Here we go: Eliminate 3 Year Extension Limit for Player w/Less than 5 Years Service

[Dington]

I should note that I have always considered this one of our BEST rules. There are all kinds of nonsense gamesmanship things that this rule has chopped down.

Extending your own players is now gamesmanship? If we follow your logic, we should restrict extensions of front office personnel; the current front office personnel free agent market is very grim. Let's all have bidding wars for the best trainers!

Why yes, it is! Thank you for asking. You didn't actually say anything, but that's neat that you said it.

You’re so fun. This was a normal conversation til you came in with a stick up your ass.

[aaronweiner]

Extending your own players is now gamesmanship? If we follow your logic, we should restrict extensions of front office personnel; the current front office personnel free agent market is very grim. Let's all have bidding wars for the best trainers!

Why yes, it is! Thank you for asking. You didn't actually say anything, but that's neat that you said it.

You’re so fun. This was a normal conversation til you came in with a stick up your ass.

About this? I have an entire telephone pole up my ass. I absolutely do not want to see this rule changed.

And we all know you surely do.

[aaronweiner]

You’re so fun. This was a normal conversation til you came in with a stick up your ass.

In fact, if we didn't know you would love to see this rule changed, we surely did after you piped in. You don't mention anything about anything ever unless it benefits you in some way. It's one of the most charming things about you - most people don't have such an obvious tell.

[Dington]

You’re so fun. This was a normal conversation til you came in with a stick up your ass.

In fact, if we didn't know you would love to see this rule changed, we surely did after you piped in. You don't mention anything about anything ever unless it benefits you in some way. It's one of the most charming things about you - most people don't have such an obvious tell.

lol

[recte44]

wow

[Trebro]

So...trying to steer this back on course, he says, knowing that's likely impossible...

I don't have any hard data to support this but I have noticed a change - in a good way for once! - in 25/26 that players' extension requests, when they are a young player, are extremely market-driven. I do remember how the game used to allow low-balls early on but I don't think it does anymore.

The problem with the rule, as I see it, is that because we can't sign them longer, sometimes they won't take a 1-year deal and end up in arbitration, and we know that the game definitely causes issues with players who are forced into arbitration.

That doesn't mean we should change the rule without seeing how some testing looks. Those who do the lovely "Let me run a 100 season league while I get my coffee" types setting up some test leagues to see how many players take owner-friendly deals vs market rate and reporting back here would be great, and I hope they do so even after this got heated. I am very curious.

I'm all in favor of rules designed to make OOTP less stupid. I don't think it's this stupid anymore. Would be great to know more and then we can weigh in with a measured approach to this instead of knee-jerk reactions.

[aaronweiner]

OK. You want a blindingly sane response over just me simply saying "duh, this is a TERRIBLE idea?" I was hoping that me pointing out that this was simply a horrid idea was enough, but okay, if we need a lot more, let's go.

As I said, the main problem I have with this is that it will create a system by which one can game the system in a number of ways. The key to counteracting this is to not allow extensions of over three years while the player is on their 500K contract; hence why I further mentioned that the only really viable rule change for this is to change the number 5 to the number 4, which would be acceptable to me but also seems wholly unnecessary and would, in fact, diminish the power of this rule, of which I very much approve.

Otherwise what we will get is a huge number of below-market contracts which are easily adjustable to mess with the timeline, at the very least, and cheap second contracts, at the most, neither of which is particularly palatable for competitive balance or free agency.

Furthermore, this creates a system by which one could frontload a contract, then offload half that deal to another team, creating the sort of five years, $15 million for a star player we would very much like to avoid.

Additionally, even if that player is NOT offloaded, we're talking around 5 years, $30 million. Yes, Carlos Cruz got hurt this year, so he's a bit of an unfortunate example, but let's pretend we had a healthier version of a superstar youngster. If we allowed Madison to sign him for six years in year 2 or 3 while frontloading, we're creating a system by which Cruz makes peanuts in year 7 and 8. Do you think that's a good idea? Do you think CRUZ would think this is a good idea?

Now, we haven't even broached the subject of dicking around with arbitration numbers by simply letting a guy run his course in the majors while barely playing him. Yes, the game sees through this better than it used to, but considering the amount of control we allow over this in the league (Carter Cramer anyone?) we simply can't allow people to fudge things, sign someone for way below market value, and then laugh all the way to the bank. The game is pretty good at not allowing this for fourth and fifth year players - it's still kinda iffy for years 1-3 on that notion.

Removing this rule altogether would be a horrible idea for any of the above reasons, but here's the last one. Someone mentioned "could we do this retroactively?" This would create a system where teams going forward could do this but other teams were already locked into their situations. This has the potential to create imbalance in a way that's not beneficial to the league, and, yes, Nashville would be one of the most notable beneficiaries of this rule change, which is why I have again wasted a few more of my IQ points jousting with Chad - if I keep this up they're going to have to get me a full-time nurse. And yeah, I also got pretty annoyed when one of our smartest GMs started talking nonsense about team trainers being on the same wavelength as player superstars - that's not apples and oranges, it's apples and pogo sticks.

And let's not dispel the idea that future versions of the game, internal settings adjustments, and other controls will make this rule widely dependent on the current state of the software. Someone, of course, mentioned that player development is unsure enough that it comes with some degree of risk to sign such a contract, but with completely open ratings, it's also pretty sure enough and often enough that bringing this up is basically a throwaway line. "But my superstar might lump at age 27!" Yes, but literally how often does this happen? Fringe players do this a bunch, but the guys at the top neither rise nor fall enough to make a legitimate bargain contract absurd in any year of the deal.

I hope this long spout of sanity dispels any notion that I am simply a person with a redwood up his rectum, though, yeah, about this, I am. This was a well-thought out rule that should stay in place literally forever.