Author Topic: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes  (Read 17669 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #50 on: June 08, 2011, 12:33:07 PM »
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.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

Offline rcankosy

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2501
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #51 on: June 08, 2011, 12:48:45 PM »
How is that any different than extensions for non-prospects that take affect in 2012?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #52 on: June 08, 2011, 02:40:30 PM »
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.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

Offline rcankosy

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2501
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2011, 02:51:42 PM »
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. 
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Canada8999

  • Guest
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2011, 07:59:23 PM »
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:
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

lp815

  • Guest
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2011, 12:58:43 AM »
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
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Orange Country

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 14334
  • Bonus inPoints: 1281
    • :TEN:
    • :MEM:
    • :NAS:
    • :Tennessee:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2011, 01:51:59 AM »
just delete this post whomever gets to it first.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 02:02:24 AM by fantasyguru »
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Canada8999

  • Guest
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2011, 09:37:08 AM »
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.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline rcankosy

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2501
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2011, 11:22:32 AM »
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?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Official RC Vote on Clearing Extension Loopholes
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2011, 11:29:46 AM »
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.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

 

Forum Search


Quick Profile

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Chat Room

Refresh History
  • Jwalkerjr88: Thats cap by the way. I pay for my own way to watch my team
    Yesterday at 05:41:55 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I dont have your account or login
    Yesterday at 05:42:07 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I used yours for 1-2 seasons.
    Yesterday at 05:43:32 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I used my mothers for a decade before that
    Yesterday at 05:43:46 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: But ive used my way for the past few years. Ill be paying attention like i said
    Yesterday at 05:44:27 PM
  • Daddy: She deserves a refund too
    Yesterday at 05:46:27 PM
  • Daddy: The point was DirecTV never got in your pockets and it was a rip-off but they had a monopoly on the product. Im not loving all the streaming games but DTV will be paying $$$.
    Yesterday at 05:48:22 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: The new iteration with Youtube TV isnt the greatest either but an improvement on Directtv version
    Yesterday at 05:48:37 PM
  • Daddy: And your grandfather used it every year besides those two :rofl:
    Yesterday at 05:49:26 PM
  • Daddy: I kept DirecTV and always willing to share. But thats my point.
    Yesterday at 05:49:47 PM
  • Daddy: If i had 3 monitors rather than two or four rather than two, either me or moms save money. Lots of it.
    Yesterday at 05:50:26 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Yea your point is just wrong is all. Theyve gotten into my pockets directly and indirectly
    Yesterday at 05:51:03 PM
  • Daddy: Oh, i was unaware. DTV must have got us all.
    Yesterday at 05:51:55 PM
  • Daddy: I know you dont endorse them. Never did. I paid for lots of crap i never used. Just for NFL Sunday Ticket.
    Yesterday at 05:52:45 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I dont and didnt endorse cable period. The irony is streaming is becoming cable now.
    Yesterday at 05:55:39 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I paid for directtv version 1-2 years when i had my apartment. Not as much as the 35+ crowd but they did
    Yesterday at 05:56:34 PM
  • Daddy: Still never watched a game on YouTube. I miss the days of CBS = AFC >> FOX/NBC = NFC >> ABC = MNF
    Yesterday at 05:56:42 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: There was no reason to have directtv outside of sunday ticket. My apartment couldnt get it so i paid ONLY for sunday ticket
    Yesterday at 05:57:04 PM
  • Daddy: I was ok with TNF & SNF.
    Yesterday at 05:57:43 PM
  • Daddy: Its all over the place now. So ive stuck with what i know. The Ticket. I can't miss a Rams game. Not gonna do it.
    Yesterday at 05:58:45 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Now they stream some games only on amazon and peacock. I need a streaming lawsuit
    Yesterday at 06:01:20 PM
  • indiansnation: Dont forget disney + soon u will stream games pn their
    Yesterday at 09:43:09 PM
  • indiansnation: Disney trying yo buy nfl network and using espn as part of the trade off nfl will own a certain % of espn. First deal eas 70m for nfl network but nfl turned that down real quick
    Yesterday at 09:46:43 PM
  • indiansnation: Anyone want to talk trade nfl live,mlb live,fgm,armchair
    Yesterday at 10:00:02 PM
  • indiansnation: And any other league that im in that i didnt post yet
    Yesterday at 10:00:35 PM
  • Daddy: They keep throwing insane money at the NFL to televise games and owners share those shiny pennies just enough with the players.
    Yesterday at 10:39:25 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: I'm available.  Not sure if we match up anywhere other than NHL Live, but let me know if there's something you're interested in @Brian
    Yesterday at 10:45:39 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: The other leagues for me are FGM, MLB Live and DNHL in case any-one else is looking to do a deal
    Yesterday at 10:49:01 PM
  • Daddy: Healthy mix. Couple baseball, couple hockey, different scoring options.
    Yesterday at 11:08:15 PM
  • Daddy: You probably kick ass in all of them although NHL LIVE hasnt officially started.
    Yesterday at 11:08:42 PM
  • Daddy: I respect your gaming options
    Yesterday at 11:09:54 PM
  • Daddy: I would for sure be an FGM or Armchair owner if i were here for baseball. Powerhouse too. Why not? Great leagues with better LMs.
    Yesterday at 11:16:38 PM
  • Daddy: DNHL must be 15 years old. Gotta be doing something right. Most leagues dont make it past 5. Very few make it 10.
    Yesterday at 11:20:45 PM
  • Daddy: I think Rob been running that league longer than ive been on profsl. Legendary LM.
    Yesterday at 11:22:42 PM
  • indiansnation: Jmntl82 pm important messave about armchair
    Yesterday at 11:45:05 PM
  • jmntl82: indiansnation-replied
    Yesterday at 11:48:26 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: thanks @daddy.  I hold my own
    Today at 12:05:43 AM
  • Braves155: Will be around today for deal talks - ANY sport
    Today at 10:12:32 AM
  • Daddy: You tellem @Braves!
    Today at 11:47:14 AM
  • IndianaBuc: Braves PM
    Today at 03:04:47 PM
  • Braves155: Back
    Today at 03:10:34 PM
  • IndianaBuc: Back
    Today at 03:19:17 PM
  • Daddy: Better be glad Buc dont know hockey. He'd be IndianaPuc on yall asses.
    Today at 03:54:00 PM
  • Braves155: Speaking of NHL. Anyone up for an NHL LIVE deal?
    Today at 04:05:16 PM
  • Braves155: PM Blues
    Today at 04:07:53 PM
  • Brent: I am.  I read up on stuff today, I think I have a direction for my Predators.
    Today at 04:23:17 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Im here for NFL Live. I get the trade itch every day but ive been suppressing it. Waiting for someone to make me submit to the madness again
    Today at 04:48:32 PM
  • Braves155: Pm there buddy
    Today at 04:53:17 PM
  • Braves155: PM as well dbreer
    Today at 04:58:57 PM
  • dbreer23: replied Braves
    Today at 05:10:11 PM