Minimum Contract Lengths for Extensions

[Dan Wood]

I like the rule, good job Roy. I have Lind and Hamilton coming up for big paydays so it isn't like I am unaffected by it if it is grandfathered in. Would it be worth considering home town discounts for the resigning teams? Say a players value is 20 mil on Fantrax. Would a player give his home town team a 10% discount in order to stay there? I guess in real life it depends on the player, or the agent, but I think that is something we should consider. I also think this rule should go into effect as soon as it is passed, if it is passed. But then again, I am not on the RC, just voicing my opinion.

I agree that is we have a max, we should have a minimum, it adds to the strategy of building our teams. I also feel Ben's pain here because I would have never traded for Lind if I had to give him more than a year, given that 2009 was his coming out party. I guess 2010 was his going back in party. Moral of the story is that every team will have to deal with upcoming large contracts, so this will effect everyone.

[Canada8999]

I agree that is we have a max, we should have a minimum, it adds to the strategy of building our teams. I also feel Ben's pain here because I would have never traded for Lind if I had to give him more than a year, given that 2009 was his coming out party. I guess 2010 was his going back in party. Moral of the story is that every team will have to deal with upcoming large contracts, so this will effect everyone.

But why do we need to feel the pain?  I'm still looking for an answer...

 - Note Ben, I hit the wrong button, hence this post reads modified -

[Dan Wood]

But why do we need to feel the pain?  I'm still looking for an answer...

 - Note Ben, I hit the wrong button, hence this post reads modified -

Because we emulate MLB in every other way, or at least the best we can. This rule proposal makes a tremendous amount of sense. I think the reason to have a minimum, is the same reason we have a maximum. If I were a real life GM and I offered Hamilton a 1 year deal, he would take his cleats and spike me in Mr. Bojangles for insulting him. Most mid level players wouldn't except a one year deal unless they were at the end of their career. And since this league is still in its fledgling stages some rules are created on the run, as we have seen before, especially if they add to the league for the better, as I feel this one does. If real life GMs could string guys along year to year, they would be doing the happy dance all the time.

[lp815]

But why do we need to feel the pain?  I'm still looking for an answer...

I feel this rule should be implemented because it is a very unrealistic premise.  Signing top players to one year deals just doesn't happen in the MLB.  The same that we are not allowed to sign a player for 10 years, it just does not happen in the majors (except A. Rodriguez, but that can be related to Clemens' or Pedro's 1 year deals).

[Canada8999]

To clarify - I completely agree with the rule.  My questions is why do we need to put it in place immediately, when this is against our track record unless it puts the league in jeopardy - is that really the case here?

[Canada8999]

For the record, I will note vote against this being put in place if that's what everyone else things is best - I just still haven't heard the argument for why this is an emergency.

[lp815]

To clarify - I completely agree with the rule.  My questions is why do we need to put it in place immediately, when this is against our track record unless it puts the league in jeopardy - is that really the case here?

What is the justification for putting this rule into place before the 2010 off-season, when this is against our policies for rolling out rules.

Ah, gotcha...I feel that it should implemented in a timely manner because the rules as is could be very beneficial to a team with many of these players, to the point where it gives a distinct advantage.  Even for one year, we shouldn't allow teams to have a sizeable advantage.  Teams with many of these players will be unbelievably flexible for the 2011 season, since all of their names will only be (possibly) signed to 1 year deals.

Theoretically, the new Yankees GM could come in, extend Vlad, D. Lee, and Mariano to one year deals, and have no issues in 2012 by signing them the year before.  To me, those three names really shouldn't come with a simple one year deal.  Even though Vlad signed a one year deal this year in real life, there's an option for 2011, and since we don't have options, it could be seen as a multi year deal.  Mariano may be headed for retirement, but these are things that we can't predict, all we have are statistical facts.

Point being, if something like my idea were to come into play, a big market team could come into the 2011 season with many all stars signed to one year deals, then have absolutely nothing on the books for them in 2012.  In theory, a one and done team, which isn't, in my opinion, in the best interest of the league.

Having zero liablility for these players just doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Canada8999]

I'm going to concede on this one, it does not sound like anyone else thinks it is a good idea to delay putting this rule into place.  With that said, I vote YES on the rule, and will defer to the rest of the RC on when it is put into place (if that's either immediately or as soon as the season ends, then so be it).

 

[clidwin]

Ben makes a point stating that implementing a rule immediately after it has been approved hasn't been typical protocol with the league.  However, we HAVE still approved a couple rules that were effective right after approval (the 60 day hold on players, the latest being, keeping bonuses with original teams, etc.).  While this ruling probably affects Ben's team moreso than others, it will probably affect every mid market to large market team, as well as a couple small market ones. 

I feel that this is a very important rule to have, as the argument that top players signing 1 year contracts constantly is very unrealistic.  With that said, I would recommend a compromise of some sort, as some(many?) teams might have planned this strategy, and this would change their format dramatically.  I'd recommend that the 1 year rule be allowed until the trade deadline this season.  If a team plans on making an extension, then they should do it now, with 2008 stats included. 

By allowing the extensions to actually be made (instead of immediately illegal), this gives those teams with those plans for 1 year deals to do them, at the cost of using 2008 stats (which might increase values to some players) AND having to make the extension prior to the end of the season.

To me, this might be a decent compromise...I fully support this rule, but we have no idea how many teams were wanting to use this strategy for next year.

I have the same thoughts as Jake here. I havent chimed in much, but have read every single posting. I do see a need  in this rule, but I dont know when to start this rule. This rule will make it more realistic.  But what would be the guidelines for this rule and etc.?

[Colby]

I have the same thoughts as Jake here. I havent chimed in much, but have read every single posting. I do see a need  in this rule, but I dont know when to start this rule. This rule will make it more realistic.  But what would be the guidelines for this rule and etc.?

The guidelines are simple... a minimum contract length is put in for extensions (not free agent contracts):

20m+     5 years
16-20     4 years
11-15     3 years
5-10       2 years

I would say, to be fair, it should go in at the trade deadline.  This gives GMs some time to consider their options under the original rules for contract extensions.

  BTW