Currently there is a limit in the Constitution. You cannot offer an extension (i.e. to a player already in your org) longer than 3 years to a player with less than 5 year service time.
Why was this put in place? (rhetorical question!)
Back in the day, like many versions ago, it was easy to "game" the engine to sort of "trick" young star players into signing well below market deals for up to 6 years. I seem to remember one particular case that rankled everyone and the rule was made. Don't remember the players name tho. In addition, with the way development was handled back then, big phenoms (yes, even IFA guys) were much more likely to fully develop, so you could feel comfortable locking them up very early on.
Well, what has changed?
The game is much better at anticipating future contracts. Look at your salary page, I bet there are players on your 40 man that have a low chance of getting called up, yet they have 5th and 6th year arb numbers in the millions. I think that's why many teams have future payrolls over the cap on their salary page. Of course, if you don't give those guys ML playing time, they will never reach those arb numbers, but the game is acting as if they will.
In addition, when you ask a young player for an extension, they will frequently return with a 6 year contract that seems to reasonably anticipate their future arb numbers as well as the first couple yrs of free agency. Yet we cannot sign them, and they won't typically want just a three year deal. So they go to arb or sign a 1 yr extension. The point is, you can no longer game the system to sign, say, Adrian Tallent to a 6 year, 21 million deal. OOTP simply wont allow it.
In addition, with development and talent changes the way they are now, no player, and I mean NO player is a sure thing. There is so much RNG that you cannot expect nearly anyone to meet their potentials and keep them for years. Players don't automatically become stars, especially IFAs. Which is probably normal, but that's a different discussion.
So why even bring it up? Simple. To reward Risk. What I am saying is, there is so much risk in young prospects now, that a 3 year extension rule is no longer needed. Teams will pay for mistakes or benefit from a smart gamble. And isn't that the point of any game? To reward risk? Let's eliminate a rule that is no longer necessary and allow teams to place bets on young stars. Some will work out, others won't. It sort of mirrors modern MLB, where players I've never even heard of suddenly get 9 figure contracts out of nowhere. A team will either be punished or rewarded for that kind of gamble, and that's the element of risk that makes games fun.
SO that's it. I would like to see some of the resident BBA Nerds (term of endearment) hash this out. Is the 3 year limit still necessary? Or just a relic from the days when the game wasn't so smart? Discuss.
...Oh, and for the haters out there, if you are saying "oh marko only suddenly cares about this because he has a bunch of good young players now" well, you're right. You're absolutely right.
