Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes

[Dan Wood]

i've missed quite a bit...what are we agreeing on in terms of 3 and 6?

[rcankosy]

I am sticking by my original stance that extensions be allowed in any year and there is a 2 year limit on reductions.

[Canada8999]

I am sticking by my original stance that extensions be allowed in any year and there is a 2 year limit on reductions.

My argument for only allowing extensions during the final year is to keep things as simple as possible.  I'm not necessarily against allowing extensions before that if it brings significant value, so can you please elaborate (or re-post if you already have, 20 pages is too many) why you think it should be allowed?

[Dan Wood]

I'm with Colby on this one - let's keep it simple.  Either extensions can be given in any year and the total can be no longer than our existing total length requirements, or they can only be given in the last year of a contract and the new extension follows the total (so you essentially add the current year for free). 

I think we keep it the same whether it's more or less than the current salary, and whether or not it's a prospect extension.  Having variations might add some realism, but also adds complexity and opens us up to more confusion and future criticism (needing to revise again).

EDIT:  Of course, as soon as I say this I am the one who proposed an exception of 2 years max for less than current salary (and I am still in favor of that).  I guess I meant the above with respect to the timing of extensions.

 :iatp: So that is 1 vote for keeping it simple.

[rcankosy]

My argument for only allowing extensions during the final year is to keep things as simple as possible.  I'm not necessarily against allowing extensions before that if it brings significant value, so can you please elaborate (or re-post if you already have, 20 pages is too many) why you think it should be allowed?

It is realistic, and it allows for flexibility

[Canada8999]

Did we not ever finalize the removal of RFA's and the language for how we'll handle this now?  Just reading through the rules, and it still has the old stuff...

[rcankosy]

I wondered the same thing myself, because I also recall that we talked about getting rid of RFAs.

[Colby]

Did we not ever finalize the removal of RFA's and the language for how we'll handle this now?  Just reading through the rules, and it still has the old stuff...

Some of the old stuff was shown there for the previous offseason to explain how the draft and FA developed.  It will be updated.

[Dan Wood]

Back to re-signing players... I'm fine either way. I think it'll be easier doing it only in the last year of the contract, and will require less legalese and explanation. I could see arguments for both, and truth be told, I don't think it matters all that much either way. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. We just need to make a decision and stick to it.

That said, I think if we are going for realism then there is no way a guy takes less in the middle of a contract, so proposal #6 definitely needs to be last year of contract. Whether it is for 2 years, or falls under the current minimum for contracts in relation to CV, doesn't matter to me. I just think we need to wrap this up in a timely fashion. #3, like I said, it really doesn't matter. Our imaginary players will be imaginary millionaires either way. When all else fails, I will always go for simplicity.

[Colby]

Alright, so where are we with all of this.  I think we are generally leaning toward allowing extensions less than current salary only in the last year and extensions greater than current salary at any point?