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?
