Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes

[Colby]

I agree with you completely Howe on both points.  I like the 30% idea as well.

[Canada8999]

I'm not really sold on the value #1 would bring.

What's the difference between allowing teams to sign extensions that don't go on the books until the next season and allowing teams to re-sign expired contracts during the offseason?  I'm not seeing it ...

I agree that sign and trades are unrealistic.  I think if we state that you cannot trade a player who is not under contract, then our existing 60 day window should prevent a sign-and-trade.  To the point someone made about that still falling within the offseason, maybe we revise the rule to be 60 days of MLB in-season?

As has been stated, the obviously the catch here is timing.  Some owners have been operating under the assumption that last offseason's discussions are the new rules since there was a lot of support (no sign and trades, no offseason extensions), and others that the rules have not changed since there was never an actual change made (no vote, no amendments).  In the end, some people are probably going to be pissed with whatever is decided, so we need to make sure we make the best choice for the future and consider short-term exceptions afterwards (although they should be avoided / minimized if possible) ...

[Canada8999]

These rules are very dependent upon each other, but here's my tentative YES/NO:

1 - NO
I don't see the value of looking 5-6 years out.  If #3 passes, I would revise my vote as we should certainly consider looking an additional year out.

2 - YES
I went back and forth on this one, but I agree with Roy - in MLB these players would not be free agents, they'd be owned for another 3 years by their teams with arbitration contracts (players are typically owned for 6 arbitration years).  If they're not free to walk in MLB, they should not be free to walk in our league.  The intention of the prospect extension is to mimic a player having their arbitration years bought out, and it should still be applicable. 

If #3 passes I'd consider switching to NO for simplicities sake as #2 and #4 should become mostly mute, but there's always the risk of a deadbeat owner asleep at the wheel during the season, and a new GM should have the chance to offer the extension during the offseason.

3 - YES
But I would say we only go with the new type.  We have enough complexity, what is the value of carrying both types of extensions?  Signing an extension to start the following season allows teams to handle it on the future books.  Isn't this more representative of how extensions work anyway?

4 - NO
Pending the acceptance of #3, this should become a mute point.  Even if #3 is rejected, MLB teams only have a 24 hour exclusive negotiating window that is rarely used, since players might as well hit FA and see how it goes.

#5 - Should teams be able to trade expiring contracts?  NO
We can call it the Prince Fielder rule, and I think everyone's opinion was voice pretty clearly last offseason that this is not realistic.  I think we also need some language to prevent teams from re-signing what would be an expiring contract 60-days before the season ends, if #3 passes they can even do it on next years books, and then still be able to trade what would otherwise be an expired contract. 

If #3 passes, we should note that their 60-day clock does not start until the extension does, and we might also want to modify that rule to be 60 days of MLB In-Season (to avoid what someone else pointed out about keeping them on the books for 60 days of offseason but still moving them before needing to play a game).

[rcankosy]

I'm thinking that going back to our original deadline of June 1st for allowing trades of newly signed FAs might work as well as an in-season 60 day rule.  I'm also thinking that it might be fine to trade FAs picked up during the season without having to wait 60 days, because they are not that good for the most part and they don't have much effect on the salary caps.  Just trying to keep it simple. 

[Dan Wood]

I just wanted to throw something in the mix. It is something I have suggested before. Allowing teams to sign a player to extensions, that are at his current value, but below his current contract value. The extensions would start the following year. There would obviously have to be a minimum amount of years in order to do this. A prime example of this is Aaron Harang. His contract in 2010 was for 10 mil, his value was in the 6 mil range. If we had a rule like this in place, then the Dodgers (the team that owned him at the time) could have resigned him for an additional 3 years at 6 mil. Also, if the dodgers wanted to trade him in 2011 (when the contract would have kicked in) they would have had to wait until June 1.

[Colby]

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.

YAY - Roy, Dan
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben

2) Should prospect extensions 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?  I say we allow expiring prospect contracts to be signed to regular extensions after the season ends, but not to prospect extensions per our current rules.

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

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 - 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 - 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 - 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.

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

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 - Ben, Colby

[Dan Wood]

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.

YAY - Roy, Dan
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben

2) Should prospect extensions 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?  I say we allow expiring prospect contracts to be signed to regular extensions after the season ends, but not to prospect extensions per our current rules.

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

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 - 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 - 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 - 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.

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

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 - Ben, Colby

1. I don't care on the percentage, I just think it should be considered to avoid an Angels type situation, where someone takes on a team and HAS to trade players because he cannot resign them - VMart comes to mind.

2. I don't think prospect extensions should be allowed once they expire at the end of the season. I do think people should be able to resign their players to regular contracts after the season ends if they do have the money. Unless #6 is adopted, it gives us an opportunity to resign players below what they are currently making - if that is where their value is. If we allow them to go to FA, then they may become more expensive due to the lack of talent on the market. This helps all GMs with year to year planning.

3. 6 feeds into this, so if I am for #6, I am for contracts being at the end of a current contract, that start the following year.

4. Prince Fielder rule. I am against trading guys without contracts or players recently resigned.

5. yay
6. yay
7. yay - however if a player changes teams, I think his new teams should be given the opportunity to offer a new contract to the player - the day after the signing.

[Colby]

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.

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

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 - 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 - 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 - 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.

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

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 - Ben, Colby, Dan
NAY -

[VolsRaysBucs]

I just wanted to throw something in the mix. It is something I have suggested before. Allowing teams to sign a player to extensions, that are at his current value, but below his current contract value. The extensions would start the following year. There would obviously have to be a minimum amount of years in order to do this. A prime example of this is Aaron Harang. His contract in 2010 was for 10 mil, his value was in the 6 mil range. If we had a rule like this in place, then the Dodgers (the team that owned him at the time) could have resigned him for an additional 3 years at 6 mil. Also, if the dodgers wanted to trade him in 2011 (when the contract would have kicked in) they would have had to wait until June 1.

I think this is a fine idea!  I'm just sorry I hadn't seen it before or else I would have been banging the drum for it

[h4cheng]

2 - NO - Since in real life, arbitration doesn't occur until the season is over.

6 - NO - too exploitable
7. - No - too much going on at that time, I'd rather wait until season end.