Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes

[Dan Wood]

A case in point is Jose Bautista. We can all agree he had an amazing year last year. However he signed a 5 year 65 million dollar contract. In our league, and by our standards, he would have been due 27 million, since he was the best CI. I think there needs to be some sort of happy medium.

[Dan Wood]

Plus with our system the player would have to have been bad for two years, not just one, to merit a pay cut. In this case it would have to be for 2010 and 2011. I think this rule is really more of a chance to keep players of diminishing value, yet still useful, around, as opposed to having the opportunity to lock up a young stud long term.

[Canada8999]

In the case where a player has stunk for two years but still has enough value the owner would want to extend them, I think we'd have to be talking the type player where they're taking a one-year deal to prove themselves...

[Canada8999]

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.

 :iatp:

[rcankosy]

There will always be exceptions, but the proposed prospect extension rules as well as the min/max rules will keep those to a minimum.  The only reason why Lind is not on a long-term contract already is because we allowed a loophole in the min years rule and let teams extend them to less than the min if they did it effective last year.  Bautista will be much higher paid than in real life simply because our contracts are based purely on the highest rankings achieved in 1 year.  All in all, I very much like our system of awarding contract extensions at the same salaries as the real-life players.  In my opinion, not doing it that way would create far greater problems.

[Dan Wood]

In the case where a player has stunk for two years but still has enough value the owner would want to extend them, I think we'd have to be talking the type player where they're taking a one-year deal to prove themselves...

Not stunk, but had diminished value. Or had a career year, and has settled in as something different. Still valuable, but not worth the contract he was originally given. Because if it was for someone that was total crap for two years, I think the GM would let them go to FA.

[rcankosy]

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.

I just don't see a player in his prime signing at a reduced salary for 3 years.  Sorry.

[Dan Wood]

There will always be exceptions, but the proposed prospect extension rules as well as the min/max rules will keep those to a minimum.  The only reason why Lind is not on a long-term contract already is because we allowed a loophole in the min years rule and let teams extend them to less than the min if they did it effective last year.  Bautista will be much higher paid than in real life simply because our contracts are based purely on the highest rankings achieved in 1 year.  All in all, I very much like our system of awarding contract extensions at the same salaries as the real-life players.  In my opinion, not doing it that way would create far greater problems.

So then I vote that we leave extensions on veterans the way they are. Allow the grace period, and the 50% re-sign minimum. I don't even know why we are changing this, no one complained about it, and it seemed to be working OK. I think the problem with the system the in its current version was the trading of players without contracts, and sign and trades.

[Dan Wood]

I just don't see a player in his prime signing at a reduced salary for 3 years.  Sorry.

OK let me propose this scenario to you.. Lind again...

I sign him to a one year deal at 11 mil in 2012... then next year his value is lower, I sign him for 8 mil (2013), then his value is lower, at 7 mil(2014)... I don't see a player agreeing to that either. I don't think a 29 year old would agree to 1 year deals after another. I think he would be more apt to sign on for 33 million over 3 years, and take the security.

[Canada8999]

So then I vote that we leave extensions on veterans the way they are. Allow the grace period, and the 50% re-sign minimum. I don't even know why we are changing this, no one complained about it, and it seemed to be working OK. I think the problem with the system the in its current version was the trading of players without contracts, and sign and trades.

I'd say a little bit of both.  Obviously the sign-and-trade was the biggest concern, but there were definitely owners clamoring that it is unrealistic to have exclusive rights during the offseason since in MLB teams only have 24 hours (maybe just to prove their sign-and-trade arguments though).

Personally I am inclined to agree, since having a little extra time in the offseason is fine (we don't do this for a living, after all).  As long as sign and trades are illegal and there is a deadline far enough out from the start of FA so GM's have time to prepare, I don't see offseason regular extensions as a big problem.  It's simpler...