Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes

[rcankosy]

I suggest we forget about what is written in the old rules, because it is confusing us.  For Lind, if you re-signed him TODAY he's on your books starting 2012 at 10.5m.  Forget about the old "no shorter than, no less than" rules.  If you wait until the last day and the season and he's ranked # 1 overall, he's on your 2012 books at 27.7m.

[Dan Wood]

I suggest we forget about what is written in the old rules, because it is confusing us.  For Lind, if you re-signed him TODAY he's on your books starting 2012 at 10.5m.  Forget about the old "no shorter than, no less than" rules.  If you wait until the last day and the season and he's ranked # 1 overall, he's on your 2012 books at 27.7m.

If that is the case then I am all for it  :toast:

[Dan Wood]

Just re-casting my votes


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.

I still vote Yay... but if it doesn't pass it isn't the worst thing, I think we are getting to the point where most GMs have a plan from year to year.

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 - also making the spects property of the team, allowing them to be dealt. This might be tough to keep track of.

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 - but only if it is at the value of the previous 2 years - we can call this the Adam Lind rule. I still think it should be at a minimum of 50%. We already have minimums for years in place.

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

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

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.

YAY - see #3 - virtually the same thing

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

[Colby]

Dan, your addendum is not the same.  Having extensions kick in the following year still have to follow our rules of not decreasing the salary.  We still need to discuss timing.  It appears that half of us are in favor of immediate introduction.

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.

[Dan Wood]

Why keep using Fantrax as a guide if everyone is going to hit the open market? Do you honestly think that GMs will keep resigning players if their values drop but they have to keep writing them the same check year after year? I honestly don't see the point of the rest of this (the loop holes) if we can't even keep our own players. To be brutally honest it seems stupid. Teams don't engage their players during the season? Players don't return to places for a lesser cost? Let's just crown the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers champs every year, because then we are turning it into a free market economy. We ourselves cannot change our budgets. We don't get new owners, we don't get an OK from the top to say, "Dan go spend an extra 20 mil in the off-season - we were so close last year". Yes we do want to keep it as realistic as possible, but we will never have that. We will never have a Jim Hendry credit card. If our only chance to keep guys is over pay them for one good year (woo hoo) or let them be bid on by other teams with copious amount of cash who traded everyone away and now have a AAA team, or have a 200 million dollar payroll (double woo hoo) or trade them for guys in the minors (triple woo hoo), again what's the point?

If we can't keep our own players, or have the chance to re-sign them at fair market value without any other intervention, then why even do it? Let's just make it a redraft league. I planned ahead to re-sign Lind, when I sucked it up and gave him a one year extension (he got a 1 million dollar raise last year - during the season from 15.5 to 16.5) so I would have the chance to sign him for less because he isn't his 2009. I am sure there are other players like this, but he is a prime example. Then I am Nay to everything suggested, lets just keep it as is. The reason I didn't take the Mets was to keep my players, now I can't even do that.


And Roy changed his vote to Yay on #6.

[28]

Why keep using Fantrax as a guide if everyone is going to hit the open market? Do you honestly think that GMs will keep resigning players if their values drop but they have to keep writing them the same check year after year? I honestly don't see the point of the rest of this (the loop holes) if we can't even keep our own players. To be brutally honest it seems stupid. Teams don't engage their players during the season? Players don't return to places for a lesser cost? Let's just crown the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers champs every year, because then we are turning it into a free market economy. We ourselves cannot change our budgets. We don't get new owners, we don't get an OK from the top to say, "Dan go spend an extra 20 mil in the off-season - we were so close last year". Yes we do want to keep it as realistic as possible, but we will never have that. We will never have a Jim Hendry credit card. If our only chance to keep guys is over pay them for one good year (woo hoo) or let them be bid on by other teams with copious amount of cash who traded everyone away and now have a AAA team, or have a 200 million dollar payroll (double woo hoo) or trade them for guys in the minors (triple woo hoo), again what's the point?

If we can't keep our own players, or have the chance to re-sign them at fair market value without any other intervention, then why even do it? Let's just make it a redraft league. I planned ahead to re-sign Lind, when I sucked it up and gave him a one year extension (he got a 1 million dollar raise last year - during the season from 15.5 to 16.5) so I would have the chance to sign him for less because he isn't his 2009. I am sure there are other players like this, but he is a prime example. Then I am Nay to everything suggested, lets just keep it as is. The reason I didn't take the Mets was to keep my players, now I can't even do that.


And Roy changed his vote to Yay on #6.

i am not on the rule commitee but i agree with dan i feel we dont need to change anything. i think the league is fine right now and these changes would make it dumber. it would be dumb to make it so if we dont have enough cap to extend a players contract before the end of the season they have to go to free agency. that would make the big market teams win alot and small markets teams not be as good

[Dan Wood]

my other suggestion is to have extentions...if there is a value discrepancy...stop where prospect extensions leave off at 30 percent. You can't have a value system in place and then say well its no good unless you are paying top dollar. You can't quantify performance then subject what an imaginary player would or wouldn't do. I agree chances are a player wouldn't take less, but there are other real life factors at play...owners, agents, no salary caps, etc. To say that your only choice is to keep funneling money at a player to keep him is obtuse in my opinion.

[Colby]

Dan, you may have convinced me to change my opinion.

[h4cheng]

I am still nay on #6. You can sign re-sign players to a contract less than current if the contract is expiring.

I don't want a situation where some team sign a guy to a 5 year deal to fend off other teams' interest, then 2 year in, extend him at a less rate.

[Colby]

I am still nay on #6. You can sign re-sign players to a contract less than current if the contract is expiring.

I don't want a situation where some team sign a guy to a 5 year deal to fend off other teams' interest, then 2 year in, extend him at a less rate.

 :iatp:

That is a language issue.  It was my understanding that this would be for actual extensions and not overriding contracts.