Extensions on Prospects with Standard Contracts

[lp815]

The problem with all of this is that I gave Roy my word on this via PM several months ago.  I told him, based on my understanding, that the player can resolve to a prospect contract if eligible after the current contract.

This leaves me to two decisions.
1) Continue with that ruling
2) Go with our discussion here, and grandfather all such previous players whose prospect clock has not started

I would recommend we follow with the rules of this current discussion, as they have been the most transparent.  There is no issue with discussing rules through private messages between members, but the unfortunate side of that is what we have here:  specific rules being interpreted without being officially ruled on by the league.

[Colby]

I would recommend we follow with the rules of this current discussion, as they have been the most transparent.  There is no issue with discussing rules through private messages between members, but the unfortunate side of that is what we have here:  specific rules being interpreted without being officially ruled on by the league.

Of course the problem is that I told Roy one thing real quickly without it being discussed with the RC.  I didn't realize that it could have been perceived as a possible hole in the rules.

[rcankosy]

Colby,

Don't beat yourself up over this.  You didn't do anything wrong.  Will all due respect to the RC, Colby made a decision in response to my question a few days before FA started, and he posted it on the main board.  Everything was quite "transparent" as Jake would say, and NO ONE from the RC posted a protest.  NO ONE at the time even suggested that such a "ruling" be brought before the RC.  Complaints about this only came up weeks after the fact when it was referred to in other posts.  By then, the genie was out of the bottle, because several owners did the same thing as me.  I'm pretty sure that most people who read Colby's original decision on the matter just accepted the it in the same manner as when Colby told us that we could not retract the high bid prior to it being the "winning" bid as defined in the league rules for bidding on free agents.

Roy

[lp815]

Colby,

Don't beat yourself up over this.  You didn't do anything wrong.  Will all due respect to the RC, Colby made a decision in response to my question a few days before FA started, and he posted it on the main board.  Everything was quite "transparent" as Jake would say, and NO ONE from the RC posted a protest.  NO ONE at the time even suggested that such a "ruling" be brought before the RC.  Complaints about this only came up weeks after the fact when it was referred to in other posts.  By then, the genie was out of the bottle, because several owners did the same thing as me.  I'm pretty sure that most people who read Colby's original decision on the matter just accepted the it in the same manner as when Colby told us that we could not retract the high bid prior to it being the "winning" bid as defined in the league rules for bidding on free agents.

Roy

I just read the topic discussion on the general board, and both Ben and Dan requested this be brought forward in the Rules Discussion.  It hadn't up until this point.  Also, not everyone agreed with the terms, both Dan and Ben made points against the case.  If a proposal is brought before the Rules Committee in the RC Forum, then it is voted on.  If it is merely brought up in the General Discussion, it isn't voted on, and is not official, no matter how many people agree to it.  I'm not making up those rules, they have been implemented from day 1.

This league isn't about merely accepting matters at hand, and Ben even makes a point in that discussion stating that issues must be officially ratified and not just discussed and generally ok'ed without an official ruling.  This case hasn't.

Roy, if you want to ridicule my wording with transparency, any discussion that is talked about publicly will always be more clearly stated to the league than private talk between two members.  I'm not sure what the mystery is behind my wording.

[Canada8999]

I just read the topic discussion on the general board, and both Ben and Dan requested this be brought forward in the Rules Discussion.  It hadn't up until this point.  Also, not everyone agreed with the terms, both Dan and Ben made points against the case.  If a proposal is brought before the Rules Committee in the RC Forum, then it is voted on.  If it is merely brought up in the General Discussion, it isn't voted on, and is not official, no matter how many people agree to it.  I'm not making up those rules, they have been implemented from day 1.

This league isn't about merely accepting matters at hand, and Ben even makes a point in that discussion stating that issues must be officially ratified and not just discussed and generally ok'ed without an official ruling.  This case hasn't.

Roy, if you want to ridicule my wording with transparency, any discussion that is talked about publicly will always be more clearly stated to the league than private talk between two members.  I'm not sure what the mystery is behind my wording.

 :toth:

[Canada8999]

His base pay is $1.5m... if his prospect clock does not start by the end of the 2012 season, then the only options you will have is extend him at $1m/year or release.

Which rule/clause are you going by to get the $1.0M figure?  Just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

[Dan Wood]

I believe Colby is referring to once a contract expires you can sign a player to half his previous salary if that is what is vale is. I think Colby used Andrew Miller as an example on the contracts board.

[Canada8999]

I believe Colby is referring to once a contract expires you can sign a player to half his previous salary if that is what is vale is. I think Colby used Andrew Miller as an example on the contracts board.

Got it - but that is not a prospect contract (it's guaranteed), correct?

[Dan Wood]

To my understanding, that would be a guaranteed contract

[Colby]

IMO, I think it is best served for us to find a halfway point in these discussions and vote on my following proposal.

If at the end (after last season is over) of a contract a player is eligible for a prospect contract then their contract may be converted into a prospect contract with a signing bonus equal to 50% (Previous Annual Salary - $500k) rounded to the nearest $500k.