Delayed implementation should probably apply to any and all contract stuff. Granted, it's unlikely anyone is going to lose their mind over a player they planned to sign going from +9 to +10 three years out (assuming it even passes), but it would still be slightly bad form, I think.

An alternative (for the 5/8/10) would be to apply it immediately and give everyone the opportunity at a free opt-out... that sounds much messier.

I don't think the extra dollar in year 3 is relevant to any decisions owners made this year. Of course, if more people were involved in this discussion, I'd have a better idea of that.

I live my life in slightly bad form. As long as its not egregiously bad form.

Sharur wrote:An alternative (for the 5/8/10) would be to apply it immediately and give everyone the opportunity at a free opt-out... that sounds much messier.

Opt out of what? Existing contracts would not be subject to the change, only future ones.

Or existing contracts could be subject to the changes, and we could give people the option to opt-out for free because of the change. But to be clear, I don't actually think that's a good idea.

I definitely see no reason to implement one contract related-change a year later than the other simply because we assume that one of them mattered more or less to people than the other. Let's be consistent. If it makes you feel better, I'll claim that 5/8/10 makes a huge difference to my contract plans and how dare you even consider it.

Ohhhh... so that's how it is now.

Fine, fine... I'll adjust the contract amendments to take effect prior to the 2016 season. We're all pretty much in it for the rest of our lives anyway so what's another year.

How long will we be playing in this league?

In the spirit of Mike's email today, where are we on the possible contract amendment? That seems to be the main one that's sparked controversy, and I don't think we reached a consensus. I for one don't think our system is super broken, but I was open to most of the ideas about increasing inflation slightly.

I split out all the posts unrelated to our keeper system that I could find. That should help a little here but will help a lot regards those other topics.

Nick, here's where we are right now with amendments:

1. Change contract structure to 5/8/10 effective 2016 season. Contracts already in place not affected.

2. Change rookie contracts to BY+1 effective 2016 season.

It strikes me that an owner could make an argument that it is unfair for their rookies to be surcharged when they did not know that was going to happen, but given that the decision about whether to offer a three-year contract will occur after the amendment passes, I don't see there an argument for delaying implementation a year. Also, weren't we going to vote on allowing two injury replacements?

The new contract rules would not take place until 2016.

I assume by injury replacements, you're referring to playoff adds? That is now a separate thread.

Can someone summarize the reasoning behind the rookie contracts proposal? I looked back through the thread and there wasn't much discussion on it. Given that it's now an amendment, I'm hoping to get more clarification on its rationale.

I believe it started several pages ago when Matt proposed eliminating rookie contracts. He noted that he was able to keep Trout the year after he was called up since he had retained rookie status. I countered with +1 or +2 which received some backing. It supports the goal of increased contract inflation.

I settled on +1 in the proposal but it very easily could be +2.

Thanks. These minor changes are so much less exciting than all of the dramatic proposals that were bandied about. Alas, that's what I get for liking the status quo!