ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: Colby on June 03, 2011, 03:05:10 PM
-
These are all rule adjustments concerning the timing of extensions. Each rule change line will have the voting option of having the rule change effective immediately (2011-12 offseason) or for the 2012-13 offseason.
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
2) Should prospect extensions be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks? I say we allow expiring prospect contracts to be signed to regular extensions after the season ends, but not to prospect extensions per our current rules.
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
4) Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
The big issue with rules #2 and #4 are when they would be made effective. I don't see an issue with rules #1 and #3 being effective immediately although rule #1 would make several rosters illegal in 2012, so perhaps it is better to wait on that one until the offseason as well. In general, rule changes should be made one year in advance.
Please votes YES or NO to all four of these with a timeline. We are not going backwards and changing contracts based on new rules. What is done is done. Let's keep this simple, fair, and realistic.
-
These are all rule adjustments concerning the timing of extensions. Each rule change line will have the voting option of having the rule change effective immediately (2011-12 offseason) or for the 2012-13 offseason.
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
I am not sure what this means.
2) Should prospect extensions be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
Yes. Deadline is January 1st of the following year. Dollars take effect the following year.
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
Allow extensions any time prior to the expiration of the contract as long as they are governed by the minimum and maximum years rules. Dollars and length (min/max) take effect the following year.
4) Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed anymore? It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
Yes. Keep extensions. They are realistic and allow some semblance of team stability in the league.
The big issue with rules #2 and #4 are when they would be made effective. I don't see an issue with rules #1 and #3 being effective immediately although rule #1 would make several rosters illegal in 2012, so perhaps it is better to wait on that one until the offseason as well. In general, rule changes should be made one year in advance.
Please votes YES or NO to all four of these with a timeline. We are not going backwards and changing contracts based on new rules. What is done is done. Let's keep this simple, fair, and realistic.
-
Roy,
Re: 1) Salary caps and total salary would be shown for not just this year but also future years. This requires extra cash management, but would currently make some rosters illegal in the future such as Cincy and Pittsburgh.
Re: 4) I wasn't saying to remove extensions. The issue is about extensions on expiring contracts after the season has ended.
-
1) Yes.
2) Yes, Current extension deadline works for me as well.
3) Yes, have new contracts as well as real contract extensions that take effect after original contract expires. Such extensions (not the overwriting new contracts) are only allowed to take place in the last year.
4) Do not allow extensions on non-prospect extensions after the season ended. Start this rule two weeks after the end of the 2011 season. This is fair.
-
In that case, I would vote YES to #1. As long as the 2 week rule for # 4 involves deciding whether or not to RE-SIGN the player or make him a FA, I would say YES. I would NOT be in favor of any scenario that involved trading the player's rights after the season ended like when Prince Fielder was traded for Hosmer.
-
I'm on the road this weekend and won't have time to read up one everything and vote until Sunday or Monday. I don't want to vote without reading things carefully.
-
Agreed Roy. The player would have to be signed in order to be traded. Also, this two week window would only apply for this offseason. Future years, normal contracts would expire at the end of the regular season.
-
I just want to be clear on Item #1 if it passes. If I have a player that another team has helped with the contract for the next two, but not beyond, and that means that my teams exceeds the Cap in 2013 and 2014, would my roster in 2011 be illegal?
-
I just want to be clear on Item #1 if it passes. If I have a player that another team has helped with the contract for the next two, but not beyond, and that means that my teams exceeds the Cap in 2013 and 2014, would my roster in 2011 be illegal?
Correct. Adjustments would need to be made. It is only right to enforce that rule starting in the offseason. Once all teams are under all caps then there is no reason a roster should become illegal.
-
Correct. Adjustments would need to be made. It is only right to enforce that rule starting in the offseason. Once all teams are under all caps then there is no reason a roster should become illegal.
This limits small market teams ability to leverage and compete.
-
This limits small market teams ability to leverage and compete.
True, it would hinder you and I for sure. I am changing my vote to NO as a representative of small market teams. I think the other rules will clear remaining issues.
-
I updated the language on #2. It is unfair per our previous prospect extension rules (and current format) to allow prospect extensions. The PE clock expires, but we should allow regular extensions for expired prospect contracts. This should be the only type of extension we allow for an expiring contract post-season.
-
I updated the language on #2. It is unfair per our previous prospect extension rules (and current format) to allow prospect extensions. The PE clock expires, but we should allow regular extensions for expired prospect contracts. This should be the only type of extension we allow for an expiring contract post-season.
How is it unfair? I have already explained that their counter-parts in real life have no free agent rights. The truth is that it is very different from a normal extension on non-prospects. Just because we blew it on Hamilton doesn't mean that we should shit-can a good rule. What are we really trying to accomplish here, because it smells of appeasement to me?
-
I am not trying to appease Dan, but he has a point about the PE. This is a good thing for us to discuss. If normal offseasons, the books move and the PE changes then why should it be any different for the final offseason of a prospect contract? I am just looking for consistency there. Our rules will make PE kick in after the contract ends if it was done in the last season anyways, so there is no reason a GM should wait until after the season for the PE. This just gives GMs one last chance to sign these guys, but at a higher price for players with MV higher than $6.5m ($4m minimum divided by 60% factor rounded to nearest $500k).
-
How is it unfair? I have already explained that their counter-parts in real life have no free agent rights. The truth is that it is very different from a normal extension on non-prospects. Just because we blew it on Hamilton doesn't mean that we should crap-can a good rule. What are we really trying to accomplish here, because it smells of appeasement to me?
The rule we have in place is a good one already. I made a move to swap Brandon Morrow for Jair Jurrjens specifically because there was no grandfather clause. Prospect contracts emulate real life MLB. I always thought it would be used to simulate arbitration raises without using the system in Jon's leagues.
Am I correct here; Dan's issue is that contracts (p-2010) were not eligible for the prospect extension?
-
No, my issue is that PE should not last beyond the players prospect eligibility. Meaning that (P-2011) ends on the last day of the 2011 season. Some were of the thought that it did end once the year does, others are of the thought that it should extend into the off-season, giving them time to sign these guys once their books are cleared of expiring contracts for that season.
-
In regards to #3.
If a player is making 10m (2011), yet his value puts him in the 5 million dollar range. How would resigning him work? Would the 5 mil per kick in the following year? Because as it stands now when we resign someone in season he has to continually make the same amount of money. Meaning said player would continue to make 10 mil, should I want to resign him.
-
No, my issue is that PE should not last beyond the players prospect eligibility. Meaning that (P-2011) ends on the last day of the 2011 season. Some were of the thought that it did end once the year does, others are of the thought that it should extend into the off-season, giving them time to sign these guys once their books are cleared of expiring contracts for that season.
:iatp:
There is no reason why they can't sign them in season. We are voting to keep rights like they would be going to arbitration but they have 100% of their MV and no PE after the spec contract expires. We are also voting for actual extensions in last season of contract in which new salary starts the next year.
Also, Dan, your response to #3 is right. The previous salary still remains a minimum.
-
1. yes
2. agree with your viewpoint
3. keep it as is
4. if we allow the window after the end of season, I don't see a reason for this, unless I am misreading.
-
Are we going to tackle sign and trades too? Again my stand is if anyone is re-signed they shouldn't be able to be traded for 60 days, as per standard FA rules.
-
Are we going to tackle sign and trades too? Again my stand is if anyone is re-signed they shouldn't be able to be traded for 60 days, as per standard FA rules.
Good point. I agree... That can be added in the signing section. Let's make that point number five.
-
Good point. I agree... That can be added in the signing section. Let's make that point number five.
I think the better suggestion would be June 1st as was oiginally suggested by Dan. It makes more sense than 60 days, because it would force owners to work the higher contracts into the following season's salary cap.
-
I agree with Roy, I just remember getting a lot of opposition when it was brought up originally. Maybe an earlier date, but during the season, like May 1
-
I am not trying to appease Dan, but he has a point about the PE. This is a good thing for us to discuss. If normal offseasons, the books move and the PE changes then why should it be any different for the final offseason of a prospect contract? I am just looking for consistency there. Our rules will make PE kick in after the contract ends if it was done in the last season anyways, so there is no reason a GM should wait until after the season for the PE. This just gives GMs one last chance to sign these guys, but at a higher price for players with MV higher than $6.5m ($4m minimum divided by 60% factor rounded to nearest $500k).
There is a simple reason to wait and it's called MONEY. What competing team leaves 10m+ on the books to re-sign high end prospects during the year? Think about it. No offense to Dan, but I have a hard time believing he would have re-signed Hamilton prior to the end of the season since it would have involved roughly an 10.3m cap hit (18m X 60% less 0.5m) even if the rule was in place at the time. The Rockies and the Royals are in the same boat now with Bruce and Joyce respectively. Only the large market teams would be able to take advantage of this option.
-
I would have found a way if it saved me 7 million dollars, and it was an option at the time. I cleared millions to resign him at market value. I did it with Upton, and I plan on doing it with Beckham and Rasmus... It is a choice. Kind of like the way we have to clear space for the draft.
-
Howe could have resigned Bruce at the start of the season for 6.5 mil... he did not, Bruce blew up and became more expensive. He was 7 mil under the cap before Bruce's hot streak. The money was there, he chose not to.
-
We are also voting on having extensions kick in the year after the contract expires hence my statement.
-
Just the PE? I would vote for that... it's a good idea
-
1) Provisional vote for yes. I'd change it to a team cannot exceed future cap by more than 30%. I understand the team for small markets to make championship runs. But some sort of mechanisms should be in place to ensure these teams dont end up in financial ruin.
4) Yes to window for re-signing, but, cannot trade prior to and after resigning.
-
3) Renewal would overwrite the old contract. This keeps it simple and avoids all the messy scenarios. However, renewal can have a maximum length of 6 years.
-
I agree with you completely Howe on both points. I like the 30% idea as well.
-
I'm not really sold on the value #1 would bring.
What's the difference between allowing teams to sign extensions that don't go on the books until the next season and allowing teams to re-sign expired contracts during the offseason? I'm not seeing it ...
I agree that sign and trades are unrealistic. I think if we state that you cannot trade a player who is not under contract, then our existing 60 day window should prevent a sign-and-trade. To the point someone made about that still falling within the offseason, maybe we revise the rule to be 60 days of MLB in-season?
As has been stated, the obviously the catch here is timing. Some owners have been operating under the assumption that last offseason's discussions are the new rules since there was a lot of support (no sign and trades, no offseason extensions), and others that the rules have not changed since there was never an actual change made (no vote, no amendments). In the end, some people are probably going to be pissed with whatever is decided, so we need to make sure we make the best choice for the future and consider short-term exceptions afterwards (although they should be avoided / minimized if possible) ...
-
These rules are very dependent upon each other, but here's my tentative YES/NO:
1 - NO
I don't see the value of looking 5-6 years out. If #3 passes, I would revise my vote as we should certainly consider looking an additional year out.
2 - YES
I went back and forth on this one, but I agree with Roy - in MLB these players would not be free agents, they'd be owned for another 3 years by their teams with arbitration contracts (players are typically owned for 6 arbitration years). If they're not free to walk in MLB, they should not be free to walk in our league. The intention of the prospect extension is to mimic a player having their arbitration years bought out, and it should still be applicable.
If #3 passes I'd consider switching to NO for simplicities sake as #2 and #4 should become mostly mute, but there's always the risk of a deadbeat owner asleep at the wheel during the season, and a new GM should have the chance to offer the extension during the offseason.
3 - YES
But I would say we only go with the new type. We have enough complexity, what is the value of carrying both types of extensions? Signing an extension to start the following season allows teams to handle it on the future books. Isn't this more representative of how extensions work anyway?
4 - NO
Pending the acceptance of #3, this should become a mute point. Even if #3 is rejected, MLB teams only have a 24 hour exclusive negotiating window that is rarely used, since players might as well hit FA and see how it goes.
#5 - Should teams be able to trade expiring contracts? NO
We can call it the Prince Fielder rule, and I think everyone's opinion was voice pretty clearly last offseason that this is not realistic. I think we also need some language to prevent teams from re-signing what would be an expiring contract 60-days before the season ends, if #3 passes they can even do it on next years books, and then still be able to trade what would otherwise be an expired contract.
If #3 passes, we should note that their 60-day clock does not start until the extension does, and we might also want to modify that rule to be 60 days of MLB In-Season (to avoid what someone else pointed out about keeping them on the books for 60 days of offseason but still moving them before needing to play a game).
-
I'm thinking that going back to our original deadline of June 1st for allowing trades of newly signed FAs might work as well as an in-season 60 day rule. I'm also thinking that it might be fine to trade FAs picked up during the season without having to wait 60 days, because they are not that good for the most part and they don't have much effect on the salary caps. Just trying to keep it simple.
-
I just wanted to throw something in the mix. It is something I have suggested before. Allowing teams to sign a player to extensions, that are at his current value, but below his current contract value. The extensions would start the following year. There would obviously have to be a minimum amount of years in order to do this. A prime example of this is Aaron Harang. His contract in 2010 was for 10 mil, his value was in the 6 mil range. If we had a rule like this in place, then the Dodgers (the team that owned him at the time) could have resigned him for an additional 3 years at 6 mil. Also, if the dodgers wanted to trade him in 2011 (when the contract would have kicked in) they would have had to wait until June 1.
-
Voting thus far
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
YAY - Roy, Dan
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben
2) Should prospect extensions be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks? I say we allow expiring prospect contracts to be signed to regular extensions after the season ends, but not to prospect extensions per our current rules.
YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby, Dan, Ben
NAY -
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior)
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through)
NAY -
5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby
NAY -
6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. This is an addendum on to Rule #3.
YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary)
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
YAY - Ben, Colby
-
Voting thus far
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
YAY - Roy, Dan
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben
2) Should prospect extensions be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks? I say we allow expiring prospect contracts to be signed to regular extensions after the season ends, but not to prospect extensions per our current rules.
YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby, Dan, Ben
NAY -
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior)
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through)
NAY -
5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby
NAY -
6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. This is an addendum on to Rule #3.
YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary)
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
YAY - Ben, Colby
1. I don't care on the percentage, I just think it should be considered to avoid an Angels type situation, where someone takes on a team and HAS to trade players because he cannot resign them - VMart comes to mind.
2. I don't think prospect extensions should be allowed once they expire at the end of the season. I do think people should be able to resign their players to regular contracts after the season ends if they do have the money. Unless #6 is adopted, it gives us an opportunity to resign players below what they are currently making - if that is where their value is. If we allow them to go to FA, then they may become more expensive due to the lack of talent on the market. This helps all GMs with year to year planning.
3. 6 feeds into this, so if I am for #6, I am for contracts being at the end of a current contract, that start the following year.
4. Prince Fielder rule. I am against trading guys without contracts or players recently resigned.
5. yay
6. yay
7. yay - however if a player changes teams, I think his new teams should be given the opportunity to offer a new contract to the player - the day after the signing.
-
Voting thus far
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
YAY - Roy, Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.)
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben
2) Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby (begin of FA), Dan, Ben
NAY -
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior)
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through)
NAY -
5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby
NAY -
6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. This is an addendum on to Rule #3.
YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary)
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
YAY - Ben, Colby, Dan
NAY -
-
I just wanted to throw something in the mix. It is something I have suggested before. Allowing teams to sign a player to extensions, that are at his current value, but below his current contract value. The extensions would start the following year. There would obviously have to be a minimum amount of years in order to do this. A prime example of this is Aaron Harang. His contract in 2010 was for 10 mil, his value was in the 6 mil range. If we had a rule like this in place, then the Dodgers (the team that owned him at the time) could have resigned him for an additional 3 years at 6 mil. Also, if the dodgers wanted to trade him in 2011 (when the contract would have kicked in) they would have had to wait until June 1.
I think this is a fine idea! I'm just sorry I hadn't seen it before or else I would have been banging the drum for it :)
-
2 - NO - Since in real life, arbitration doesn't occur until the season is over.
6 - NO - too exploitable
7. - No - too much going on at that time, I'd rather wait until season end.
-
I want to be clear on prospect extensions. I am voting in favor of not only the extensions being allowed after the season, but the market discounts will also be granted to extensions after the season as well. I think this is the part that Dan and I got hung up on earlier. I don't want the market discounts getting lost in the final rules changes, so you might have to split the voting on prospect extensions into 2 votes.
-
I have no problem with the prospect extensions coming after the season, but I do have a problem with it coming after this season. I don't think we should change that rule mid-season since some GMs have already been planning differently, and the rule was written differently. So currently my vote is no on post season prospect extensions, and yes on post season regular extensions. To start prospect extension grace period post 2012, I would vote yes to that.
-
We'll vote on the timing of rules after they are established...
Voting thus far
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
YAY - Roy, Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.)
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben
2) Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby (begin of FA), Dan, Ben
NAY - Howe
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior)
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through)
NAY -
5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby
NAY -
6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. This is an addendum on to Rule #3.
YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary), Howe
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
YAY - Ben, Colby, Dan
NAY - Howe
-
Well now, that brings about yet another question. When exactly are these new rules going to be implemented? It doesn't matter to me, and it has no bearing on how I vote. However, based on Dan's response, it may matter to other people so we should clear that up now too.
-
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through)
NAY -
Correct. I am not in favor of extending regular contracts after the season. The Prince Fielder Rule is more on not trading players without a contract, which I am also against.
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
Can you clarify what you mean by an extension deadline that coincides with the trade deadline? I meant more if you extend a player, we apply the June 1st for the next season rule on them, so you don't extend early in the season just so you can trade in the offseason. If the extension kicks in on the next season's books, they should have to wait until June 1st just like if they were signed as an FA.
-
Got it Ben, so your suggestion is really part of number six extending the June 1st deadline to any extension during the year and FA contracts during the offseason?
-
Got it Ben, so your suggestion is really part of number six extending the June 1st deadline to any extension during the year and FA contracts during the offseason?
Correct. If I wanted to game the system with our new rules, I would have extended Fielder during last season and apply it to this season's books. Come the offseason if I decide I couldn't really afford him, can make the exact same trade all within the rules that were meant to prevent me from being able to trade him.
If you extend starting the following season, the contract should be treated the same as signing an FA during the offseason where they cannot be traded until June 1. Applying this to the Fielder example, I would have had to go into 2011 with both him and Pujols, which was obviously not feasible and I would have had to trade one before the deadline or let one of them walk (which is the intention).
-
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
YAY - Roy, Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.)
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben
If #3 passes which seems likely, I am in favor of looking one season ahead. If we're making extensions that apply to a future season only, we need to regulate that season as well as the current season.
-
I have no problem with the prospect extensions coming after the season, but I do have a problem with it coming after this season. I don't think we should change that rule mid-season since some GMs have already been planning differently, and the rule was written differently. So currently my vote is no on post season prospect extensions, and yes on post season regular extensions. To start prospect extension grace period post 2012, I would vote yes to that.
I don't see language in the current rules that says a prospect cannot be extended using the prospect contract after their prospect contract has expired. The vote is whether or not it should be allowed, but based on what I'm looking at disallowing them is what would actually require a change.
While there may be some owners who have been operating under the impression that they would not be allowed, I know I have many P-2011 players I plan to keep, and have been expecting I could extend them on the prospect extension this offseason since there is no rule that says otherwise...
-
ex·pire (k-spr)
v. ex·pired, ex·pir·ing, ex·pires
v.intr.
1. To come to an end; terminate: My membership in the club has expired.
I think the definition of the word supports my case
-
Per the math behind a prospect extension, a P-2011 contract could not be extended after the season via prospect extension since the books move to 2012. This is how we handled it last year. That is also why P-2010 contracts were ineligible for prospect extensions.
-
How is that any different than extensions for non-prospects that take affect in 2012?
-
How is that any different than extensions for non-prospects that take affect in 2012?
Excellent point. I think much of the problem is solved when we have some of the other rules take place. We don't want to see this sign and trade of expiring contracts after the season. We should have rights to the prospects, so perhaps those extensions should kick in right away? A GM would wait till after the season on an expiring prospect contract for three reasons...
1) The player is a rental and they don't want to resign them.
2) Their MV may be less than $4m meaning a regular contract would be better. Perhaps the GM thinks the player's value will go down?
3). The GM is afraid the player may get hurt and is holding off from a deal.
-
I know you want consistency, but when in doubt think real life and the answer becomes clear. In real life, prospects inevitably sign extensions after their initial deals expire, because they have not accrued the service time to become free agents. That's very different than an expiring contract on a veteran who is immediately a free agent after the last game of the season. For the sake of simplicity, we could consider any player on a non-prospect contract to be a "veteran" and therefore not eligible to be traded after his contract expires.
Maybe I look at it differently than some other people, but I always try to err on a side of realism and simplicity when suggesting rules changes. Hopefully, we can wrap up these issues soon.
-
I know you want consistency, but when in doubt think real life and the answer becomes clear. In real life, prospects inevitably sign extensions after their initial deals expire, because they have not accrued the service time to become free agents. That's very different than an expiring contract on a veteran who is immediately a free agent after the last game of the season. For the sake of simplicity, we could consider any player on a non-prospect contract to be a "veteran" and therefore not eligible to be traded after his contract expires.
Maybe I look at it differently than some other people, but I always try to err on a side of realism and simplicity when suggesting rules changes. Hopefully, we can wrap up these issues soon.
:iatp:
-
We'll vote on the timing of rules after they are established...
Voting thus far
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
Nay.
YAY - Roy, Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.)
NAY - Colby (vote changed as representative of small market teams), Howe (would approve 30% above cap), Ben
2) Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
Yay, beginning of free agency.
YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby (begin of FA), Dan, Ben
NAY - Howe
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
Yay.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior)
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
Yay.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through)
NAY -
5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
Yay.
YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby
NAY -
6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. This is an addendum on to Rule #3.
Abstain, would like further discussion.
YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary), Howe
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
Yay.
YAY - Ben, Colby, Dan
NAY - Howe
-
just delete this post whomever gets to it first.
-
If #3 passes which seems likely, I am in favor of looking one season ahead. If we're making extensions that apply to a future season only, we need to regulate that season as well as the current season.
-
As far as # 1, I could live with either a "hard" cap or one that allows a team to be over by a small % (preferably no higher than 10%).
As far as # 2, I just noticed that it refers to "regular" extensions for prospects. For the record, I am in favor of granting market extensions after the season.
As far as # 7, why is it necessary? If the Prince Fielder rule passes, # 7 becomes redundant, because the player couldn't be traded after the deadline anyway. Am I missing something?
-
Jake is against the first rule. Ben is for it leaving a 4-2 majority with the Commissioner against the rule. This puts it on the fence. I am willing to go for the rule (I did introduce it), but have a 30% buffer for future years to give small market teams some flexibility in dealing contracts.
It looks like every rule will pass except for the 6th one which is currently up in the air and requiring a couple more votes. We need to discuss timing and make sure language is correct.
Rule #1 - Future Cap Management inspired by the 2010 Angels: Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
YAY - Roy (wants 10% hard cap), Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.), Ben (wants it now), Colby (would approve 30% above cap), Howe (would approve 30% above cap)
NAY - Jake
LANGUAGE - This rule will only pass with a buffer. For example, if the Pirates’ cap in 2013 is expected to be $62m then the 30% buffer allows the team to have a projected salary based on current contracts of $80.6m in 2013.
TIMING – We have a trade deadline looming in seven weeks. There are several franchises that would be affected by this rule (Pirates, Athletics, Reds, Rockies all come to mind). I feel like the timing of the introduction of this rule depends solely on rule #3 since the introduction of rule #3 requires a different setup to Official Rosters.
Rule #2 – Signing window for expired prospect contracts: Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby (begin of FA), Dan, Ben, Jake (begin of FA)
NAY – Howe
LANGUAGE – The majority appears to have a consensus that this rule should include language stating that expired prospect contracts can be held on the books with a signing deadline for a normal contract at the beginning of FA. I think one week before is appropriate to allow the EC to update everything.
TIMING - Do we want to introduce this rule immediately? It truly has very little effect. A guy like CI Daric Barton, $0.5m (P-2011) would not be eligible for a prospect extension after the end of the season. This rule simply keeps Barton on his team’s books and allows a regular extension. The team has rights to signing the player, but said player cannot be traded thanks to the Prince Fielder rule.
Rule #3 – True Extensions: I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior), Jake
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
LANGUAGE – I believe Ben and I prefer to see true extensions only allowed for players in the last year of their contract. This rule does not eliminate our current extensions. We should adopt language that differentiates between a New Contract and a Contract Extension.
TIMING – Rule #1’s timing depends on this rule. Do we introduce this now or later? I say let this be effective immediately upon resolution of this Official RC thread.
Rule #4 - Prince Fielder Rule: Contract extensions on expired veteran contracts not be allowed after the regular season ends. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more onus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through), Jake
NAY –
LANGUAGE – Rule #7 proposed by Ben has been lumped into this ruling. Everyone but Howe agrees with Ben that we should keep it simple and add a rule that says veteran players (non-prospect contract) with expiring contracts have a signing deadline of July 31st. This coincides with the trade deadline for simplicity.
TIMING – This was the culprit of people questioning our contract rules. I would like to see this effective immediately.
Rule #5 – June 1st window: In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby, Jake
NAY -
LANGUAGE – The addendum of the Prince Fielder rule makes this an easy rule. Essentially, if you give a new contract or extend a player between the trade deadline and the following April 1st (60 days prior to June 1st) then the player cannot be traded until June 1st. This applies to free agents as well, but only for those signed during the offseason. For example, a scrub FA signed in the closing months of the season could be traded before the June 1st opening.
TIMING – I vote for immediately.
Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: Dan's suggestion of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract.
YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary), Howe, Jake (abstained), Roy
We need a couple more votes on this. If you want a player at less than MV then compete for them in FA. Most veteran players in MLB will see what there is out there for them in FA.
-
I forgot to vote on # 6. I am all for it. The market value should dictate the extension, so change the nay to a yea vote.
-
In terms of # 2, if we disregard the implementation of the rule, we need to decide on whether to grant market discounts AFTER the season. My prior message should have said I was all for it. Dan said he'd support it as long as it was delayed 1 year. I don't recall seeing anything on this from anyone else.
-
I'm still a little hazy about #2... according to the wording all players (non-prospect) become FAs as of the last day of the season? I have to disagree with that then. I think all teams should have a window to re-sign their players. This is why I suggested #6.
Because of the way the rules are set up, we do not have renegotiating power with players. Such as offering them contracts per their true value for the following season. All they will continue to make is what they are currently making.I am sure other GMs have examples, but I will use my team as what I consider a good example. A guy like Adam Lind is not worth 16.5 mil. He had a lights out year in 2009, and a terd year in 2010. He seems to be back on track in 2011. However, I am not committing another 16.5 mil for 3 years to him because he isn't worth it because his value - by our scoring system will be less once the season is up. Having him head to FA is unfair based solely on the fact that we do have teams with 150 mil plus payrolls waiting in the wings to snatch him up. I signed him to a 1 year extension last year thinking I would have a chance to resign him at the end of 2011, knowing his value would be less.
My suggestion is rule #6, or allowing GMs a window, just like prospects to resign their players after the season. I do realize that we do want to make this as real as possible, but like I have said in the past we are reactionary since we are not doing this in real life. I personally can't contact Adam's agent and ask if he wants 4 years at 10 mil. All we have to work with are the Fantrax values. Giving GMs a chance to resign players to values that are related to their 2010/2011 numbers, and have them kick in the following year, is something I also consider fair. Granting the stipulation that is for at least 3 years, and cannot be for less than 50% of his current contract (as stated in the current rules). This is just my thought on this, and something I think should be vetted out before #2 is agreed upon.
-
For Rule #2, I am against having prospect extensions for expired prospect contracts after the season.
-
#2: I am for the allowance of prospect extension (at discounted value) in the offseason. This has always been my intepretation of the rules.
-
I'm still a little hazy about #2... according to the wording all players (non-prospect) become FAs as of the last day of the season? I have to disagree with that then. I think all teams should have a window to re-sign their players. This is why I suggested #6.
Because of the way the rules are set up, we do not have renegotiating power with players. Such as offering them contracts per their true value for the following season. All they will continue to make is what they are currently making.I am sure other GMs have examples, but I will use my team as what I consider a good example. A guy like Adam Lind is not worth 16.5 mil. He had a lights out year in 2009, and a terd year in 2010. He seems to be back on track in 2011. However, I am not committing another 16.5 mil for 3 years to him because he isn't worth it because his value - by our scoring system will be less once the season is up. Having him head to FA is unfair based solely on the fact that we do have teams with 150 mil plus payrolls waiting in the wings to snatch him up. I signed him to a 1 year extension last year thinking I would have a chance to resign him at the end of 2011, knowing his value would be less.
My suggestion is rule #6, or allowing GMs a window, just like prospects to resign their players after the season. I do realize that we do want to make this as real as possible, but like I have said in the past we are reactionary since we are not doing this in real life. I personally can't contact Adam's agent and ask if he wants 4 years at 10 mil. All we have to work with are the Fantrax values. Giving GMs a chance to resign players to values that are related to their 2010/2011 numbers, and have them kick in the following year, is something I also consider fair. Granting the stipulation that is for at least 3 years, and cannot be for less than 50% of his current contract (as stated in the current rules). This is just my thought on this, and something I think should be vetted out before #2 is agreed upon.
How about allowing teams to extend their non-prospect players like Lind up until FA starts? I think that's only fair, since other teams wouldn't get a chance to bid on him until FA starts anyway.
-
It seems as if we already had a deadline for this based on the old rules. I pulled it out of the "Deadlines" under the Free Agency rules.
12/15/2011 - Unsigned Players Become FA, Cap Hits Raised
It seems fair to me, because it allows teams at least 2 weeks to prepare for free agency depending on if we want to change the deadlines.
-
It seems as if we already had a deadline for this based on the old rules. I pulled it out of the "Deadlines" under the Free Agency rules.
12/15/2011 - Unsigned Players Become FA, Cap Hits Raised
It seems fair to me, because it allows teams at least 2 weeks to prepare for free agency depending on if we want to change the deadlines.
:iatp:
I just wanted to make the deadline for players to become free agents shorter.
-
Keep in mind, that date was the deadline only for re-signing vets. They are still untradeable after this year's trade deadline because of the new Prince Fielder rule.
-
Again, I am in total agreement
-
The issue is timing here. The Prince Fielder rule will likely happen immediately.
-
Implement the deadline to re-sign vets immediately too. What is the downside?
-
If we're not going to have RFA, you can even extend the deadline to 1/1/12. That gives teams a full 2 weeks since the first deadline to sign FAs is the following.
1/15/2012 - FA opens up for CI / DH
-
True... we don't have RFA anymore (just supplemental picks for losing Type A/B FA). I thought we weren't even allowing to sign expired veteran contracts after the season. That is a major ruling here. We either implement that rule this year or next year.
-
You're right. I was confusing myself. The extension dollars go into effect the following season, but the intention to do it or not must be done prior to the end of the season. Simple and clean.
-
Again, I'm getting confused. Are we saying that as soon as the season ends, then all veterans are FAs if not signed by the last day of the season (world series). I continue to argue vehemently against that ruling since we cannot get true value on players until after their contracts are up. To keep signing someone to the same amount of money regradless of performance to hold on to them doesn't seem realistic at all. I am sure Pat Burrell wishes this were true, but it isn't. But we don't currently have a system in place to deal with this. If we find a solution to that then I am on board. Until that time, I am most definitely NAY.
-
Dan,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by, "we cannot get true value on players until after their contracts are up." Isn't their value their salary based on where they placed in the 2010 and 2011 Fantrax rankings?
-
Most players currently signed are under 2009/2010 rankings. If we cannot sign our players during the year to 2010/2011 rankings and have it count as an extension that starts the following year in 2012, then we have to sign players at their current salary.
If I am to understand what is being proposed, we cannot resign veterans after the season ends. To sign them during the season they maintain their current salary throughout their next contract.
For example.
Adam Lind - signed at 2009 value - $16.5 mil (2011)
Adam Lind current value #27 CI, #27 OF
Highest salary as per his fantrax value from 2010/2011 - 10.5 mil (#27 OF)
Now if I wanted to re-sign him under the current rule being proposed which is no re-signs on veterans once the season is over, I have to re-sign him to a 16.5 mil contract since that is what he currently makes.
If he stays at his current spot in Fantrax his current monetary value is 10.5 mil, but I cannot sign him to that because of
"You may extend a player's contract in any year, but if it is during the contract, then the new contract must be no less and no shorter than the current remaining contract. "
Now if we do away with veteran re-signs after the season then I have two choices - re-sign him and overpay by 6 mil, or hope I can win him in free agency. Now if anyone noticed in this last off-season, many lesser players were commanding absurd salaries because many teams had a lot of disposable cash. So what is the answer to this problem?
-
Under these proposed rules, June 1st - July 31st provides 60 days for extensions on expiring contracts looking at only the current and previous season's rankings.
-
Under these proposed rules, June 1st - July 31st provides 60 days for extensions on expiring contracts looking at only the current and previous season's rankings.
But what about the money? Using Lind as an example, what would he earn? 10.5 or 16.5... that is what I am hazy about.
-
I suggest we forget about what is written in the old rules, because it is confusing us. For Lind, if you re-signed him TODAY he's on your books starting 2012 at 10.5m. Forget about the old "no shorter than, no less than" rules. If you wait until the last day and the season and he's ranked # 1 overall, he's on your 2012 books at 27.7m.
-
I suggest we forget about what is written in the old rules, because it is confusing us. For Lind, if you re-signed him TODAY he's on your books starting 2012 at 10.5m. Forget about the old "no shorter than, no less than" rules. If you wait until the last day and the season and he's ranked # 1 overall, he's on your 2012 books at 27.7m.
If that is the case then I am all for it :toast:
-
Just re-casting my votes
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
I still vote Yay... but if it doesn't pass it isn't the worst thing, I think we are getting to the point where most GMs have a plan from year to year.
2) Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
YAY - also making the spects property of the team, allowing them to be dealt. This might be tough to keep track of.
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - but only if it is at the value of the previous 2 years - we can call this the Adam Lind rule. I still think it should be at a minimum of 50%. We already have minimums for years in place.
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY
5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY
6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. This is an addendum on to Rule #3.
YAY - see #3 - virtually the same thing
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
YAY
-
Dan, your addendum is not the same. Having extensions kick in the following year still have to follow our rules of not decreasing the salary. We still need to discuss timing. It appears that half of us are in favor of immediate introduction.
Rule #1 - Future Cap Management inspired by the 2010 Angels: Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
YAY - Roy (wants 10% hard cap), Dan (doesn't care on %, wants this to be called the 2010 Angels rule.), Ben (wants it now), Colby (would approve 30% above cap), Howe (would approve 30% above cap)
NAY - Jake
LANGUAGE - This rule will only pass with a buffer. For example, if the Pirates’ cap in 2013 is expected to be $62m then the 30% buffer allows the team to have a projected salary based on current contracts of $80.6m in 2013.
TIMING – We have a trade deadline looming in seven weeks. There are several franchises that would be affected by this rule (Pirates, Athletics, Reds, Rockies all come to mind). I feel like the timing of the introduction of this rule depends solely on rule #3 since the introduction of rule #3 requires a different setup to Official Rosters.
Rule #2 – Signing window for expired prospect contracts: Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
YAY - Roy (deadline of January 1st / FA), Colby (begin of FA), Dan, Ben, Jake (begin of FA)
NAY – Howe
LANGUAGE – The majority appears to have a consensus that this rule should include language stating that expired prospect contracts can be held on the books with a signing deadline for a normal contract at the beginning of FA. I think one week before is appropriate to allow the EC to update everything.
TIMING - Do we want to introduce this rule immediately? It truly has very little effect. A guy like CI Daric Barton, $0.5m (P-2011) would not be eligible for a prospect extension after the end of the season. This rule simply keeps Barton on his team’s books and allows a regular extension. The team has rights to signing the player, but said player cannot be traded thanks to the Prince Fielder rule.
Rule #3 – True Extensions: I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior), Jake
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
LANGUAGE – I believe Ben and I prefer to see true extensions only allowed for players in the last year of their contract. This rule does not eliminate our current extensions. We should adopt language that differentiates between a New Contract and a Contract Extension.
TIMING – Rule #1’s timing depends on this rule. Do we introduce this now or later? I say let this be effective immediately upon resolution of this Official RC thread.
Rule #4 - Prince Fielder Rule: Contract extensions on expired veteran contracts not be allowed after the regular season ends. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more onus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY - Colby, Roy, Dan (I believe you are for this), Howe, Ben (your vote was no, but your explanation suggested these should not be allowed, a lot of double negatives to sort through), Jake
NAY –
LANGUAGE – Rule #7 proposed by Ben has been lumped into this ruling. Everyone but Howe agrees with Ben that we should keep it simple and add a rule that says veteran players (non-prospect contract) with expiring contracts have a signing deadline of July 31st. This coincides with the trade deadline for simplicity.
TIMING – This was the culprit of people questioning our contract rules. I would like to see this effective immediately.
Rule #5 – June 1st window: In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY - Roy, Dan, Howe, Colby, Jake
NAY -
LANGUAGE – The addendum of the Prince Fielder rule makes this an easy rule. Essentially, if you give a new contract or extend a player between the trade deadline and the following April 1st (60 days prior to June 1st) then the player cannot be traded until June 1st. This applies to free agents as well, but only for those signed during the offseason. For example, a scrub FA signed in the closing months of the season could be traded before the June 1st opening.
TIMING – I vote for immediately.
Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: Dan's suggestion of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract.
YAY - Dan
NAY - Colby (have them go to FA if you want lower salary), Howe, Jake (abstained), Roy
We need a couple more votes on this. If you want a player at less than MV then compete for them in FA. Most veteran players in MLB will see what there is out there for them in FA.
-
Why keep using Fantrax as a guide if everyone is going to hit the open market? Do you honestly think that GMs will keep resigning players if their values drop but they have to keep writing them the same check year after year? I honestly don't see the point of the rest of this (the loop holes) if we can't even keep our own players. To be brutally honest it seems stupid. Teams don't engage their players during the season? Players don't return to places for a lesser cost? Let's just crown the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers champs every year, because then we are turning it into a free market economy. We ourselves cannot change our budgets. We don't get new owners, we don't get an OK from the top to say, "Dan go spend an extra 20 mil in the off-season - we were so close last year". Yes we do want to keep it as realistic as possible, but we will never have that. We will never have a Jim Hendry credit card. If our only chance to keep guys is over pay them for one good year (woo hoo) or let them be bid on by other teams with copious amount of cash who traded everyone away and now have a AAA team, or have a 200 million dollar payroll (double woo hoo) or trade them for guys in the minors (triple woo hoo), again what's the point?
If we can't keep our own players, or have the chance to re-sign them at fair market value without any other intervention, then why even do it? Let's just make it a redraft league. I planned ahead to re-sign Lind, when I sucked it up and gave him a one year extension (he got a 1 million dollar raise last year - during the season from 15.5 to 16.5) so I would have the chance to sign him for less because he isn't his 2009. I am sure there are other players like this, but he is a prime example. Then I am Nay to everything suggested, lets just keep it as is. The reason I didn't take the Mets was to keep my players, now I can't even do that.
And Roy changed his vote to Yay on #6.
-
Why keep using Fantrax as a guide if everyone is going to hit the open market? Do you honestly think that GMs will keep resigning players if their values drop but they have to keep writing them the same check year after year? I honestly don't see the point of the rest of this (the loop holes) if we can't even keep our own players. To be brutally honest it seems stupid. Teams don't engage their players during the season? Players don't return to places for a lesser cost? Let's just crown the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers champs every year, because then we are turning it into a free market economy. We ourselves cannot change our budgets. We don't get new owners, we don't get an OK from the top to say, "Dan go spend an extra 20 mil in the off-season - we were so close last year". Yes we do want to keep it as realistic as possible, but we will never have that. We will never have a Jim Hendry credit card. If our only chance to keep guys is over pay them for one good year (woo hoo) or let them be bid on by other teams with copious amount of cash who traded everyone away and now have a AAA team, or have a 200 million dollar payroll (double woo hoo) or trade them for guys in the minors (triple woo hoo), again what's the point?
If we can't keep our own players, or have the chance to re-sign them at fair market value without any other intervention, then why even do it? Let's just make it a redraft league. I planned ahead to re-sign Lind, when I sucked it up and gave him a one year extension (he got a 1 million dollar raise last year - during the season from 15.5 to 16.5) so I would have the chance to sign him for less because he isn't his 2009. I am sure there are other players like this, but he is a prime example. Then I am Nay to everything suggested, lets just keep it as is. The reason I didn't take the Mets was to keep my players, now I can't even do that.
And Roy changed his vote to Yay on #6.
i am not on the rule commitee but i agree with dan i feel we dont need to change anything. i think the league is fine right now and these changes would make it dumber. it would be dumb to make it so if we dont have enough cap to extend a players contract before the end of the season they have to go to free agency. that would make the big market teams win alot and small markets teams not be as good
-
my other suggestion is to have extentions...if there is a value discrepancy...stop where prospect extensions leave off at 30 percent. You can't have a value system in place and then say well its no good unless you are paying top dollar. You can't quantify performance then subject what an imaginary player would or wouldn't do. I agree chances are a player wouldn't take less, but there are other real life factors at play...owners, agents, no salary caps, etc. To say that your only choice is to keep funneling money at a player to keep him is obtuse in my opinion.
-
Dan, you may have convinced me to change my opinion.
-
I am still nay on #6. You can sign re-sign players to a contract less than current if the contract is expiring.
I don't want a situation where some team sign a guy to a 5 year deal to fend off other teams' interest, then 2 year in, extend him at a less rate.
-
I am still nay on #6. You can sign re-sign players to a contract less than current if the contract is expiring.
I don't want a situation where some team sign a guy to a 5 year deal to fend off other teams' interest, then 2 year in, extend him at a less rate.
:iatp:
That is a language issue. It was my understanding that this would be for actual extensions and not overriding contracts.
-
final year only...it has always been one of my stipulations
-
plus the teams with the most amount of cap for free agency, don't have major league teams...kind of unreal if we are striving for realism. Just saying.
-
Just so I am clear
Current rule: expiring contract can be extended in their last year at MV, even if MV < current value
I dont see how Dan's suggestion is different?
-
Just so I am clear
Current rule: expiring contract can be extended in their last year at MV, even if MV < current value
I dont see how Dan's suggestion is different?
Current rule says that extension is equal to Max(Current Salary, Market Value). With our proposed rule of having actual extensions kick in the following year after an expiring contract, we can now add language that eliminates the minimum threshold of current salary.
-
under the current rule you can extend after the season at no less than 50% of players current contract. If extendin during the season you have to pay the player no less than he is already making. We are doing away with the offseason grace period, so either sign your guys at full price regardless of value or let them leave via FA.
-
under the current rule you can extend after the season at no less than 50% of players current contract. If extendin during the season you have to pay the player no less than he is already making. We are doing away with the offseason grace period, so either sign your guys at full price regardless of value or let them leave via FA.
You are confusing me Dan. First you want to eliminate their constraint that they must make their previous salary and now you want it? The current rule of 50% of contract for an expired contract will go out the door with our new rules as the two conflict. The only type of situation in which we will allow an expired contract to stay on the books after the season is an expired prospect contract.
-
#2: I am for the allowance of prospect extension (at discounted value) in the offseason. This has always been my intepretation of the rules.
This has also been my interpretation, and I am in favor of this being confirmed explicitly in the new rules.
-
You guys are confusing me on the extensions for regular contracts.
LANGUAGE – Rule #7 proposed by Ben has been lumped into this ruling. Everyone but Howe agrees with Ben that we should keep it simple and add a rule that says veteran players (non-prospect contract) with expiring contracts have a signing deadline of July 31st. This coincides with the trade deadline for simplicity.
Why are we setting a deadline of July 31st? Why not the last day of the MLB season?
Rule #1 - Future Cap Management inspired by the 2010 Angels: Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
If we're allowing teams to sign extensions that only kick in for a future season, that needs to be a capped season (it can be 30%, but it needs to be something). I still dont understand the argument for looking out further than one season ... can someone please elaborate?
Rule #2 – Signing window for expired prospect contracts: Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
I think I must have misread this rule, and I believe Dan did as well (at least from what I've read of his discussions with Howe. I think expiring prospect contracts should be the only type of extensions allowed in the offseason. I do not think they should have to be regular contracts, as I still believe the prospect extension should apply (you would still be buying out the players remaining arbitration years, the purpose of a prospect extension). Owners should be able to use either the regular or the prospect.
TIMING - Do we want to introduce this rule immediately? It truly has very little effect. A guy like CI Daric Barton, $0.5m (P-2011) would not be eligible for a prospect extension after the end of the season. This rule simply keeps Barton on his team’s books and allows a regular extension. The team has rights to signing the player, but said player cannot be traded thanks to the Prince Fielder rule.
I think it would have a significant effect, as I do not believe there is a consensus that Daric Barton would not be eligible for the prospect extension.
It is possible there were cases handled like this in the past, but it is not in the rules. Owners should not be required to keep tabs on all transactions to know what the rules are, and if a decision is made because the rules are ambiguous then the rules should have been amended to state the interpretation for future reference. That did not happen, and I believe there are multiple RC members who believed that Barton would be eligible (at least myself and Howe).
The prospect extension can have significant effect on a team's decisions and this certainly needs to be discussed. I know I have a number of valuable P-2011 players (Smith, Soto, Cabrera, Masterson, ...) and made a conscious decision not to use my cap space on them during the offseason or early this season to re-sign any because I was under the impression that I could still use the prospect extension this coming offseason (although I would have to pay slightly more, since they would be a year further along the prospect discount calculator). Assuming #3 passes and I can use the prospect extension today on next year's books then it's not as big of a deal, but we need to at least discuss this before it's assumed illegal.
-
Rule #3 – True Extensions: I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
YAY - Roy (any time), Colby (one year prior), Dan, Ben (only do actual extensions one year prior), Jake
NAY - Howe (wants to keep it simple, but allow 6-year deal)
My suggestion was that we only allow extensions that are added to the existing contract (begin as soon as the current one expires), and do away with contracts overriding the current one. I suppose I agree with only signing in the last year, to prevent teams from abusing the total length (sign a player to a 4 year deal and then extend them 5 more for a total of 9 - obviously this would not be ok).
Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: Dan's suggestion of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract.
I'll wait to hear you guys out on this one since it seems there is still some confusion as to what the proposed rule is.
-
You are confusing me Dan. First you want to eliminate their constraint that they must make their previous salary and now you want it? The current rule of 50% of contract for an expired contract will go out the door with our new rules as the two conflict. The only type of situation in which we will allow an expired contract to stay on the books after the season is an expired prospect contract.
Colb - the current rule states that if you re-sign a player during his contract you have match what he is making annually. If he is making 10 mil, then he has to be extended for 10 mil.
Also in the current rule we have a grace period after the season, prior to free agency, to sign our players at no less than 50% of what he is making, if his Fantrax value designates that.
What we are currently proposing is doing away with the grace period for re-signing veterans. Either sign them to a matched annual salary or let them go to free agency. At least that is what I am to understand. I am against that, because of my stated points in my prior posts.
What I am proposing is allowing an extension based on a payers value, to take hold after a players contract expires. I originally proposed 50% of the value, since that was what was already in the rules. Upon further discussion I realize that it is unrealistic to suggest a player would sign an extension at 50% of what he is currently making. I suggest we allow resigning players (veterans) that are in their final year of their contract, at 30% of their value, if that is what Fantrax determines their value is.
I realize that yes this is sort of unrealistic, but as I have stated before there are many different things at work in real life MLB that we will never be able to fully emulate. But, I do not think it is fair to lose a guy to free agency, when GMs have struggled to build their team. I am stated other reasons, but I really don't feel like rewriting them.
-
Colb - the current rule states that if you re-sign a player during his contract you have match what he is making annually. If he is making 10 mil, then he has to be extended for 10 mil.
Also in the current rule we have a grace period after the season, prior to free agency, to sign our players at no less than 50% of what he is making, if his Fantrax value designates that.
What we are currently proposing is doing away with the grace period for re-signing veterans. Either sign them to a matched annual salary or let them go to free agency. At least that is what I am to understand. I am against that, because of my stated points in my prior posts.
What I am proposing is allowing an extension based on a payers value, to take hold after a players contract expires. I originally proposed 50% of the value, since that was what was already in the rules. Upon further discussion I realize that it is unrealistic to suggest a player would sign an extension at 50% of what he is currently making. I suggest we allow resigning players (veterans) that are in their final year of their contract, at 30% of their value, if that is what Fantrax determines their value is.
I realize that yes this is sort of unrealistic, but as I have stated before there are many different things at work in real life MLB that we will never be able to fully emulate. But, I do not think it is fair to lose a guy to free agency, when GMs have struggled to build their team. I am stated other reasons, but I really don't feel like rewriting them.
I am OK with this. This implies the 2 week grace period for extension is still in place, correct?
-
I am OK with this. This implies the 2 week grace period for extension is still in place, correct?
No, the two week grace period would not be in place. That is why I think we need it. If we had the two week grace period like we did in the past this would not be needed. But what is being proposed is doing away with the grace period, and having vetrans with expired contracts go directly to free agency unless you want to sign them at their full value.
For instance.
Proposed rule - I want to keep Adam Lind past this season. I have to pay him 16.5 mil or let him go to FA.
My proposed rule - Lind, depending on his fantrax value will be signed to an extension, no less than 30% his current salary, depending on his fantrax value.
Old Rule - If I give Lind and extension during the season it has to be for 16.5 mil. If I wait for the off-season, I can re-sign him at no less than 16.5 mil, depending on his final Fantrax value - which currently sits at 10.5 mil
-
What I am proposing is allowing an extension based on a payers value, to take hold after a players contract expires. I originally proposed 50% of the value, since that was what was already in the rules. Upon further discussion I realize that it is unrealistic to suggest a player would sign an extension at 50% of what he is currently making. I suggest we allow resigning players (veterans) that are in their final year of their contract, at 30% of their value, if that is what Fantrax determines their value is.
Are you saying 30% is the minimum, or using 30% as an example?
New Salary = MAX(Fantrax, 0.3 * Previous Salary)
OR
New Salary = Fantrax (and we don't care what he used to make he's paid based on his current value)
-
My proposed rule - Lind, depending on his fantrax value will be signed to an extension, no less than 30% his current salary, depending on his fantrax value.
Got it. By why the change to 30% instead of the 50% number?
-
Are you saying 30% is the minimum, or using 30% as an example?
New Salary = MAX(Fantrax, 0.3 * Previous Salary)
OR
New Salary = Fantrax (and we don't care what he used to make he's paid based on his current value)
30% of what he was making would be the minimum. Again this number can be played with, but I think 50% may be too steep.
In Lind's case he could make no less than 11.5 mil.
-
Alright, if it was confusing for many then we can allow propsect extensions be the only allowable ones after the season for expired contracts. Prospect extensions take place immediately or after the end of the contract?
-
We've currently got a lot of moving pieces in this thread. Can we get a summary of what everyone agrees on, have everyone confirm (since there has been confusion as to what people are voting for) and then finalize those issues? Narrowing down the list should help with discussion and take some variables out of the equation (balancing the nuances of 7 potential rule changes at once is a bit crazy).
-
1. As far as # 2, I voted Nay, not Yay. In fact, Ben, Howe and I all appear to support prospects to be extended after the season at a market discount.
2. As far as # 3, I think that the change in salary for extensions of non-prospects should always take effect the year after the current contract expires. Also, changes in salary should never over-ride a year in the existing contract. Over-writing contracts with extensions is a football thing, not a baseball thing. I am not opposed to extending contracts at any time as long as the extensions are tacked on after the contract expires as long as it falls under the min/max rules already in place.
3. As far as # 6, I vote Yay along with Dan. I have no problem extending players at a salary less than what they are currently making.
Please let me know if I've missed anything or not made myself clear on any rule.
-
Got it. By why the change to 30% instead of the 50% number?
I have no problem with 50%, but from what I was sensing from others, 50% may be a bit unrealistic. I know we are all doing our best to strive for realism. But we could stick with 50% if everyone is agreeable to it. I think the percentage is subjective to opinion.
-
Alright, if it was confusing for many then we can allow propsect extensions be the only allowable ones after the season for expired contracts. Prospect extensions take place immediately or after the end of the contract?
This is what I believe, but it should be part of the vote / timing / etc. I was just worried that we had already decided against it and was trying to make sure there was discussion.
-
I think Ben is right we might need to split these up into different posts.
-
2. As far as # 3, I think that the change in salary for extensions of non-prospects should always take effect the year after the current contract expires. Also, changes in salary should never over-ride a year in the existing contract. Over-writing contracts with extensions is a football thing, not a baseball thing. I am not opposed to extending contracts at any time as long as the extensions are tacked on after the contract expires as long as it falls under the min/max rules already in place.
This is what I have been trying to say, but I think you've got it spelled out more clearly.
-
I think Ben is right we might need to split these up into different posts.
Not just split them up, but there seem to be things we all agree on - lets get those out of the way so we can consolidate our discussions a bit more. If we divide the proposals into ones that are pretty well set vs still under discussion, table those still under discussion for a few hours and nail down the ones we can today that would be great. With fewer moving pieces hopefully we can hone in on the tougher decisions more quickly, rather than having the discussion scattered across 12 pages of mixed topics.
Pending the suggestion by Roy above that I support, I think we're pretty well set on #3, #4, and #5.
-
My votes on the issues - is anyone keeping tabs?
Just re-casting my votes
1) Management of salary caps for not just current year but future 5-6 years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges.
I still vote Yay... but if it doesn't pass it isn't the worst thing, I think we are getting to the point where most GMs have a plan from year to year.
2) Should regular contract extensions for expired prospect contracts be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason? If so, should we adopt a short window to do this such as two weeks?
YAY - also making the spects property of the team, allowing them to be dealt. This might be tough to keep track of. I still vote NAY on the extension being allowed once the season ends, and the prospect eligibility has run out.
3) I am suggesting a rule change that says contract extensions can be done one of two ways. The first is a traditional extension which is only allowable in the last year of the current contract. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. The second is our current type of extensions which is essentially a new contract overwriting the old one. We have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status.
NAY - unless some form of #6 is adopted.
4) Prince Fielder Rule - Should regular extensions on expiring contracts not be allowed AFTER the season? For example, an extension in November 2011 for what was a 2011 contract. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more honus on the trade deadline and free agency.
YAY
5) In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
YAY
6) Dan's suggeston of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract. This is an addendum on to Rule #3.
YAY
7) Ben's suggestion of having an extension deadline on players with expiring contracts coincide with the trade deadine (approximately 60 days before end of season).
YAY
-
Let me clarify: I'd like this to happen:
- No grace period after season
- Ability to extend contract on the expiring year at MV, even if MV < CV
- Any extended player cannot be traded for at least 60 days (in the offseason, first day becomes June 1st)
These are entirely separate from the Rookie Extension contract issue, which my stance is:
- Grace period after season
- Ability to extend at discounted value
The following is another issue:
No team can have salary in future at more than 30% of its cap.
-
I have no problem with 50%, but from what I was sensing from others, 50% may be a bit unrealistic. I know we are all doing our best to strive for realism. But we could stick with 50% if everyone is agreeable to it. I think the percentage is subjective to opinion.
I've got no problem with the concept of this rule, but I do think we should hash out the details a bit more. For instance, typically if a player signs an extension for steep discount it's because they've had a terrible year or were injured but the team is offering them a shot to prove themselves again. That said, it would usually be a really short contract, maybe only one year.
I don't think I would support extending a player at a steep discount (either 30% or 50%) of their previous salary for a long term contract. If we added a clause that if you extend them at less then their current salary it has a max of one or two years then I'd support this rule.
-
Let me clarify: I'd like this to happen:
- No grace period after season
- Ability to extend contract on the expiring year at MV, even if MV < CV
- Any extended player cannot be traded for at least 60 days (in the offseason, first day becomes June 1st)
These are entirely separate from the Rookie Extension contract issue, which my stance is:
- Grace period after season
- Ability to extend at discounted value
The following is another issue:
No team can have salary in future at more than 30% of its cap.
:iatp: , but want to discuss the extension length allowed if MV < CV
-
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.
-
Ben I understand where you are coming from and it makes sense. My argument for allowing long term deals at the discounted rate is because sometimes - again using Lind as an example - a player had a career year. We give out contracts based on that career year, not a median of the player's career, or even a median of two years. The best year, period. I think it the long run it will all even out. Plus most players on the way up (getting better) will have rising MV, so signing them at a discounted rate, will most likely not be possible.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
I think that creating "true" extensions and not forcing teams to over-write existing contracts has merit simply for the sake of realism. It seems as if we all agree on that. The only thing we need to come to agreement on is what to do about players who sign for less because of an off year.
-
And the guys that you mentioned Berkman, Webb, etc... there original teams didn't want them anymore. They had to get what they got on the open market. Chris Young, Chris Capuano, R.A Dickey.
Plus you guys are arguing that a player would take a discount while in arbitration - Timmy Linc got fair value I think. Ryan Howard cashed in via arb.
There are examples for every argument. But guys that are signed to exorbitant contracts - either through a career year, huge FA contract, etc... I understand you want realism, but at the same time this is a game. You have to consider what works not only realistically, but also in a fantasy perspective. Do you think Daniel wants to pay Zobrist 18 mil when his contract is up. Zobrist will probably still be a contributor, but not at 18 mil. Maybe valued at 10 mil, and Daniel would still have to pay him in the are of 13 mil. Same with Prince Albert. This isn't about Lind, he is just my best example since he is on my team.
-
I think that creating "true" extensions and not forcing teams to over-write existing contracts has merit simply for the sake of realism. It seems as if we all agree on that. The only thing we need to come to agreement on is what to do about players who sign for less because of an off year.
Again - an off two years - I like the system we have in place... like Ben said, and I have said in the past, we don't do this for a living.
I vote we drop #3 and #6 from the voting and stick with what we have already in place.
-
Why drop #3? I think this would be a change for the better and has what I thought was (almost?) unanimous support.
-
I agree with Ben. I might drop # 6 if we can't agree on the parameters. I think # 3 is a must change and everyone here supported it before we got hung up on Lind.
-
I still think we should have a grace period to sign our own players... #3 gets rid of that period.
-
I still think we should have a grace period to sign our own players... #3 gets rid of that period.
#3 allows us to sign them on next years books today. I don't believe it says anything about when the deadline to sign a player is, whether it be the trade deadline, last day of the season or before FA (thats in a different rule).
-
Your grace period is the life of the contract. What's the upside of a grace period after the contract expires if you can't trade him anyway due to the Fielder rule?
-
Ok, then I'll agree to it. Then I think #2 needs to be amended to include veteran contracts... Like I said before the grace period is helpful, and #4 deals with anything that may have been problematic with the system.
-
Your grace period is the life of the contract. What's the upside of a grace period after the contract expires if you can't trade him anyway due to the Fielder rule?
I think Dan's stance is that once the contract expires you can re-sign at less than the previous salary.
-
Ok, then I'll agree to it. Then I think #2 needs to be amended to include veteran contracts...
Wait what? #2 is for prospect extensions only. #3 is saying any extension is applied starting the next year, and then there is a separate rule for when the deadline is for regular contracts. The only reason to allow them in the offseason is to give owners more time, and since FA doesn't start right away what do we really lose by allowing it?
-
Thank you Ben...rather than arguing #6 all night, we have something that has worked before.
-
The premise behind eliminating the grace period was that after the season, the contract has expired and the veteran is a FA. Therefore, you would not have any exclusive rights to re-signing him.
-
Which is why I was arguing for in season re-signings, and allowing a discount if his Fantrax value merited it. You want to tell all the rest of the GMs in this league that hey guys, you can only sign your players for top dollar, even if his value diminishes, you can never re-sign him for less. It's what is realistic. What is also realistic is agents, owners with deep pockets, play off budget expansions, full rosters, deals based on more than one year... I could go on.
-
Thank you Ben...rather than arguing #6 all night, we have something that has worked before.
The premise behind eliminating the grace period was that after the season, the contract has expired and the veteran is a FA. Therefore, you would not have any exclusive rights to re-signing him.
I could go either way on this one.
Dan I think you're only sticking point with no grace period is the Market Value < Previous Salary issue? Or is there more to it then that? If that's it, I think we are all in agreement on allowing extensions at less than PS, the question is just on whether we limit the term or not. To me that is a detail that we can hash out once we get some of these other things nailed down (if we're only negotiating between 1 years and 3 it wouldn't be major change either way I don't think).
-
Which is why I was arguing for in season re-signings, and allowing a discount if his Fantrax value merited it. You want to tell all the rest of the GMs in this league that hey guys, you can only sign your players for top dollar, even if his value diminishes, you can never re-sign him for less. It's what is realistic. What is also realistic is agents, owners with deep pockets, play off budget expansions, full rosters, deals based on more than one year... I could go on.
I support re-signings at any time as long as the dollars kick in at the end of the contract. As far as signing for less, I am perfectly willing to hammer that out as well.
-
I could go either way on this one.
Dan I think you're only sticking point with no grace period is the Market Value < Previous Salary issue? Or is there more to it then that? If that's it, I think we are all in agreement on allowing extensions at less than PS, the question is just on whether we limit the term or not. To me that is a detail that we can hash out once we get some of these other things nailed down (if we're only negotiating between 1 years and 3 it wouldn't be major change either way I don't think).
What if we meet in the middle and agree on a 2 year limit if you sign for less?
-
Fine with me, I'm exhausted. You think Congress works this hard?
-
Only when they are having phone sex with ex-porn stars. Cha ching!
-
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.
The intention is to avoid an owner re-signing a player at a steal salary for multiple seasons.
For instance, lets imagine Pujols were to have a freak injury in 2009 that caused him to miss the 2nd half of the season and the 1st half of 2010, dropping him significantly in the CI rankings. But the injury is completely healed, and he still produces elite in both half seasons he does play and comes in at 21st overall for 2009 and 2010. Would it have been fair for me to re-sign him at $10.0M for 5 years if his previous salary were $20.0M and everyone knew he would command top dollar on the free-agent market? If I'm capped at one-year, then when I go to re-sign him in 2012 he'll have put up elite 2011 numbers and I'll be forced to pay up or let him walk.
-
What if we meet in the middle and agree on a 2 year limit if you sign for less?
:iatp:
-
Sounds to me like the next tough hurdle will be the timing of the implementation for these proposed new rules. As far as I know, only the Prince Fielder rule has definitely been decided as going into effect immediately.
-
Sounds to me like the next tough hurdle will be the timing of the implementation for these proposed new rules. As far as I know, only the Prince Fielder rule has definitely been decided as going into effect immediately.
I think we need a summary of what the rules turned out to be and have everyone sign off, then work on the timing. We may decide we need to argue over exceptions and what not, but lets get the progress we've made solidified.
-
Honestly, once the votes are tallied, I think they should go into effect instantly. Just so we have some consistency moving forward. Plus if problems arise from a rule we can handle it sooner than later (see prospect extensions). That could have been taken care of last off-season, and everyone would have known where they stand.
-
Honestly, once the votes are tallied, I think they should go into effect instantly. Just so we have some consistency moving forward. Plus if problems arise from a rule we can handle it sooner than later (see prospect extensions). That could have been taken care of last off-season, and everyone would have known where they stand.
That's fine with me. I was under the impression that certain new rules like allowing market discounts for prospects who sign after the season might have to wait until next year, but all the better if it all happens now. I don't want to go through this again next year!
-
Passing #3 should reduce most of the negative impact of any new rules, since teams that expected to do something on next years books during the offseason can do it now... I'm not ready to commit to saying yes to all immediately until we have a concise summary of what all the modified changes are, but I can't think of anything I'm opposed to implementing immediately (assuming #3 is immediate).
-
Good luck catching up to any RC member who didn't sign on today
:toast:
-
Passing #3 should reduce most of the negative impact of any new rules, since teams that expected to do something on next years books during the offseason can do it now... I'm not ready to commit to saying yes to all immediately until we have a concise summary of what all the modified changes are, but I can't think of anything I'm opposed to implementing immediately (assuming #3 is immediate).
Agreed, but I think as soon as everything is signed off on, it should go into effect. Again, rather than wait a year for problems to arise, it is best to let it play sooner than later.
-
Goodnight gents, this has been a rather terrible experience :koolaid:
-
Can one of you 3 sum up what you guys agreed on?
-
Let me clarify: I'd like this to happen:
- No grace period after season
- Ability to extend contract on the expiring year at MV, even if MV < CV
- Any extended player cannot be traded for at least 60 days (in the offseason, first day becomes June 1st)
These are entirely separate from the Rookie Extension contract issue, which my stance is:
- Grace period after season
- Ability to extend at discounted value
The following is another issue:
No team can have salary in future at more than 30% of its cap.
:iatp:
-
We also agreed to let extensions take place at any time of the existing contract. The dollars would take effect AFTER the existing contract. There is no over-writing of existing contracts, just years added to the original contract as long as it fits within the min/max rules. 2 year limit on extending non-prospects who take a pay cut. All proposed rule changes take place immediately.
Ben, did I miss or misstate anything?
-
We also agreed to let extensions take place at any time of the existing contract. The dollars would take effect AFTER the existing contract. There is no over-writing of existing contracts, just years added to the original contract as long as it fits within the min/max rules. 2 year limit on extending non-prospects who take a pay cut. All proposed rule changes take place immediately.
Ben, did I miss or misstate anything?
I am only ok with this if the option can be exercised only during the last year of a contract.
-
We agreed that it could happen at any time as long as it fell within the min/max rules. Why only in the last year?
-
under this proposal, if a player is signed to a fresh 5 year deal, then there is an option to extend it for an additional 5 years during years 1? In effect, this would turn a 5 year deal into a 9 year deal...
-
Not at all. We agreed only as long as the entire contract length does not exceed our max years rule already in place based on salary levels.
-
Not at all. We agreed only as long as the entire contract length does not exceed our max years rule already in place based on salary levels.
Correct. The max terms are for total contract length, so if you have a P-2012 contract and you want to give them a 3-year extension at $4.5m/year then you can as that would be five total years.
-
I'm thinking we might finally almost be done here. It seems like everyone is basically in agreement in terms of the new rules and the timing of the implementation.
Perhaps, we should make one last stab at summarizing it so the RC can see the finished product. I still think 30% is too high for rule # 1, but I can live with it for the first year if we agree to set up a sliding scale whereby it eventually goes down to no more than 10-20%.
-
Bumped this with updated language...
Rule #1 - Future Cap Management inspired by the 2010 Angels: Management of salary caps for not just current year but future six years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges. Future salary caps will have a buffer of 30% but no more than $20m. For example, if the Pirates’ cap in 2013 is expected to be $62m then the 30% buffer allows the team to have a projected salary based on current contracts of $80.6m in 2013.
This rule has been APPROVED ... but we need to settle on the buffer ...
10% CAP - Roy
DOESN'T CARE - Dan
30% - Ben, Howe, Colby
TIMING – We have a trade deadline looming in seven weeks. There are several franchises that would be affected by this rule (Pirates, Athletics, Reds, Rockies all come to mind). I feel like the timing of the introduction of this rule depends solely on rule #3 since the introduction of rule #3 requires a different setup to Official Rosters. We should allow teams to be over future caps for this season.
Roy, I would rather settle on a definite number for the buffer rather than opening it up for a change down the road. I updated the language to have it be equal to the 30% of the cap but no more than $20m.
Rule #2 – Signing window for expired prospect contracts: Prospect extensions on expired prospect contracts will be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason. Therefore, a P-2011 contract after the 2011 regular season is over is still eligible for the prospect extension. This window is open until one week prior to the beginning of offseason free agency.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #3 – True Extensions: Extensions are being changed, so that they are true contract extensions that take place after the current contract expires. The extension is added on in future years. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. We still have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status, so the total number of years may not increase more than six (must be increased from five for prospect extensions).
THIS RULE ELIMINATED OVERRIDING CONTRACTS...
This rule has been APPROVED... but we need to decide on one issue with it...
Allow extensions any time OR only in the last year of the contract?
ANY TIME - Roy
LAST YEAR - Colby, Ben, Howe
Rule #4 - Prince Fielder Rule: Contract extensions on expired veteran contracts not be allowed after the regular season ends. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more onus on the trade deadline and free agency. Players signed to an extension cannot be traded for 60 days.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #5 – June 1st window: In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: Dan's suggestion of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract.
YAY - Dan, Colby, Roy, Howe
NAY - Jake (abstained), Ben
We need a couple more votes on this. If you want a player at less than MV then compete for them in FA. Most veteran players in MLB will see what there is out there for them in FA.
-
on #3, my vote is for only allowing in the last year of a deal. In real life, no player coming off a down year would ever sign a new deal to replace the current deal which is paying him more.
-
on #3, my vote is for only allowing in the last year of a deal. In real life, no player coming off a down year would ever sign a new deal to replace the current deal which is paying him more.
:iatp:
-
Your point is valid, but it should not affect # 3. It is more relevant for # 6. # 3 assumes a raise, while # 6 pertains directly to a reduction. Also, we already agreed that # 6 would be for a limit of 2 years.
-
I say we keep it simple and only allow extensions in the last year.
-
Guys, think Ryan Howard and Ryan Bruan in real life. Both players signed extensions with multiple years left on their contracts.
-
Guys, think Ryan Howard and Ryan Bruan in real life. Both players signed extensions with multiple years left on their contracts.
that's why we got rookie extensions...
-
I will vote with Ben on this one. I just want it to be consistent.
-
Quote from: rcankosy on Yesterday at 09:41:48 PM
2. As far as # 3, I think that the change in salary for extensions of non-prospects should always take effect the year after the current contract expires. Also, changes in salary should never over-ride a year in the existing contract. Over-writing contracts with extensions is a football thing, not a baseball thing. I am not opposed to extending contracts at any time as long as the extensions are tacked on after the contract expires as long as it falls under the min/max rules already in place.
This is what I have been trying to say, but I think you've got it spelled out more clearly.
It appears as if Ben agrees with me that extensions can occur at any time during the life of the contract.
-
Alright, I am with you Roy. Minimum and maximum rules apply to the extension itself as well as the total contract. Therefore, the minimum apples to the extension years and the maximum applies to the total years.
-
First of all, thanks for summarizing Colby!
Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: Dan's suggestion of allowing to extend players to salaries less than their current, effective after their current contract.
YAY - Dan, Colby, Roy, Howe
NAY - Jake (abstained), Ben
We need a couple more votes on this. If you want a player at less than MV then compete for them in FA. Most veteran players in MLB will see what there is out there for them in FA.
I am not a NAY to this, I am YAY; however, I am in favor of the stipulation that if you extend te player at less then their current salary it has a maximum term of 2 years. I believe Roy and Dan were in agreement.
-
I agree with the max of two years and that it is only allowed in the last year.
-
I agree with the max of two years and that it is only allowed in the last year.
There seems to be two things here, timing of the extension under CV, and the length of the extension
Timing: I vote last year only. Realistically, if you are a player, why would you sign a new contract coming after a down year if you existing still has not expired?
Length: I am for the stipulation where the total length of existing contract and the new contract is less than or equal to current contract length restrictions, e.g, 5years for extensions that are more than 10M, 4 years for extensions greater than 5.5M but less than 10M.
-
:iatp:
-
i am for any length and any time for #3...chance are value is rising. I am for last year only for #6. No player would take less during a contract. The union would throw a fit
-
i would also like to call #6 the adam dunn rule and #3 the ryan braun rule. Seems the best examples of what we are trying to emulate.
-
i am for any length and any time for #3...chance are value is rising. I am for last year only for #6. No player would take less during a contract. The union would throw a fit
The commissioner is hoping to keep the MLBPA out of this. I agree with you Dan, but thought last year for all extensions to keep it simple.
-
Just so we are on the same page, #3 applies to regular extension on all players. You could still sign a player to a rookie extension in any year of a contract. So #3 is not really the Ryan Braun rule (unless refering to the KC pichter). Agreed?
-
ryan braun recently signed a big money extension that kicks in after his current contract
-
ryan braun recently signed a big money extension that kicks in after his current contract
Oh, I thought you were referring to his initial 8yr/45M deal. Braun got a significant raise in his new deal.
I am ok with extending during any year of the contract as long as the extension > current contract. But if extension < current contract, then it should occur only in the last year.
-
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.
-
I agree Ben... Good thread. It appears that we may all be in agreement.
-
i've missed quite a bit...what are we agreeing on in terms of 3 and 6?
-
I am sticking by my original stance that extensions be allowed in any year and there is a 2 year limit on reductions.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
I wondered the same thing myself, because I also recall that we talked about getting rid of RFAs.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
:iatp:
-
That's correct with a 2 year limit on salary reduction extensions. Let's put this all to bed, so we can change the pitching scoring.
-
That's correct with a 2 year limit on salary reduction extensions. Let's put this all to bed, so we can change the pitching scoring.
:iatp:
That's four approvals for this one last line item... now we have to discuss timing.
-
Like everything else we discussed, I think we should put it in play immediately. That way we can see how it works out, rather than sit on it until next year, and then have problems arise.
-
I am ok with instant implementation. I dont think any team would be affected negatively by these changes (unless it was planning on snagging up Bruce or another pending FA).
-
Make it 3 votes for instant implementation. I also want to confirm that teams will get the market discount for prospect extensions after the season even if the contract has ended. Consider it the unofficial Jay Bruce rule.
-
:iatp:
-
I am going to summarize all of this one last time as we have agreement on rules, language, and timing (instantly)...
Rule #1 - Future Cap Management inspired by the 2010 Angels: Management of salary caps for not just current year but future six years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges. Future salary caps will have a buffer of 30% but no more than $20m. For example, if the Pirates’ cap in 2013 is expected to be $62m then the 30% buffer allows the team to have a projected salary based on current contracts of $80.6m in 2013.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #2 – Signing window for expired prospect contracts: Prospect extensions on expired prospect contracts will be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason. Therefore, a P-2011 contract after the 2011 regular season is over is still eligible for the prospect extension. This window for prospect extensions is open until one week prior to the beginning of offseason free agency.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #3 – True Extensions: Extensions are being changed, so that they are true contract extensions that take place after the current contract expires. The extension is added on in future years, and can be given to a player at any time during their current contract. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. We still have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status, so the total number of years may not increase more than six.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #4 - Prince Fielder Rule: Contract extensions on expired veteran contracts not be allowed after the regular season ends. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more onus on the trade deadline and free agency. Players signed to an extension cannot be traded for 60 days.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #5 – June 1st window: In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: A player may be given an extension that is less than their current salary. However, such an extension has two restrictions.
1) The eligibility period for granting a player an extension below their current salary is only in the last year of their contract.
2) On top of the minimum and maximum years for contracts, the longest this type of extension can be is two years.
This rule has been APPROVED
-
#6...discount can be no more than 30%
-
# 1. Did we really agree to 30%. I said no more than 10-20%.
#2 should contain some language about the market discounts being available after the contract ends. That was a major problem no too long ago, so it should be spelled out in clear terms.
-
# 1. Did we really agree to 30%. I said no more than 10-20%.
#2 should contain some language about the market discounts being available after the contract ends. That was a major problem no too long ago, so it should be spelled out in clear terms.
The majority said 30%. Quick vote on this just to make sure we have a consensus?
Howe, Ben, and I said 30%; Roy said 15% (average); Dan didn't care; Jake abstained from voting.
-
i said 30...50 originally but changed to 30 once ben and i discussed further
-
If we are sticking by the 30%, I would like to suggest that we limit the amount of cash that comes back on contracts in future trades. Maybe it's me, but something just doesn't look realistic to me when I see large market teams eating huge amounts of money on contracts in trades such as the ones for Verlander, Scott, and Cuddyer. I know that this will limit small market teams from trading for high-priced guys in the future, but it's simply too backwards from reality for my taste.
-
If we are sticking by the 30%, I would like to suggest that we limit the amount of cash that comes back on contracts in future trades. Maybe it's me, but something just doesn't look realistic to me when I see large market teams eating huge amounts of money on contracts in trades such as the ones for Verlander, Scott, and Cuddyer. I know that this will limit small market teams from trading for high-priced guys in the future, but it's simply too backwards from reality for my taste.
Isn't this a totally different topic?
-
Forget about it. Too much change is bad in and of itself.
-
Forget about it. Too much change is bad in and of itself.
Plus... that is where this is a fantasy league. The type of moves we make allow for quick transitions from a loser to a winner (see 2011 Royals and 2010 Blue Jays / Athletics).
-
Are we all in favor of putting these changes instantly?
Rule #1 - Future Cap Management inspired by the 2010 Angels: Management of salary caps for not just current year but future six years. This is something we are doing in New Era and is much more realistic for a franchises' books. It also prevents GMs from financially ruining future years with cash exchanges. Future salary caps will have a buffer of 30% but no more than $20m. For example, if the Pirates’ cap in 2013 is expected to be $62m then the 30% buffer allows the team to have a projected salary based on current contracts of $80.6m in 2013.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #2 – Signing window for expired prospect contracts: Prospect extensions on expired prospect contracts will be the only type of extensions allowable for expired contracts in the offseason. Therefore, after the 2011 regular season is over, a P-2011 contract is still eligible for the prospect extension at the 2011 rate. This window for prospect extensions is open until one week prior to the beginning of offseason free agency.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #3 – True Extensions: Extensions are being changed, so that they are true contract extensions that take place after the current contract expires. The extension is added on in future years, and can be given to a player at any time during their current contract. For example, a 2011 contract could get a three year extension starting in 2012 and ending in 2014. We still have minimum and maximum years protecting this new contract status, so the total number of years may not increase more than six.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #4 - Prince Fielder Rule: Contract extensions on expired veteran contracts not be allowed after the regular season ends. It really isn't feasible to have this for such a realistic league. This puts more onus on the trade deadline and free agency. Players signed to an extension cannot be traded for 60 days.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #5 – June 1st window: In addition to our 60-day NTC rule, any players signed to extensions and FA contracts in the offseason cannot be traded until June 1st the following year.
This rule has been APPROVED
Rule #6 – Extending players less than MV: A player may be given an extension that is less than their current salary. However, such an extension has three restrictions.
1) The eligibility period for granting a player an extension below their current salary is only in the last year of their contract.
2) On top of the minimum and maximum years for contracts, the longest this type of extension can be is two years.
3) New salary may be no less than 70% of previous salary. Therefore, a player with market value of $2.5m, current one-year deal of $5m, can have an extension for two years equal to $3.5m (0.7 * 5 = 3.5).
This rule has been APPROVED
-
That's fine, but you didn't include the modifications to #2 and # 6 that Dan and I suggested.
-
That's fine, but you didn't include the modifications to #2 and # 6 that Dan and I suggested.
#2 already has the language... updated #6 :judge:
-
#2 already has the language... updated #6 :judge:
Does "2011 rate" mean the market discount (40%) associated with extending after the final year of prospect eligibility?
-
Does "2011 rate" mean the market discount (40%) associated with extending after the final year of prospect eligibility?
Correct. I was using a P-2011 contract as an example.
-
So are these in effect now?
-
So are these in effect now?
Nope. Need one last seal of approval on all of this. Ben, Howe, and Jake need to approve.
-
I'll give a vote tonight, haven't been able to read through the latest posts so far this week.
-
Thought I approved these..but yeah I approve and ok with instant implementation. :judge:
-
I was just writing... great minds think alike
-
For #1 I would have preferred only looking at the current and next season, but I'd rather look at 6 seasons then just the current. I also don't feel strongly enough for only looking at current/next to try and drag this out any longer.
:iatp:
-
These rules are effective immediately. Give me some time through the next day to announce all of this, update the rulebook, and update the spreadsheet for Rob and the EC.