Author Topic: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes  (Read 16793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2011, 12:33:07 PM »
Per the math behind a prospect extension, a P-2011 contract could not be extended after the season via prospect extension since the books move to 2012.  This is how we handled it last year.  That is also why P-2010 contracts were ineligible for prospect extensions.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

Offline rcankosy

  • All-Star
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2482
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2011, 12:48:45 PM »
How is that any different than extensions for non-prospects that take affect in 2012?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #52 on: June 08, 2011, 02:40:30 PM »
How is that any different than extensions for non-prospects that take affect in 2012?

Excellent point.  I think much of the problem is solved when we have some of the other rules take place.  We don't want to see this sign and trade of expiring contracts after the season.  We should have rights to the prospects, so perhaps those extensions should kick in right away?  A GM would wait till after the season on an expiring prospect contract for three reasons...

1) The player is a rental and they don't want to resign them.
2) Their MV may be less than $4m meaning a regular contract would be better.  Perhaps the GM thinks the player's value will go down?
3). The GM is afraid the player may get hurt and is holding off from a deal.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

Offline rcankosy

  • All-Star
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2482
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2011, 02:51:42 PM »
I know you want consistency, but when in doubt think real life and the answer becomes clear.  In real life, prospects inevitably sign extensions after their initial deals expire, because they have not accrued the service time to become free agents.  That's very different than an expiring contract on a veteran who is immediately a free agent after the last game of the season.  For the sake of simplicity, we could consider any player on a non-prospect contract to be a "veteran" and therefore not eligible to be traded after his contract expires.

Maybe I look at it differently than some other people, but I always try to err on a side of realism and simplicity when suggesting rules changes.  Hopefully, we can wrap up these issues soon. 
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Canada8999

  • Guest
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2011, 07:59:23 PM »
I know you want consistency, but when in doubt think real life and the answer becomes clear.  In real life, prospects inevitably sign extensions after their initial deals expire, because they have not accrued the service time to become free agents.  That's very different than an expiring contract on a veteran who is immediately a free agent after the last game of the season.  For the sake of simplicity, we could consider any player on a non-prospect contract to be a "veteran" and therefore not eligible to be traded after his contract expires.

Maybe I look at it differently than some other people, but I always try to err on a side of realism and simplicity when suggesting rules changes.  Hopefully, we can wrap up these issues soon.

 :iatp:
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

lp815

  • Guest
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2011, 12:58:43 AM »
We'll vote on the timing of rules after they are established...

Voting thus far
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years.  This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books.  It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.

Nay.

YAY - Roy, Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.)
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben

2) Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason?  If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?

Yay, beginning of free agency.

YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby (begin of FA), Dan, Ben
NAY - Howe

3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways.  The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract.  The extension is added on in future years.  For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014.   The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one.  We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.

Yay.

YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior)
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)

4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season?  For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league.  This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.

Yay.

YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through)
NAY -

5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.

Yay.

YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby
NAY -

6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract.  This is an addendum on to Rule #3.

Abstain, would like further discussion.

YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary), Howe

7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).

Yay.

YAY - Ben, Colby, Dan
NAY - Howe
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Orange Country

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 14334
  • Bonus inPoints: 1281
    • :TEN:
    • :MEM:
    • :NAS:
    • :Tennessee:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2011, 01:51:59 AM »
just delete this post whomever gets to it first.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 02:02:24 AM by fantasyguru »
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Canada8999

  • Guest
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2011, 09:37:08 AM »
If #3 passes which seems likely, I am in favor of looking one season ahead.  If we're making extensions that apply to a future season only, we need to regulate that season as well as the current season.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline rcankosy

  • All-Star
  • ***
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2482
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2011, 11:22:32 AM »
As far as # 1, I could live with either a "hard" cap or one that allows a team to be over by a small % (preferably no higher than 10%).

As far as # 2, I just noticed that it refers to "regular" extensions for prospects.  For the record, I am in favor of granting market extensions after the season.

As far as # 7, why is it necessary?  If the Prince Fielder rule passes, # 7 becomes redundant, because the player couldn't be traded after the deadline anyway.  Am I missing something?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2011, 11:29:46 AM »
Jake is against the first rule.  Ben is for it leaving a 4-2 majority with the Commissioner against the rule.  This puts it on the fence.  I am willing to go for the rule (I did introduce it), but have a 30% buffer for future years to give small market teams some flexibility in dealing contracts.

It looks like every rule will pass except for the 6th one which is currently up in the air and requiring a couple more votes.  We need to discuss timing and make sure language is correct.

Rule #1 - Future Cap Management inspired by the 2010 Angels: Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years.  This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books.  It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.

YAY - Roy (wants 10% hard cap), Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.), Ben (wants it now), Colby (would approve 30% above cap), Howe (would approve 30% above cap)
NAY - Jake

LANGUAGE - This rule will only pass with a buffer.  For example, if the Pirates’ cap in 2013 is expected to be $62m then the 30% buffer allows the team to have a projected salary based on current contracts of $80.6m in 2013.

TIMING – We have a trade deadline looming in seven weeks.  There are several franchises that would be affected by this rule (Pirates, Athletics, Reds, Rockies all come to mind).  I feel like the timing of the introduction of this rule depends solely on rule #3 since the introduction of rule #3 requires a different setup to Official Rosters.

Rule #2 – Signing window for expired prospect contracts: Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason?  If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?

YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby (begin of FA), Dan, Ben, Jake (begin of FA)
NAY – Howe

LANGUAGE – The majority appears to have a consensus that this rule should include language stating that expired prospect contracts can be held on the books with a signing deadline for a normal contract at the beginning of FA.  I think one week before is appropriate to allow the EC to update everything. 

TIMING - Do we want to introduce this rule immediately?  It truly has very little effect.  A guy like CI Daric Barton, $0.5m (P-2011) would not be eligible for a prospect extension after the end of the season.  This rule simply keeps Barton on his team’s books and allows a regular extension.  The team has rights to signing the player, but said player cannot be traded thanks to the Prince Fielder rule.

Rule #3 – True Extensions: I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways.  The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract.  The extension is added on in future years.  For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014.   The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one.  We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.

YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior), Jake
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)

LANGUAGE – I believe Ben and I prefer to see true extensions only allowed for players in the last year of their contract.  This rule does not eliminate our current extensions.  We should adopt language that differentiates between a New Contract and a Contract Extension.

TIMING – Rule #1’s timing depends on this rule.  Do we introduce this now or later?  I say let this be effective immediately upon resolution of this Official RC thread.

Rule #4 - Prince Fielder Rule: Contract extensions on expired veteran contracts not be allowed after the regular season ends.  It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league.  This puts more onus on the trade deadline and free agency.

YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through), Jake
NAY –

LANGUAGE – Rule #7 proposed by Ben has been lumped into this ruling.  Everyone but Howe agrees with Ben that we should keep it simple and add a rule that says veteran players (non-prospect contract) with expiring contracts have a signing deadline of July 31st.  This coincides with the trade deadline for simplicity.

TIMING – This was the culprit of people questioning our contract rules.  I would like to see this effective immediately.

Rule #5 – June 1st window: In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.

YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby, Jake
NAY -

LANGUAGE – The addendum of the Prince Fielder rule makes this an easy rule.  Essentially, if you give a new contract or extend a player between the trade deadline and the following April 1st (60 days prior to June 1st) then the player cannot be traded until June 1st.  This applies to free agents as well, but only for those signed during the offseason.  For example, a scrub FA signed in the closing months of the season could be traded before the June 1st opening.

TIMING – I vote for immediately.

Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: Dan's suggestion of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. 

YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary), Howe, Jake (abstained), Roy

We need a couple more votes on this.  If you want a player at less than MV then compete for them in FA.  Most veteran players in MLB will see what there is out there for them in FA.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

 

Forum Search


Quick Profile

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Chat Room

Refresh History
  • Daddy: NFL Teams in OTAs. Hockey & Baseball Drafts approach
    May 22, 2024, 06:14:26 PM
  • STLBlues91: Yeah when we were filling rosters we just included everyone we could since they can be cut. I will be cutting a chunk of guys once we start up
    May 22, 2024, 06:14:45 PM
  • Daddy: Trading too. Not just cutting. Virgin teams need diversified. Ive seen owners swap half of they're starting players to get diversified.
    May 22, 2024, 06:16:51 PM
  • Daddy: New leagues should be the most active because everyone has a ton of assets.
    May 22, 2024, 06:18:24 PM
  • Bigdon: Is there any openings in nfl.l8ve
    May 22, 2024, 11:09:21 PM
  • indiansnation: Hey bigdon if u looking to trade in mlb live let me know im guardians
    May 22, 2024, 11:24:50 PM
  • Bigdon: Well listen to all offers I need team in nfl live I am in all other leagues
    May 22, 2024, 11:31:05 PM
  • indiansnation: Bigdon pm sent u trade offer in mlb live
    May 22, 2024, 11:55:00 PM
  • indiansnation: Bigdon sent u new pm with new trade offer
    Yesterday at 12:08:07 AM
  • indiansnation: Bigdon ill post trade right know
    Yesterday at 12:13:33 AM
  • indiansnation: Bigdon trade posted in mlb live
    Yesterday at 12:24:42 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: bigdon sent ya a message also i dont think nfl has any openings rn
    Yesterday at 12:31:00 AM
  • indiansnation: Bayarea Ballers pm about giants in mlb live
    Yesterday at 12:32:31 AM
  • Brent: Angels looking for a power bat in MLB Live.
    Yesterday at 07:17:38 AM
  • Daddy: When i started on profsl in 2010 my first league i had to pay $45 for the Milwaukee Brewers in a start up league called SD.
    Yesterday at 10:45:05 AM
  • Daddy: SD = Scouting Department
    Yesterday at 10:45:26 AM
  • Daddy: Papps recruited me on our job. The only team available in a full and active money league.
    Yesterday at 10:46:25 AM
  • Daddy: They vetoed my first 7 trade attempts. They publicly insulted me, calling me dumb, saying i should be kicked out the league because it was obvious i didnt know what i was doing.
    Yesterday at 10:47:37 AM
  • Daddy: Im year 2 i won the championship and the prize pool. I would win it repeatedly afterwards.
    Yesterday at 10:48:26 AM
  • Daddy: My Dad joined. Then these same fools said he was my burner account.
    Yesterday at 10:48:56 AM
  • Daddy: When it was obvious he was someone else, they started saying we couldn't trade with each other or we were cheating.
    Yesterday at 10:49:44 AM
  • Daddy: Profsl had a bunch of pencil dik crooks on it. All over the place. Corrupt LMs orchestrating trades to try to pre determine who won.
    Yesterday at 10:50:57 AM
  • Daddy: To keep the money between "certain guys". That way it stayed in house and they just kept robbing fools.
    Yesterday at 10:51:49 AM
  • Daddy: I created LIVE because LIVE is what those fake ass leagues were supposed to be.
    Yesterday at 10:52:24 AM
  • Daddy: Real competition. Where your competition cant cheat ya and anyone that beats ya deserved to do so.
    Yesterday at 10:53:15 AM
  • Daddy: All those bums & crooks & morons have either left profsl for good or they stay in the background, watching, and gossiping behind my back like a bunch of street corner hookers.
    Yesterday at 10:54:41 AM
  • Daddy: Now all we do on profsl is play ball.
    Yesterday at 10:55:51 AM
  • Daddy: How did i win a money league that they were cheating in? Because if you cheat, you still gotta be right about the players. They were smart at being crooks. Dumb at building teams.
    Yesterday at 10:59:54 AM
  • OUDAN: I miss money dynasty lesgues
    Yesterday at 11:27:47 AM
  • OUDAN: Ran correctly that is
    Yesterday at 11:28:50 AM
  • Daddy: Agreed Dan. This site was popping 14 years ago with half ass product. Every league here today offers a unique top quality product.
    Yesterday at 01:09:03 PM
  • Daddy: Upcoming $$$ league [link] Powerhouse Baseball @Alpha5 (LIVE moderator) LM.
    Yesterday at 01:57:27 PM
  • OUDAN: Need a $$ basketball league badly
    Yesterday at 02:58:32 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: I finally finalized my first off-season trade in CCD
    Yesterday at 03:17:54 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: Trading away PJ washington
    Yesterday at 03:18:02 PM
  • Daddy: @Dan Powerhouse is coming to all sports. 20 player redraft concept using LIVE style scoring.
    Yesterday at 04:58:27 PM
  • Daddy: Powerhouse hockey 30 player & football 53 player redraft.... Basketball is 15 players i think but these are in concept stages except baseball. Powerhouse Baseball 2025 is coming.
    Yesterday at 05:02:29 PM
  • Daddy: Powerhouse = $$$ & redraft.
    Yesterday at 05:03:34 PM
  • Daddy: NHL LIVE SS [link]
    Yesterday at 06:25:27 PM
  • Braves155: Evening gents. Anyone up for trade talks?
    Yesterday at 08:44:25 PM
  • IndianaBuc: Sure
    Yesterday at 09:06:09 PM
  • Braves155: NFL LIVE - Speak my language if you are moving 1sts or early 2nds
    Yesterday at 09:30:35 PM
  • Daddy: Have you seen that Man's team? If Buc had picks we would have no chance.
    Yesterday at 09:59:34 PM
  • STLBlues91: Ill be around for deals for a few hours for any leagues I am in.
    Yesterday at 10:04:43 PM
  • STLBlues91: I just went through my MIA roster and think I only have 2-3 guys on offense from when I took the team 2 years ago. Lots of chaos and turnover
    Yesterday at 10:07:09 PM
  • indiansnation: Daddy pm
    Yesterday at 10:48:32 PM
  • Bigdon: Any chance I well get a nfl live team
    Yesterday at 10:54:00 PM
  • Daddy: Win the National Championship in NCAA LIVE and you are guaranteed an NFL LIVE Team.
    Today at 12:05:13 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: What a nightmare
    Today at 02:55:08 AM
  • BayAreaBallers: *night
    Today at 02:55:17 AM