Illegal Extension Rule Adjustment Idea:

[aaronweiner]

I like the idea of penalizing people for trying to game the AI, but the penalty is too harsh.

Here's what I propose:

For all extensions for anyone under five years of ML service time, if the extension is over three years, that person shall be penalized the amount of additional money over three years. The contract is voided.

Example: I sign Player A to a four-year extension where the fourth year is worth $8 million. I shall be penalized $8 million. In corollary, if I signed a five year deal where years four and five were each worth $8 million, I would be penalized $16 million.

=================================================================================================

This still lays a pretty hard boom on teams but doesn't utterly destroy them.

Thoughts?

[agrudez]

I think thats getting a bit too complicated. What if the team had a non-escalating contract (ie. 10-10-8-5)? Would you use the '10' or the '5'? What if the team signed a 7 year deal (ie. 10-10-10-10-10-10-10)? You're right back where we started with a franchise crushing 50M penalty.

Also, with the last part, you're laying the groundwork for teams to actually use this "penalty" to their advantage. For instance, a team whom is cash rich, but in a tight cap situation could sign a player to a 5-5-5-15-15 deal, eat the 30M penalty and get a cap friendly contract of 5M/year when the original contract was for 9M/year.

[aaronweiner]

No. You're misreading this. (And yes, I was clear.)

In your first example, it's 10x7, so they'd pay 10x4.

The amendment idea is the average of the WHOLE contract. So if they signed the 5-5-5-15-15 contract, that's a total of $45 million so it would go Herman Cain's 9-9-9 for three.

Now that you mention it, though, the problem is a FRONTLOADED deal (for my potential amendment). Let's say I sign a 15-15-5-5-5; I get penalized 10 million but I can get an average contract of $9 million a year which is $8 million better than three years at $35 million, which is awfully bad. I hadn't seen that potential pitfall though I had seen the possibility of problems with that part of it: that's why it wasn't in the main part of the rule. I think I could make it work, but it's way easier to NOT make it work; let's junk the amendment.

[aaronweiner]

Now...

If I'm thinking about it, I also have a problem with the 10x7 idea. If the idea is to make sure that we're not cheating the game in order to bypass years of a players' free agency...well, that actually DOES happen in the real world, but the money has to be pretty good. I think that there are plenty of players who would go 10x7 in the real world unless they're A-Rod or Kershaw or something, and they'd be thrilled to get that kind of a deal.

Maybe we should waive the penalty altogether for players earning more than an average of $10 million per.

[aaronweiner]

Language has been updated to include the words "The contract is voided." and the amendment has been junked.

[SteveM-A2]

Penalties can also be in the form of draft picks...if that keeps it easier. Cancel signing and take away a pick. Hurts a team but doesn't put their finances in complete disarray.

[JimBob2232]

This also isn't likely to be missed by the commish. Maybe keep the rule the same, but simply put a maximum penalty (ie maximum 10M per voided contract)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aaronweiner]

This also isn't likely to be missed by the commish. Maybe keep the rule the same, but simply put a maximum penalty (ie maximum 10M per voided contract)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also not a bad idea.

What we need is some way that these extensions aren't a franchise killer.

[SteveM-A2]

This also isn't likely to be missed by the commish. Maybe keep the rule the same, but simply put a maximum penalty (ie maximum 10M per voided contract)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like this approach.

[aaronweiner]

A flat $10 million seems fine to me too, actually. They get penalized $10 million, the contract is voided, they get another shot at it under, you know, legal rules.

This penalty has bothered me since I heard about it.

[agrudez]

Thanks for the input guys - its certainly appreciated. I've stayed silent on the issue thus far because I didn't want to be a dissenting voice against the rules, but I have personally long shared the concerns presented over the amount of this penalty and, as such, am very happy that the GB has seen fit to re-visit this one. The intent of the original penalty, as I understand it, was to be a an over the top deterent for the act so that it would (theoretically) be easier to police, but you're all, imo, correct in your concerns about the franchise crippling nature of such a drastic financial measure.

As things are going now, it seems as if we are leaning towards useing the Occam's Razor approach of a flat penalty not tied to the extension length/amount/etc. The amount of that penalty is still being negotiated (and a few related things still need to be considered), but we should have an announcement on it all soon.

[njherdfan]

My simple suggestion: Either a flat penalty or half of the contract's value; whichever is either greater or lesser, depending on how harsh the GB wants to be.