in the Andrew Miller example, this revision seems to say something else. For the sake of explanation, I'm going to substitue SP Joe Blanton, $1.5m (2015). His contract actually expires in 2016, but it illustrates the issue I'm discussing.
The revision states:
SP Joe Blanton, $1.5m (2015) - 2014 Rank: No Rank -- 2015 Rank: #136 = $0.5m
If I wait until after the 2015 season is over, then I may him to an extension less than $1.5m, but at least as great as 50% of $1.5m, rounded to the nearest half-million. In other words, Blanton would have to be signed to at least $1m (1.5*0.5 = 0.750 ~)
Although I'm being picky here, it would seem that Blanton (Miller) could not be signed to an extension for $1.0m because $1.0m is only 67% of his original $1.5m contract and our current, and proposed rules states: New salary may be no less than 70% of previous salary.
It recent years, our 70% rule has been questioned by some members of the masses, and maybe a viable compromise would be a reduction to 50% of the original contract. This past year, two players come to mind, SP Matt Cain $9.5m (2015) and OF Josh Hamilton, $18.0m (2015). Both players still have some value, but not at the 70% amount (Cain = $7.0m and Hamilton = $13.0m ~ $12.6m is the actual 70% but would not meet the 70% requirement). If they could be given extensions at a rate 50%, their respective GMs may still opt against re-signing them, but a contract of $5.0m or $9.0m might be something to weigh before letting them go to free agency.
Of course, in regards to the two players in question, reacquiring them through free agency is always an option, but the decision to do so is really no decision at all when considering our 70% rule.
Just food for thought.
