Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes

[Dan Wood]

I think Ben is right we might need to split these up into different posts.

[Canada8999]

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.

This is what I have been trying to say, but I think you've got it spelled out more clearly.

[Canada8999]

I think Ben is right we might need to split these up into different posts.

Not just split them up, but there seem to be things we all agree on - lets get those out of the way so we can consolidate our discussions a bit more.  If we divide the proposals into ones that are pretty well set vs still under discussion, table those still under discussion for a few hours and nail down the ones we can today that would be great.  With fewer moving pieces hopefully we can hone in on the tougher decisions more quickly, rather than having the discussion scattered across 12 pages of mixed topics.

Pending the suggestion by Roy above that I support, I think we're pretty well set on #3, #4, and #5.

[Dan Wood]

My votes on the issues - is anyone keeping tabs?

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. I still vote NAY on the extension being allowed once the season ends, and the prospect eligibility has run out.

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.

NAY - unless some form of #6 is adopted.

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

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

[h4cheng]

Let me clarify: I'd like this to happen:

- No grace period after season
- Ability to extend contract on the expiring year at MV, even if MV < CV
- Any extended player cannot be traded for at least 60 days (in the offseason, first day becomes June 1st)


These are entirely separate from the Rookie Extension contract issue, which my stance is:
- Grace period after season
- Ability to extend at discounted value

The following is another issue:
No team can have salary in future at more than 30% of its cap.

[Canada8999]

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.

I've got no problem with the concept of this rule, but I do think we should hash out the details a bit more.  For instance, typically if a player signs an extension for steep discount it's because they've had a terrible year or were injured but the team is offering them a shot to prove themselves again.  That said, it would usually be a really short contract, maybe only one year.

I don't think I would support extending a player at a steep discount (either 30% or 50%) of their previous salary for a long term contract.  If we added a clause that if you extend them at less then their current salary it has a max of one or two years then I'd support this rule.

[Canada8999]

Let me clarify: I'd like this to happen:

- No grace period after season
- Ability to extend contract on the expiring year at MV, even if MV < CV
- Any extended player cannot be traded for at least 60 days (in the offseason, first day becomes June 1st)


These are entirely separate from the Rookie Extension contract issue, which my stance is:
- Grace period after season
- Ability to extend at discounted value

The following is another issue:
No team can have salary in future at more than 30% of its cap.

 :iatp: , but want to discuss the extension length allowed if MV < CV

[rcankosy]

I suggest that any contract less than the current one has a limit of 1 year.  In real life, players like Lance Berkman never sign for more than 1 year if they are coming off a bad year.  Other examples of 1 year contracts in real life are Adam Dun  and Bobby Abreu 2 years ago.  I think 1 year is the logical and realistic limit on contracts comtaining salary reductions.

[Dan Wood]

Ben I understand where you are coming from and it makes sense. My argument for allowing long term deals at the discounted rate is because sometimes - again using Lind as an example - a player had a career year. We give out contracts based on that career year, not a median of the player's career, or even a median of two years. The best year, period. I think it the long run it will all even out. Plus most players on the way up (getting better) will have rising MV, so signing them at a discounted rate, will most likely not be possible.

[Dan Wood]

I suggest that any contract less than the current one has a limit of 1 year.  In real life, players like Lance Berkman never sign for more than 1 year if they are coming off a bad year.  Other examples of 1 year contracts in real life are Adam Dun  and Bobby Abreu 2 years ago.  I think 1 year is the logical and realistic limit on contracts comtaining salary reductions.

The reason why those guys got those contracts is because no one would give them a longer one. In the case of Dunn he overplayed his hand. In the case of Berkman he looked finished. And Abreau is like 70.

However, I would be in favor of capping it at 3 years.