Possible Rule Amendment - In season re-signings

[Canada8999]

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...

[Dan Wood]

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?

[Colby]

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.

[rcankosy]

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. 

[rcankosy]

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. 

[rcankosy]

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.

[Colby]

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.