Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes

[h4cheng]

Colb - the current rule states that if you re-sign a player during his contract you have match what he is making annually. If he is making 10 mil, then he has to be extended for 10 mil.

Also in the current rule we have a grace period after the season, prior to free agency, to sign our players at no less than 50% of what he is making, if his Fantrax value designates that.

What we are currently proposing is doing away with the grace period for re-signing veterans. Either sign them to a matched annual salary or let them go to free agency. At least that is what I am to understand. I am against that, because of my stated points in my prior posts.

What I am proposing is allowing an extension based on a payers value, to take hold after a players contract expires. I originally proposed 50% of the value, since that was what was already in the rules. Upon further discussion I realize that it is unrealistic to suggest a player would sign an extension at 50% of what he is currently making. I suggest we allow resigning players (veterans) that are in their final year of their contract, at 30% of their value, if that is what Fantrax determines their value is.

I realize that yes this is sort of unrealistic, but as I have stated before there are many different things at work in real life MLB that we will never be able to fully emulate. But, I do not think it is fair to lose a guy to free agency, when GMs have struggled to build their team. I am stated other reasons, but I really don't feel like rewriting them.

I am OK with this. This implies the 2 week grace period for extension is still in place, correct?

[Dan Wood]

I am OK with this. This implies the 2 week grace period for extension is still in place, correct?

No, the two week grace period would not be in place. That is why I think we need it. If we had the two week grace period like we did in the past this would not be needed. But what is being proposed is doing away with the grace period, and having vetrans with expired contracts go directly to free agency unless you want to sign them at their full value.

For instance.

Proposed rule - I want to keep Adam Lind past this season. I have to pay him 16.5 mil or let him go to FA.
My proposed rule - Lind, depending on his fantrax value will be signed to an extension, no less than 30% his current salary, depending on his fantrax value.
Old Rule - If I give Lind and extension during the season it has to be for 16.5 mil. If I wait for the off-season, I can re-sign him at no less than 16.5 mil, depending on his final Fantrax value - which currently sits at 10.5 mil

[Canada8999]

What I am proposing is allowing an extension based on a payers value, to take hold after a players contract expires. I originally proposed 50% of the value, since that was what was already in the rules. Upon further discussion I realize that it is unrealistic to suggest a player would sign an extension at 50% of what he is currently making. I suggest we allow resigning players (veterans) that are in their final year of their contract, at 30% of their value, if that is what Fantrax determines their value is.

Are you saying 30% is the minimum, or using 30% as an example?

New Salary = MAX(Fantrax, 0.3 * Previous Salary)
OR
New Salary = Fantrax (and we don't care what he used to make he's paid based on his current value)

[Canada8999]

My proposed rule - Lind, depending on his fantrax value will be signed to an extension, no less than 30% his current salary, depending on his fantrax value.

Got it.  By why the change to 30% instead of the 50% number?

[Dan Wood]

Are you saying 30% is the minimum, or using 30% as an example?

New Salary = MAX(Fantrax, 0.3 * Previous Salary)
OR
New Salary = Fantrax (and we don't care what he used to make he's paid based on his current value)

30% of what he was making would be the minimum. Again this number can be played with, but I think 50% may be too steep.

In Lind's case he could make no less than 11.5 mil.

[Colby]

Alright, if it was confusing for many then we can allow propsect extensions be the only allowable ones after the season for expired contracts.  Prospect extensions take place immediately or after the end of the contract?

[Canada8999]

We've currently got a lot of moving pieces in this thread.  Can we get a summary of what everyone agrees on, have everyone confirm (since there has been confusion as to what people are voting for) and then finalize those issues?  Narrowing down the list should help with discussion and take some variables out of the equation (balancing the nuances of 7 potential rule changes at once is a bit crazy).

[rcankosy]

1.  As far as # 2, I voted Nay, not Yay.  In fact, Ben, Howe and I all appear to support prospects to be extended after the season at a market discount.

2.  As far as # 3, I think that the change in salary for extensions of non-prospects should always take effect the year after the current contract expires.  Also, changes in salary should never over-ride a year in the existing contract.  Over-writing contracts with extensions is a football thing, not a baseball thing.  I am not opposed to extending contracts at any time as long as the extensions are tacked on after the contract expires as long as it falls under the min/max rules already in place.

3.  As far as # 6,  I vote Yay along with Dan.  I have no problem extending players at a salary less than what they are currently making.

Please let me know if I've missed anything or not made myself clear on any rule.

[Dan Wood]

Got it.  By why the change to 30% instead of the 50% number?

I have no problem with 50%, but from what I was sensing from others, 50% may be a bit unrealistic. I know we are all doing our best to strive for realism. But we could stick with 50% if everyone is agreeable to it. I think the percentage is subjective to opinion.

[Canada8999]

Alright, if it was confusing for many then we can allow propsect extensions be the only allowable ones after the season for expired contracts.  Prospect extensions take place immediately or after the end of the contract?

This is what I believe, but it should be part of the vote / timing / etc.  I was just worried that we had already decided against it and was trying to make sure there was discussion.