ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: Dan Wood on January 06, 2011, 07:52:40 PM
-
Our current rule in place states that once you sign a player to a said amount of money, the new total immediately counts towards your current years budget. I propose a rule where you can resign a player, and the salary would start the following year. This was the Brewers GM's idea, but I think it is a fantastic one, and would make a ton of sense for teams in this league.
I would like to take the topic further. We also currently in place a way to restructure absurd contracts. I think we should also have in place a way to resign a player at a lower value. The stipulations would be...
- Players value, from the previous two scoring periods, would have to be lower than his current salary
- Player is in the final year of his contract, cannot be still under contract for multiple years - that is what the restructure is for.
- Prospect Extensions are different. If you choose to do it for a prospect, then the discount will be for the prospect following year of eligibility. This falls under the 40, 50, 60... see prospect extensions.
- If a player is in his final year of prospect eligibility, then tough breaks, either take the hit this year, or you do not get to sign said player under a prospect extension.
- Contract must be no less than 2 years. 1 year deals would not be allowed. What FA would sign early, for less, for less years? No one I know.
The addition of this rule, I feel will make the RFA process no longer needed.
Please discuss further
-
I'm not sure I follow your proposal for a lower salary, early extension.
Going by the current extension salary rules, I think allowing teams to extend a player for future years at the higher rate without the higher rate affecting the current season is reasonable.
- If you want to extend a prospect early, you do it at the rate it would cost for the following season (ie: if you extend a prospect during their 20XX+2 year, you need to pay the 20XX+1 price as this is what it would cost if you did it after the season - you don't get a double bonus).
- Extensions must begin the following season, and cannot be for X+1 seasons in the future. From this it follows that no player can have more than one extension looming at a given time.
- The admin staff needs to be willing to add an extra item to the roster tracking.
-
Having extensions kick in the year after the contract expires involves tooling the spreadsheet for variable salaries. One key rule in this league, to keep administration simple, is contracts with flat annual salaries. However, it can be argued that we screwed this up with cash exchanges... and showing current year + the next four year's salaries, in a Cot's Contract manner, would give a lot more info (and easy to do in a spreadsheet).
-
My vote is no on the first part. If you are going to resign a player in the season the salary should kick in immediately.
I would like to take the topic further. We also currently in place a way to restructure absurd contracts. I think we should also have in place a way to resign a player at a lower value. The stipulations would be...
- Players value, from the previous two scoring periods, would have to be lower than his current salary
- Player is in the final year of his contract, cannot be still under contract for multiple years - that is what the restructure is for.
I agree with this. But we should add that the current contract cannot be reduced by more than 50% Meaning if Johan Santana 23m (2011) was set to be resigned for 7m ad 8m... the lowest i can resign him for is 11.5m........Something we should add to it.
-
Corey, I knew I left something out. under our current rules you cannot sign someone for less than 50% of their former contract, and I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
-
Corey, I knew I left something out. under our current rules you cannot sign someone for less than 50% of their former contract, and I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
In that case I agree with this change
-
My vote is no on the first part. If you are going to resign a player in the season the salary should kick in immediately.
But that's not how the books work in real life... extensions are for future years, not always the current year.
-
Having extensions kick in the year after the contract expires involves tooling the spreadsheet for variable salaries. One key rule in this league, to keep administration simple, is contracts with flat annual salaries. However, it can be argued that we screwed this up with cash exchanges... and showing current year + the next four year's salaries, in a Cot's Contract manner, would give a lot more info (and easy to do in a spreadsheet).
I still think we avoid the complexity of variable salaries, but we introduce a step change where after the current season their salary goes up. All this does is allow owners to make their extensions official before the season ends, rather than within a 5 day window where owners may not have time. In reality, most extensions happen this way anyway, and they don't wait until the last minute. This lets teams that want to / can re-sign their players do so, and does not give them time to sign-and-trade (we could do away with the grace period completely).
-
But that's not how the books work in real life... extensions are for future years, not always the current year.
in real life mlb there current contract is added to the extension and averaged out.... it does kick in immediately
-
Are you sure about that? If you look at Cot's, players definitely have variable salaries throughout a contract, they are not averaged out...
-
They have variable salaries because gm's when signing players make there contracts different by year. Most big deals are backloaded. They only thing averaged out is there current contract. its paid amongest the years. sure a gm could give it to them all at once, but in real life mlb when a extension is done, the contract kicks in asap!
-
Players extension value should take over immediately. Too confusing the other way, firstly. And we have a limit on contract years allowed. If I sign a player to a five year extension they'd have a 6 year contract...which is a violation!
-
Players extension value should take over immediately. Too confusing the other way, firstly. And we have a limit on contract years allowed. If I sign a player to a five year extension they'd have a 6 year contract...which is a violation!
All we're doing is making it formal before the 5-day window...
-
Our current rule in place states that once you sign a player to a said amount of money, the new total immediately counts towards your current years budget. I propose a rule where you can resign a player, and the salary would start the following year. This was the Brewers GM's idea, but I think it is a fantastic one, and would make a ton of sense for teams in this league.
I would like to take the topic further. We also currently in place a way to restructure absurd contracts. I think we should also have in place a way to resign a player at a lower value. The stipulations would be...
- Players value, from the previous two scoring periods, would have to be lower than his current salary
- Player is in the final year of his contract, cannot be still under contract for multiple years - that is what the restructure is for.
- Prospect Extensions are different. If you choose to do it for a prospect, then the discount will be for the prospect following year of eligibility. This falls under the 40, 50, 60... see prospect extensions.
- If a player is in his final year of prospect eligibility, then tough breaks, either take the hit this year, or you do not get to sign said player under a prospect extension.
- Contract must be no less than 2 years. 1 year deals would not be allowed. What FA would sign early, for less, for less years? No one I know.
The addition of this rule, I feel will make the RFA process no longer needed.
Please discuss further
I dont understand what you mean Ben, with the 5-day window. If you re-sign a guy his contract should update instantly.
-
I dont understand what you mean Ben, with the 5-day window. If you re-sign a guy his contract should update instantly.
We're likely to move to a 5-day window after the season where teams have exclusive negotiating rights to their expiring contract players. Without allowing future extensions, all we'll do is make teams wait for that 5-day window. This isn't how it works in MLB, and it really doesn't benefit anyone to make them wait. It also doesn't offer any advantage, other than the convenience of getting the formality out of the way. Other than the additional tracking cost, which Colby seems to be ok with, I don't see any reason not to make the change.
-
We're likely to move to a 5-day window after the season where teams have exclusive negotiating rights to their expiring contract players. Without allowing future extensions, all we'll do is make teams wait for that 5-day window. This isn't how it works in MLB, and it really doesn't benefit anyone to make them wait. It also doesn't offer any advantage, other than the convenience of getting the formality out of the way. Other than the additional tracking cost, which Colby seems to be ok with, I don't see any reason not to make the change.
right...but the value of the extension should begin immediately shouldn't it?
-
right...but the value of the extension should begin immediately shouldn't it?
Well that's the discussion. My opinion is no, it shouldn't since it will only make teams wait but for no real reason.
-
right...but the value of the extension should begin immediately shouldn't it?
in season extensions without a doubt should begin immediately. You cant give a player an extension and not pay till next year. If we are trying to immulate mlb then you sign a player and he gets paid immediately.
-
in season extensions without a doubt should begin immediately.
Can you elaborate on why you think so, comparing the advantages and disadvantages?
-
Can you elaborate on why you think so, comparing the advantages and disadvantages?
Because that's how extensions work
edit: Note Adrian Gonzalez. The Red Sox waited for his extension to avoid the luxury tax increase. Why wouldn't they simply agree to an extension taking place after the luxury tax? Because it's not how it's done.
-
Chris is right that is how extensions work. The Braves just extended Uggla. His contracct this year is not his old its his new one. We are immulating MLB so lets stay with it. Keep as many rules like MLB as possible.
-
Chris is right that is how extensions work. The Braves just extended Uggla. His contracct this year is not his old its his new one. We are immulating MLB so lets stay with it. Keep as many rules like MLB as possible.
Those are valid points.
-
Uggla did not have a contract for 2011 prior to the extension. He was eligible for arbitration. Uggla signed a 1 year deal last year to avoid arbitration with the Marlins for $7.8M (see below).
Dan Uggla 2b
5 years/$62M (2011-15)
5 years/$62M (2011-15)
signed extension with Atlanta 1/5/11
$1M signing bonus
11:$9M, 12:13M, 13:$13M, 14:$13M, 15:$13M
1 year/$7.8M (2010)
re-signed by Florida 1/18/10 (avoided arbitration)
acquired by Atlanta in trade from Florida 11/16/10
-
Personally, I believe that all extensions should kick in the following season.
-
you are correct on uggla. agonz in boston is an example tho as well. extensions in baseball kick in right away. so we should as well.
-
I cannot recall one extension that kicked in immediately. A-Gonz did not sign an extension as has been widely reported. He will play out the 2011 season under the contract he had with the Padres. His direct quote is below.
Nothing about that is true. It’s false. I haven’t signed any contract. We discussed the trade, but we didn’t reach any agreement, and we didn’t negotiate numbers. The only thing I have for sure is the contract that I had already signed with the Padres, and what I can tell you is that over the course of the season we’re going to negotiate to reach an agreement.
Whether or not he agreed to an extension starting with the 2012 season is another matter, but his 2011 salary is not in question. If Boston re-did his 2011 salary, they would have to report it to the league office, and it would be subject to the luxury tax.
-
I agree he has not signed one yet, but when he does it will start immediately. I honestly have to much to do and do not care to go through and find extensions of players that kicked in immediately. Its the rule and its common sense. If the league doesnt want to use real life baseball rules, thats fine it doesnt matter to me either way. I just thought that was the premise for the league.
My vote is still to have extensions kick in at the time of the extension
-
My vote is to have extensions kick in immediately. It keeps roster tracking simple and not convoluted.
-
I agree he has not signed one yet, but when he does it will start immediately. I honestly have to much to do and do not care to go through and find extensions of players that kicked in immediately. Its the rule and its common sense. If the league doesnt want to use real life baseball rules, thats fine it doesnt matter to me either way. I just thought that was the premise for the league.
My vote is still to have extensions kick in at the time of the extension
:toast:
-
Extensions do not kick in immediately. Most players sign a deal that will start the following season.Most recently Ryan Howard. Teams don't mess with their budget for the current season, unless it saves money. I for one vote that we do it. If we can keep track of money changing hands from year to year, then I think we can keep track of upcoming contracts. IMHO.
Signed in 2010
Howard, the 2006 NL MVP, is earning $19 million this season as part of a $54 million, three-year deal that pays him $20 million in 2011.
The 30-year-old Howard will make $20 million each in 2012 and 2013 and $25 million annually from 2014-16. The Phillies have a $23 million club option for 2017 with a $10 million buyout.
-
Plus the decision to sign or trade a player is part of baseball. The Rays held on Crawford, knowing they needed him for the playoff run, and eventually the playoffs. The Twins dealt Santana knowing they couldn't afford him. Same with the Rangers/Braves with Texiera. Same with the Padres with Agon. It is a hard fact of life in MLB. That is not to say those teams gave up. The Rangers got two very good pieces in the deal for big Tex, which led to them being a playoff team a few years later. The Padres might end up being better without Agon, and with Rizzo, Kelly, and Fuentes. I just think resigning players during the season and having the salary kick in the following year, might help small market teams keep players while their value is on the rise, as opposed to when their value has reached it's echelon. With the way we correlate contracts to performance in this league, sometimes it is just about timing.
-
If we can keep track of money changing hands from year to year, then I think we can keep track of upcoming contracts. IMHO.
I'll skirt the debate on whether extensions kick in current year and next year, but I will pose a question to Dan/Ben...can you give me an idea of how a team would prepare for 'variable' salaries year to year?
I guess a more specific question would be, 'How do we know that managers in FGM will be fiscally smart about variable salaries year to year?'. My concern is that this could absolutely ruin some teams with irresponsible managers. What is the league's defense for a team that may be millions over the cap next season?
-
The contract(s) would be voided and the player(s) would become free agents. Or we could also give a team a certain amount of time to get to their cap, like we do with trades.
I am just realizing this now, but this would also give teams a loop hole, to get around the sign/trade. So I would also like to add that anyone under a new contract cannot be dealt until 6/1 of the year that contract starts. Same as with free agents.
-
The contract(s) would be voided and the player(s) would become free agents. Or we could also give a team a certain amount of time to get to their cap, like we do with trades.
I know many members have made a point to say that FGM is trying to 'emulate the real MLB'...I don't believe this would be emulating it. Plus, I'm not sure if we want members chomping at the bit and hoping we do have bad GM's, so others can pounce on their bad management and chase prospective FA's.
I'd much rather give the GM an opportunity to come under the cap.
-
The contract(s) would be voided and the player(s) would become free agents. Or we could also give a team a certain amount of time to get to their cap, like we do with trades.
I am just realizing this now, but this would also give teams a loop hole, to get around the sign/trade. So I would also like to add that anyone under a new contract cannot be dealt until 6/1 of the year that contract starts. Same as with free agents.
There definitely is a loop hole which just messes with the rules even further.
-
The contract(s) would be voided and the player(s) would become free agents. Or we could also give a team a certain amount of time to get to their cap, like we do with trades.
I am just realizing this now, but this would also give teams a loop hole, to get around the sign/trade. So I would also like to add that anyone under a new contract cannot be dealt until 6/1 of the year that contract starts. Same as with free agents.
So again, if you resign a guy in the middle of season say July you must keep him until the next June 1st.... not good
-
I feel that the 60 day rule we have in effect on in-season signings and draftees would be sufficient for free-agents and re-signs. Do we not have this already? I'm not sure.
-
I feel that the 60 day rule we have in effect on in-season signings and draftees would be sufficient for free-agents and re-signs. Do we not have this already? I'm not sure.
It currently does not exist for extensions.
-
We have a 60 day rule for draftees. I think the 6/1 rule should be in place for re-signees because they are in essence free agents. My point being, is if it is 60 days, they can still be moved during the off-season - probably before free agency starts . I don't think they should be able to change teams until the season starts.
-
I don't think they should be able to change teams until the season starts.
Why do you think that? I'm not against it, just want to know your rationale behind it.
-
Its going to take away so much activity. This proposal changes alot what about this.....
-In season resignings the salary kicks in right away. He can be dealt after the season. If you have the cap to resign during then you can move them after.
-Resignings that occur after the season cant be moved until 6/1
-
Its going to take away so much activity. This proposal changes alot what about this.....
-In season resignings the salary kicks in right away. He can be dealt after the season. If you have the cap to resign during then you can move them after.
-Resignings that occur after the season cant be moved until 6/1
Then this changes nothing. This is the way things are. All we are really doing is saying that anyone re-signed in the off-season cannot be dealt until 6/1. Which I agree with. But I think we should have the option to start a contract the following year. Year to year we all have money coming off the books. It is a way of planning ahead. And maybe taking advantage of timing. That is really the only advantage to it. It also gives people a chance to max out on expiring contracts if they are "going" for it in the current year without having to take on the contract of player they want to keep long term. All the one-year deals will expire, and they will still have their player that they re-signed during the season, hopefully at a lesser cost that the players final stat line dictates. They can still have the cost security that the players value will not increase next year (should the players value spike on Fantrax in the following months), which could cost them millions.
I don't think players should be traded for several reasons.
1. In real life - no one would sign a contract just to be traded. Defeats re-signing with a team.
2. Anyone signing in the off-season, should be treated the same, whether re-signee or OFA. Technically, if this rule were to pass, in essence the player is a re-signee(ORS) - regardless of when, it just happened he upped his contract during the season.
3. If letting someone resign then trade a player the following season, it is more or less a loop hole to the sign and trade in my eyes. This also goes back to #1, a player wouldn't do it, or allow it.
- as we try to emulate MLB, we always try to consider the X-factor, the living breathing player reaction, this is also why the minimum contract was instituted.
-
Then this changes nothing. This is the way things are. All we are really doing is saying that anyone re-signed in the off-season cannot be dealt until 6/1. Which I agree with. But I think we should have the option to start a contract the following year. Year to year we all have money coming off the books. It is a way of planning ahead. And maybe taking advantage of timing. That is really the only advantage to it. It also gives people a chance to max out on expiring contracts if they are "going" for it in the current year without having to take on the contract of player they want to keep long term. All the one-year deals will expire, and they will still have their player that they re-signed during the season, hopefully at a lesser cost that the players final stat line dictates. They can still have the cost security that the players value will not increase next year (should the players value spike on Fantrax in the following months), which could cost them millions.
I don't think players should be traded for several reasons.
1. In real life - no one would sign a contract just to be traded. Defeats re-signing with a team.
2. Anyone signing in the off-season, should be treated the same, whether re-signee or OFA. Technically, if this rule were to pass, in essence the player is a re-signee(ORS) - regardless of when, it just happened he upped his contract during the season.
3. If letting someone resign then trade a player the following season, it is more or less a loop hole to the sign and trade in my eyes. This also goes back to #1, a player wouldn't do it, or allow it.
- as we try to emulate MLB, we always try to consider the X-factor, the living breathing player reaction, this is also why the minimum contract was instituted.
Our current problem was not re-signing guys in the season and then trading them. Ben's Brewers would not have been able to do that. No team would have been able to do that. The problem is trading unsigned guys after the season, which we are effectively fixing.
-
I realize that Corey. But the argument I am trying to make for inseason re-signing of a player, and from my eyes the only advantage it has, is that you might get the player for a discount, than what his final fantrax numbers might be. The problem being, is that many teams, most teams, are maxed out in cap during the season - even the Yankees were last year, and so were the Phils.
The following is all hypothetical -
For instance, if I notice that Gordon Beckham(hypothetically also not a prospect) is back to his normal end of 2009 self. I think he will have a monster year, which will make his final value higher than his current value. Say after the first month he is the #10 rated MI, I think he will finish higher than that. But if I resign him while he is still the #10 ranked MI -say for 5 million, as opposed to higher - say for 8 million, then I save myself some money in the long run. Problem being I have 3 million to spend. If his new contract started in 2012, the that would be advantageous to me (because I could use my 3 million on an expiring contract) and any other GM who faced the same predicament. If the contract was to take hold in 2011, then I am giving up current success for future savings. This is exactly what is done in MLB.
-
The problem being, is that many teams, most teams, are maxed out in cap during the season
I do no understand how this is a problem...teams have had no trouble cutting payroll this off-season, so we know it is possible. The reason they didn't cut payroll in-season is because they had winning teams, and weren't looking to trade away their playoff-ready teams. The league shouldn't create rules to help teams with fiscal irresponsibility, I would say that is each GM's basic, primary job in the league.
In my opinion, a team always maxed out at their cap or very close to it isn't necessarily a good team. Our rules dictate that teams should prepare for their draft picks and their bonuses, as well as any other incidents that might occur (prospect extensions, contract buyouts, etc.) in-season. I feel we shouldn't help out teams that choose to nickel and dime they payroll. I dunno, that's just how I'm seeing this playing out or attempting to correct.
Dan, you had posted earlier that the only plus you could see with this measure is possibly taking advantage of timing of players and their projections...I guess I'm not convinced this much work should be done for a game of chance.
-
Most teams, who are maxed out at the cap, clear it after the trade deadline when the cap hits go down. This clears payroll for draft bonuses for the season's books.
-
My stance has changed. I am for realism as my first priority for further league decisions.
-
I do no understand how this is a problem...teams have had no trouble cutting payroll this off-season, so we know it is possible. The reason they didn't cut payroll in-season is because they had winning teams, and weren't looking to trade away their playoff-ready teams. The league shouldn't create rules to help teams with fiscal irresponsibility, I would say that is each GM's basic, primary job in the league.
In my opinion, a team always maxed out at their cap or very close to it isn't necessarily a good team. Our rules dictate that teams should prepare for their draft picks and their bonuses, as well as any other incidents that might occur (prospect extensions, contract buyouts, etc.) in-season. I feel we shouldn't help out teams that choose to nickel and dime they payroll. I dunno, that's just how I'm seeing this playing out or attempting to correct.
Dan, you had posted earlier that the only plus you could see with this measure is possibly taking advantage of timing of players and their projections...I guess I'm not convinced this much work should be done for a game of chance.
Jake, this is well said. I am fine with getting closer to the reality of things in the MLB, but I am also fine with the current system.
Some times I feel as if we will never get there, always tweaking, shifting the rules, or culture of the league. Continually moving the bar is not good for GMs. Every move made by GMs in the past would not necessarily be made under the new rules. How can a GM establish a strategy or be comfortable with trades, signings, etc if the bar (rules) continue to move?
At some point, we are all going to have leave good enough alone.
-
Jake, this is well said. I am fine with getting closer to the reality of things in the MLB, but I am also fine with the current system.
Some times I feel as if we will never get there, always tweaking, shifting the rules, or culture of the league. Continually moving the bar is not good for GMs. Every move made by GMs in the past would not necessarily be made under the new rules. How can a GM establish a strategy or be comfortable with trades, signings, etc if the bar (rules) continue to move?
At some point, we are all going to have leave good enough alone.
Very well said by both. :iatp:
-
I agree with Rob. If others are upset about it then take it up by starting a new league. However, I think we could be in line for one last round of tweaks.
-
I am bumping this based on recent PMs I have received about extensions. There was no rule change made because of this thread.
-
I believe that there were a few prospect extensions processed this past off-season. Justin Upton comes to mind. Did any of them receive prospect discounts (60, 50, 40, 30%) AFTER their prospect contracts ran out? I assumed that you could still receive the discount after the final year of the prospect contract, but now I am not sure after reading Dan's comments on the first page of this thread (see below).
- If a player is in his final year of prospect eligibility, then tough breaks, either take the hit this year, or you do not get to sign said player under a prospect extension.
-
Upton did receive the 40% discount since he was in the final year of his prospect eligibility
-
how would i know if someone is in the final year of their spec elligibility?
-
So it sounds like we are saying that someone with a contract of $0.5m (P-2011) has to be re-signed PRIOR to the end of the season and the cap hit takes effect NOW in order to receive the 40% discount. I'm not sure everybody interpreted the rule that way, because I did not. Is that really how ALL of the prospects were treated in the off-season???
-
So it sounds like we are saying that someone with a contract of $0.5m (P-2011) has to be re-signed PRIOR to the end of the season and the cap hit takes effect NOW in order to receive the 40% discount. I'm not sure everybody interpreted the rule that way, because I did not. Is that really how ALL of the prospects were treated in the off-season???
No. I think we made a mistake. In order to receive the prospect extension discount the player must be resigned before the end of the year of the final year. So P-2011 must be resigned before we complete this season. If we do it after the season then the discount goes away. I do not know what year Cargo's eligibility ran out but he was signed after the season. If he was a P-2011 then a mistake was made.
However, with that being said, I think we should leave the rule as is but pay better attention to it.
-
Prospects should be treated the same as regular contracts, in that if they expire then you are out of luck. This is what the whole thread was started about. Since so many players were traded this off-season with expired contracts we decided to vote on if that should be allowed going forward since it seriously affected the free agent class.
The same should hold true with prospects. In season or pre season signings. For instance Colby Rasmus is P-2012 - if I signed him this year to a prospect contract I get the 50% discount. If I do it one day after this season ends, it should automatically go to the 40% that would be in effect for the entire 2012 season. If by the end of the 2012 season I have not offered him a prospect contract then I have to pay him the full market rate.
-
Correct, but we did not make a ruling on trading expiring contracts...
-
This is true, but didn't we vote on something in this thread?
-
This is true, but didn't we vote on something in this thread?
The voting stalled... We even discussed having a couple weeks window to trade said players. I think we should treat it realistically and not allow extensions on expiring contracts. We could give a 10% discount for those teams, but I feel all of this is too late.
-
I agree. My vote on this is no extensions on expiring contracts.
-
I agree. My vote on this is no extensions on expiring contracts.
That was the general consensus. We have a trade deadline for a reason.
-
lets create a poll
-
I dont know about you guys but I always consider the first game of the new season as the end of the old season.
-
Disagree with you Howe. I view the last game of the season as the end of the season because after that, you begin working towards the next season.
~MTK
-
Disagree with you Howe. I view the last game of the season as the end of the season because after that, you begin working towards the next season.
~MTK
I agree with Aubrey's take
-
Disagree with you Howe. I view the last game of the season as the end of the season because after that, you begin working towards the next season.
~MTK
agreed
-
Just to be clear ,if Bruce is signed to a rookie extension right now, does it come into effect this year or next year?
-
Scratch what I was about to post.
-
Just to be clear ,if Bruce is signed to a rookie extension right now, does it come into effect this year or next year?
Now.
I need to update extension values today... It is pre June 1st and then after May 31st
-
Now.
I need to update extension values today... It is pre June 1st and then after May 31st
so in effect the 5 yr extension is only 4 years??
-
That's how it works out.
What I was proposing was a two week window to give your players contracts, not trade them away without a contract. The two weeks was for a GM to clear space to sign said expired contract. Meaning being able to trade players that are already under contract. I also suggested that once someone is resigned they should be treated as FAs - meaning they cannot be traded for 60 days. I know with my future FAs I won't sign them until the day after the season ends when other contracts and money paid out expires. I believe their should be some grace period. In MLB it is 24 hours. But since this isn't our job, I think we should have a wee bit more time to finagle things with our rosters if need be.
I also do no think we should allow resign and immediate trading - hence the need for the 60 day rule. This proposal was to do away with the current way things are done, with trading players on expired contracts.
When it comes to prospects, once the season is over, that is it. If the prospect has had their eligibility expire then you cannot resign him to the prospect discount. Unless of course that player still has more prospect year(s) then the GM must sign the player to the rate for the upcoming season.
-
i agree with all that Dan. but i think there should be a 1 week window to trade guys. not 2. but the rest i agree with.
-
My one concern is that I'm sure that many owners have plans to extend their players on the prospect contract but won't have the cap room to do so until the 2012 books open up - under the currently written rules, that should not be a problem. As Colby noted, we had lots of discussion but did not make any rule changes, is it really fair to enforce a new rule starting this offseason? Typically, new rules are enforced at least one season out.
-
That's how it works out.
What I was proposing was a two week window to give your players contracts, not trade them away without a contract. The two weeks was for a GM to clear space to sign said expired contract. Meaning being able to trade players that are already under contract. I also suggested that once someone is resigned they should be treated as FAs - meaning they cannot be traded for 60 days. I know with my future FAs I won't sign them until the day after the season ends when other contracts and money paid out expires. I believe their should be some grace period. In MLB it is 24 hours. But since this isn't our job, I think we should have a wee bit more time to finagle things with our rosters if need be.
I also do no think we should allow resign and immediate trading - hence the need for the 60 day rule. This proposal was to do away with the current way things are done, with trading players on expired contracts.
When it comes to prospects, once the season is over, that is it. If the prospect has had their eligibility expire then you cannot resign him to the prospect discount. Unless of course that player still has more prospect year(s) then the GM must sign the player to the rate for the upcoming season.
I agree with this. As long as there is a period after the season, whether it is one week or two week, it needs to happen.
-
I agree with this. As long as there is a period after the season, whether it is one week or two week, it needs to happen.
Yup, I agree also.
-
My one concern is that I'm sure that many owners have plans to extend their players on the prospect contract but won't have the cap room to do so until the 2012 books open up - under the currently written rules, that should not be a problem. As Colby noted, we had lots of discussion but did not make any rule changes, is it really fair to enforce a new rule starting this offseason? Typically, new rules are enforced at least one season out.
I agree with Ben. If the subject is up for debate, I would be against a rule for this year or in the future whereby an owner had to extend a prospect prior to the end of his last season or lose the market discount when he is re-signed. Prospects tend to sign for below market when they are arbitration eligible all the time, so the fact that their prospect contracts ran out has no meaning for me.
-
Granted, but you also have several years to do it, and not wait until the last possible minute.
-
I think an one year exception should be made for this year on the prospect extension. I planned to clear up salary space once the last game is played to re-sign Bruce. Having done the same to CarGo last year, I expected this was an option for this year as well.
-
I agree with everyone. We can't make a rule change for this September/October. What I wanted to do was bump this thread to put an end to these rule discussions and move forward with a conclusion. Here is a thought... allow extensions as actual extensions of the old contract, but these can only be done in the expiring year (example being 2011 contracts this year). The salary and new contract would start the following year. This can easily be tracked by forcing us to manage salary caps for not just the current year, but the next five years. It is something we have started with the new league, New Era.
I like the idea of a two week window after the season ends. This allows GMs to extend players, but I think there should be a cost to prevent these players from going to FA just like there would be in real life. A 20% increase above market value seems reasonable turning a $2m salary into $2.5m, $5m into $6m, and $10m into $12m.
There won't be an issue with sign-and-trades thanks to our 60-day rule. We did accomplish something with rules this past year. I would like to put this up to a vote with our RC (we still have it, just no board as I felt that hid the conversations). On our RC is the following...
Jake :WAS:, Ben :MIL:, Colby :PIT:, Roy :TEX:, Dan :CIN:
We need a big market team to be present on the RC. I would like to nominate Howe who may end up getting the Dodgers job. Corey :NYM: and Paul S. :STL: seem to be reasonable additions as well. I don't want the entire league voting on rules as it clouds everything, but I do want active, veteran voices of the league.
-
I agree with everyone. We can't make a rule change for this September/October. What I wanted to do was bump this thread to put an end to these rule discussions and move forward with a conclusion. Here is a thought... allow extensions as actual extensions of the old contract, but these can only be done in the expiring year (example being 2011 contracts this year). The salary and new contract would start the following year. This can easily be tracked by forcing us to manage salary caps for not just the current year, but the next five years. It is something we have started with the new league, New Era.
I like the idea of a two week window after the season ends. This allows GMs to extend players, but I think there should be a cost to prevent these players from going to FA just like there would be in real life. A 20% increase above market value seems reasonable turning a $2m salary into $2.5m, $5m into $6m, and $10m into $12m.
There won't be an issue with sign-and-trades thanks to our 60-day rule. We did accomplish something with rules this past year. I would like to put this up to a vote with our RC (we still have it, just no board as I felt that hid the conversations). On our RC is the following...
Jake :WAS:, Ben :MIL:, Colby :PIT:, Roy :TEX:, Dan :CIN:
We need a big market team to be present on the RC. I would like to nominate Howe who may end up getting the Dodgers job. Corey :NYM: and Paul S. :STL: seem to be reasonable additions as well. I don't want the entire league voting on rules as it clouds everything, but I do want active, veteran voices of the league.
I would not be in favor of any increase above market. I don't think it's necessary, and it inflates the top salaries even higher.
-
I am up to the RC job. I am loud and obnoxious but I do bring another perspective.
-
I would not be in favor of any increase above market. I don't think it's necessary, and it inflates the top salaries even higher.
Another idea is to not allow extensions in those two weeks for players with expiring contracts that have a market value of $15m or more. These are the type of players that persue huge FA deals. Think Crawford, Lee, and Werth (even AGon and Halladay).
-
I like keeping things simple. I would support the following:
1. Extensions for prospects with expiring contracts can take place after the season, because much like real life they have not accrued the service time necessary to be free agents open to bidding from other teams.
2. Extensions for non-prospects with expiring contracts MUST take place before the end of the year. That is consistent with real life. There used to be a re-sign period after the World Series but that has since since eliminated. I just don't see having your cake and eating it too so to speak in terms of having time AFTER the season to re-sign non-prospects, but maybe that's just me.
Peace.
-
I agree with Roy... KISS!
BTW, Howe fills our sixth RC spot.
-
I believe then, that Hamilton's contract should be reworked since i was under the impression that once the season was over i was SOL. He was a P-2010 which would have given me a 40% discounnt on his 18 million dollar contract.
-
i believe that votto danks yovi prado and ellsbury also fall into this category
-
I like keeping things simple. I would support the following:
1. Extensions for prospects with expiring contracts can take place after the season, because much like real life they have not accrued the service time necessary to be free agents open to bidding from other teams.
2. Extensions for non-prospects with expiring contracts MUST take place before the end of the year. That is consistent with real life. There used to be a re-sign period after the World Series but that has since since eliminated. I just don't see having your cake and eating it too so to speak in terms of having time AFTER the season to re-sign non-prospects, but maybe that's just me.
:iatp:
Peace.
-
i believe that votto danks yovi prado and ellsbury also fall into this category
There will always be a problem when rules are changed. I am pretty sure that guys like Matt Kemp were extended before it was even proposed that there be a discount for prospect extensions. It makes it even more complicated that some extensions were granted this past off-season before the rules were fully clarified. Someone will get screwed either way here. Either the guys who signed Hamilton, Votto, etc or the guys with Bruce, Joyce, etc. It's not an easy call.
-
It really comes downn to semantics. If we are saying that someone whose prospect contract expired in 2011 can still be given a prospect extension after the season, thenn it should be granndfathered in for those guys whose prospect eligibility ran out in 2010. In the rules it states that no prospect extensionns could be given out in 2010, but if we consider the day after the seasonn 2011, and we are honoring extensions for 2011 in 2012, then we have to do the same for 2010.
-
I always interpreted the prospect extension rule as only applicable to prospects with a P-2011 or later contract. I also assumed that the extensions would not affect the current year's salary. Therefore, I think you have a valid argument with Justin Upton if he was on a P-2011 contract but not for the other guys like Hamilton and Votto. I could be dead wrong on this, but that was my interpretation. Perhaps other people from the TC would be kind enough to share their interpretation with us.
-
:iatp:
My belief was that the rule does not apply to the p-2010 guys.
-
IF I recall correctly, the rule was not available for P-2010 players, it was allowed for P-2011 players.
-
But if we consider post 2010 season 2011, and that has always been the concesus, then yes the p-2010 guys should have fallen into that category because it is in effect the 2011 off-season. Any argument made to allow p-2011 guys a prospect extension in the 2011 offseason therefore argues that the p-2010 guys do as well. X has to always be x, not x sometimes when it works for some and not not for others
-
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=4279.30 (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=4279.30)
The RC approved the rule only if it goes into effect in 2011, so I believe there is no way it could apply to P-2010 players.
-
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=4279.30 (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=4279.30)
The RC approved the rule only if it goes into effect in 2011, so I believe there is no way it could apply to P-2010 players.
Correct. Let's settle these rules for both the 2011-2012 offseason and the future.
-
again my argument is that if a guy with expiring 2011 prospect eligibility can be given a prospect extension after the 2011 season has ended, then 2010 guys should have gotten the same treatment. The rules say no prospect extension in 2010, but as soon as 2010 ended the rule goes into effect for 2011. If we are saying that there is a grace period to sign prospects to extensions when the current seasonn ends, then technically the rule went into effect after the last day of 2010 and should have counted towards the p-2010 guys. That is my argument.
-
However, there was no grandfathering... Like many rule changes, it went into place without grandfathering. Let's keep it simple and not change contracts. I had players that were P-2010 in which I was unable to sign to a prospect extension.
-
Then you can have my resignation effective as of this posting.
-
Then you can have my resignation effective as of this posting.
Are you serious? Feel free to hash this out in our official RC vote as you are part of the RC Dan.
-
Then you can have my resignation effective as of this posting.
When the rule was put in place, was it not agreed that we would do it without grandfathering? I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from, but I'm sure it's something we can work out...
-
Here is where the hostility comes from. To be truthful, it isn't hostility more frustration than anything. When the prospect extension was put into place it was my understanding that as soon as the season ended of the players last year of eligibility, he was no longer eligible for a prospect extension. Meaning anyone with a (p-2011) would have to have been signed during either the off-season (2010) or during this season (2011).
But, that I guess was not the case. For whatever reason, we were allowed to resign a prospect after the season ended, and their eligibility ended, to an extension. Now my problem with that is if that holds true for all of the guys with 2011 endings, then their GMs can just sit on them, wait until the books clear themselves, and sign them at a discount. All the while they chose to spend their money elsewhere when they had every opportunity to resign these guys for a year.
Now the rule was passed during the season in 2010. Making the off-season of 2010 (preseason 2011) when it would be effective. Now if the above paragraph is true, that the benefit to resign these guys after the season was always there, then it should have been there for the class of 2010. If that is the case, and GMs were not aware, as was I, then some sort of restitution needs to be made. Because if the rule was in place, then each GM resigning their players last off season had the right to the discount. But the GMs that signed their 2010 guys were under the impression once the season was up it was up. This has been my argument since the get go.
Now if we are amending the rule, to allowing GM the extra grace period, then it should go into effect the following off-season - 2012, not 2011. 2011 would just be an extension of this year, and again would be unfair to the guys paying full price, when there was a rule in already in existence that gave them a discount.
Does any of this make sense or am I just rambling?
-
We never passed a rule for extensions on players with expiring contracts, so everything remained the same. I think what we need in this rule is a cavaeat that players on expiring prospect contracts may be signed to extensions, but not normal prospect extensions. I agree with Dan on several of his points.
For the 20XX season, the following percentages would be used per prospect status.
20XX - 60%
20XX+1 - 50%
20XX+2 - 40%
20XX+3, n/a - 30%
The 2011 season ends at the end of the regular season and the books move over. I should change the language in my RC post to say that the expiring prospect contracts can be signed to a regular extension after the season or else it would be unfair and giving an additional year of salary reduction opportunity.
-
We never passed a rule for extensions on players with expiring contracts, so everything remained the same. I think what we need in this rule is a cavaeat that players on expiring prospect contracts may be signed to extensions, but not normal prospect extensions. I agree with Dan on several of his points.
The 2011 season ends at the end of the regular season and the books move over. I should change the language in my RC post to say that the expiring prospect contracts can be signed to a regular extension after the season or else it would be unfair and giving an additional year of salary reduction opportunity.
We also never stated definitively that we had to extend prospects immediately or else we lose the discount. If we did, I am in error and request that someone post that part of the rule. That notion of losing the discount was presented in January 2011 to my knowledge, while the discount rule was proposed and agreed upon in April 2010. If it means peace, I would prefer to grandfather the darn contracts that adopt a silly rule just to keep some owners happy.
-
Copied from the other thread.
We also never stated definitively that we had to extend prospects immediately or else we lose the discount. If we did, I am in error and request that someone post that part of the rule. That notion of losing the discount was presented in January 2011 to my knowledge, while the discount rule was proposed and agreed upon in April 2010. If it means peace, I would prefer to grandfather the darn contracts that adopt a silly rule just to keep some owners happy.
-
I thought the point of this thread was to VOTE on not only the rules themselves but their APPLICATION as well. Unilaterally taking things off the table is not transparent or fair to the RC or the league in general.
-
Everything is up for vote and discussion in the RC thread. Let's take it there as a group. I made a good post responding to your latest point Roy. The focus is more on keeping things simple and consistent.