FA Prospect Contracts

[rcankosy]

From the league rules on FA prospect contracts:

"He accumulate 40 IP for his career by 2006.  He may stay under a prospect contract until three years after 2006.  As of the beginning of the 2009 season (or end of 2008 season), he will be considered a free agent unless signed to a new deal."

Shouldn't the above had read?

As of the beginning of the 2010 season (or end of 2009 season), he will be considered a free agent unless signed to a new deal."

[Colby]

Good catch Roy... I'll fix the wording and highlight the example.

[rcankosy]

I'd like to combine what we've said about FA prospect contract so we have one clear example of how this would work.  Let's say I have the winning bid of $3 million on Player X who is a prospect in rookie ball.  I choose to spread the money over 3 years which works out to a $1 million salary for 2010 through 2012.  As of 2013, he has not yet played one game in the majors.  Does his salary go back down to 500K per season *until* 3 years after he has exceeded limits of 40 IP or 50 games when he becomes a free agent?

[Colby]

I'd like to combine what we've said about FA prospect contract so we have one clear example of how this would work.  Let's say I have the winning bid of $3 million on Player X who is a prospect in rookie ball.  I choose to spread the money over 3 years which works out to a $1 million salary for 2010 through 2012.  As of 2013, he has not yet played one game in the majors.  Does his salary go back down to 500K per season *until* 3 years after he has exceeded limits of 40 IP or 50 games when he becomes a free agent?

Correct... once the MLB contract has expired, the player can be extended on a prospect contract.  The 50% of the previous contract would have to apply in to a bonus for the player.

[rcankosy]

Ryan Wheeler and Alex Liddi should have prospect contracts even though I chose to spread their signing bonuses over two years, right?

[Dan Wood]

You can't spread a signing bonus over several years. It is a one shot deal. So no, they don't have prospect contracts. If you put - 2 mil for 2 years for Wheeler when asked what you wanted his contract to be, then that is guaranteed money and he no longer constitutes as a prospect. If you had taken the hit of 3.5 mil at once, then yes he would still be a prospect. So to answer your question, no those two are no longer prospects, and if you release them you take a cap hit.

[rcankosy]

OK, but according to Colby's earlier post I retain their rights and they return to a salary of 500K in 2012, right?

[Dan Wood]

Please copy and paste that post in response to this post. But once someone makes a certain amount of money, their following contract can be no less than half of what they made in their previous contract. Unless of course they are more valuable than the contract they just finished, therefore you have to pay them accordingly. For instance if Liddi is making 2 mil a year for the next 2 years (hypothetical - not checking his salary) when his contract is up, you have to at least pay him 1 million. That is the resigning rule. I am not aware of someone regaining prospect status. I assume that if they haven't crossed that threshold by the time their contract is over, then they could still be considered prospects. But if they are already making more than 1 mil a year, then you cannot resign them for .5 mil.

[Dan Wood]

Adding to what I just said after reading Colby's post. If they are making more than 1 mil a year, then yes they can return to prospect status and make 500K, but you have to make up the difference in their signing bonus on their new contract. So if what I understand is correct (from what Colby is saying) Ryan Wheeler can return to prospect status once his contract is up, but since he is making 2 mil a year now, you would have to give him a .5 mil signing bonus when he is resigned. That is if he is still eligible.

[Canada8999]

This 'interpretation' seems fair, but we should make sure its clearly known to everyone and clearly stated in the rules (I'm not sure that's the case right now). 

Personally, this seems more like a new rule rather than an interpretation of the existing rules (since I don't think our existing rules cover this), and should be subject to the same process as other new rules (sent to the RC for debate and voting).  Like I said, I think this is fair, but we've been passing more and more rules 'on the fly' IMO and we should be careful about that as we move along.