Author Topic: Flaw in Extensions Revealed (Read 786 times)

Colby · « **on:** March 23, 2010, 12:29:44 PM »

M.J.'s recent attempt to sign Loney to a long-term deal has brought up an issue with contract extensions. We were looking at two different lists. His was from the 2009 league page and mine from 2010 league page. Since there were players with more eligibility constraints met per position, the list became diluted a bit. That list isn't necessarily a bad thing, but which one is better? Do we want to switch to a style that requires less GM research of rankings and have market values determined each off-season (and such values could be obtained from a list, or even a team page)?

Colby · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2010, 11:44:28 AM »

One point to be made... this issue may not be a flaw, but just part of the overall strategy. Increased position eligibility could dilute one category your player is in, but if they have their positions increased then their value may increase, so it goes both ways.

I like the current extension system, but I want to hear thoughts from the RC on it. :toth:

Bronx Bombers · « **Reply #2 on:** March 26, 2010, 11:22:42 AM »

I know I don't have much play being the nOOb, but I find the contract extension system pretty ingenious here. It's similar to arbitration... one strategy could be do extend a player early before they may increase their value. Of course, if they don't play that outstanding, then their ranking will be lowered due to all of the other extra players in the position pool at the end of the season.

The extensions appear to heavily favor big market teams. The real Joe Mauer just got a HUGE deal whereas this Joe Mauer makes $10m/year. If he is the top paid catcher, then how is $10m legit? FYI, Posada makes more, but that $13m is not listed in the contracts page??? Anyways, perhaps the Type A players (top 20%) should be valued in a separate list that combines all positions?