RC needed for prospect extension interprepation

[rcankosy]

I think that functionally prospect extensions should work in the same manner as regular extensions.  For example, Ike Davis' salary should be 500K this year.  His new salary and contract term should kick in next year.  Therefore, Ike Davis would be signed for 5 years starting next year and his contract would run through 2016.  I still have to fugure out how the discount table factors into the new salary, but I agree with Dan that there should be a benefit to extending a player sooner rather than later.

[rcankosy]

For me, extension should be at the rate at the time the extension is announced, to take effect when the existing contract ends.

I agree with the 1st half of the statements, but not the second half.  The extension takes effect the year following when the team decided to extend said player.  In Davis' case, the extension starts in 2012 and runs though 2016.  You have to do it that way to be consistent with the max years for prospects which is 5 years, otherwise you would be exceeding that limit.

[rcankosy]

This is also consistent with how we treat extensions on non-prospects who are extended in the middle of their contracts.  The 5 year rule in essense becomes the max years rules for prospects.  This is really the only way we could do it in order to limit prospects to contracts no longer than 5 years.

[Colby]

I agree with the 1st half of the statements, but not the second half.  The extension takes effect the year following when the team decided to extend said player.  In Davis' case, the extension starts in 2012 and runs though 2016.  You have to do it that way to be consistent with the max years for prospects which is 5 years, otherwise you would be exceeding that limit.

Okay, so it overrides the remainder of the prospect contract?

[h4cheng]

This is also consistent with how we treat extensions on non-prospects who are extended in the middle of their contracts.  The 5 year rule in essense becomes the max years rules for prospects.  This is really the only way we could do it in order to limit prospects to contracts no longer than 5 years.

I thought for non prospect extensions, it applies to the end of the contract and doesn't over-ride?

[rcankosy]

Okay, so it overrides the remainder of the prospect contract?

Correct.

[rcankosy]

I thought for non prospect extensions, it applies to the end of the contract and doesn't over-ride?

Not true.  It over-rides in the same manner as a regular extension.  We wanted consistency between the two.

[Colby]

Not true.  It over-rides in the same manner as a regular extension.  We wanted consistency between the two.

Actually, Roy, for sake of consistency, we voted on extensions to be of the new form for both veteran and prospect extensions.  The only issue here is Dan's questioning of which multiplier is used for a prospect extension.  Howe and I both understand it to be the value based on when the contract is awarded - not when it starts.

[h4cheng]

I see where the concern is coming from though. An alternative would be to have all new contract/extensions come into effect in the next season regardless of how many years are left in the current contract.

[Dan Wood]

I was under the impression, that is how things work for both veteran and prospect extensions.