Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index

Please select up to three options.

1. Limit of 2 consecutive contracts.
3
13%
2. Limit of 5 consecutive years under contract.
3
13%
3. No consecutive contracts. Extend contract period up to five years (more expensive option year possible for contracts of less than 5 years).
3
13%
4. Contracts contribute to service time. Players got to free agency after X-years of service. One-year contracts possible after FA period.
5
21%
5. Base Value penalty for consecutive contracts, increasing by contract (1st - $5; 2nd - $10, 3rd - $15, etc...). No change to current contract options.
2
8%
6. Base Value penalty for consecutive contracts fixed at $10. Extend contract options up to five years.
1
4%
7. Progressive inflation in successive contracts. Long-term contracts with 1.5x options years.
3
13%
8. Progressive inflation tied to Base Value. One-year contracts only.
4
17%
 
Total votes : 24
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 16 Jan 2017, 2:38 pm

Please pick up to three and add comments if you wish. The goal is to narrow us down to a single amendment. This is NOT a binding poll but should help to eliminate some options.

Contract options discussed here: http://www.redscape.com/viewtopic.php?f=150&t=3508
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 7:17 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:20 pm

I vote for none of the above.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 7:18 pm

I'm still thinking.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 18 Jan 2017, 8:49 am

Well, I didn't notice in time to vote, but the ones I would have voted for made it to the top anyway!
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 18 Jan 2017, 9:02 am

It should still be open.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 18 Jan 2017, 1:32 pm

I voted for the only option that I consider possible (limit of 5 years), but I think I'm pretty happy with our current system.

Part of the problem with many of the choices is that they make no distinction between someone on a three year contract and someone on a one-year contract. There's a big difference and if you changed many of those "contracts" to three-year or multi-year contract, they would be much more acceptable to me.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 20 Jan 2017, 12:45 pm

I'm with George here, but I think the service time proposal is a more interesting solution that captures the same idea as "5 consecutive years".

The problem with all of this discussion about consecutive contracts is that we currently allow 1, 2, and 3 year contracts. We can't possibly treat these the same, can we? How do we make a distinction, and how do we prevent unexpected manipulation of the rules? If we don't treat them equally and instead count up years, then we have just gone back to a consecutive years or service time solution, but in a roundabout and complicated fashion.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Jan 2017, 2:08 pm

DiploMatt wrote:I'm with George here, but I think the service time proposal is a more interesting solution that captures the same idea as "5 consecutive years".

The problem with all of this discussion about consecutive contracts is that we currently allow 1, 2, and 3 year contracts. We can't possibly treat these the same, can we? How do we make a distinction, and how do we prevent unexpected manipulation of the rules? If we don't treat them equally and instead count up years, then we have just gone back to a consecutive years or service time solution, but in a roundabout and complicated fashion.


We *could* treat a contract as a contract. The owner would then have to decide how much risk he/she is willing to bear in order to extract as much out of a contract as possible.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 20 Jan 2017, 4:01 pm

Or use Nick's suggestion, only one year contracts, indefinitely renewable but with faster salary growth.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Jan 2017, 10:58 am

Hmmm... I guess we have some clarity from the poll. Remember, the goal is to get down to a single amendment.

Matt's idea has obvious support as does Nick's last proposal, though to a slightly lesser extent. Of all the solutions put forth, Matt's is probably the only one I might consider voting for. It is more forgiving than Nick's and allows for considerable value to be retained early on. Having said that, Nick's looks a LOT simpler and for that reason alone may garner greater support. The one thing I don't like is the disappearance of long-term contracts but hey, if the league wants change...

----------------------

Matt's proposal does need some clarification. Here's what I think it should look like, using his original post as the template and modified by me:

1. Each year a player is under contract prior to reaching Free Agency (FA) represents a year of Service Time (ST).
2. After six years of ST, players have reached FA and must enter the auction.
3. Upon completion of their FA year, players may then be placed back under renewable contracts with a maximum contract of one year only.
4. Buyout years do not count towards ST.
5. Rookie contracts do not count towards ST.
6. A multi-year contract cannot be written past a players ST limit.
7. Transition: The system becomes operational with 2018 keeper contracts wherein ALL players begin with zero ST. Existing contract years extending into 2018 and beyond will count towards ST.
8. Matt will be responsible for keeping ST information current and public.

Notes:
Six years for the ST limit seems to make most sense (it would allow for two consecutive 3-year contracts).
I altered Matt's non-renewable one-year contracts to allow for renewables (in the FA period).
I removed the elimination of rookie contracts - this will be voted on separately.
The more I think about it, the more it seems that record-keeping will be tremendously difficult. You've got to track ST for players even if not on anyone's team (say, a pitcher who has TJ and is out for the year).

------------------------

Here's Nick's. Of all the inflation options laid out in Todd's spreadsheet, I'm opting for the 1.5x. It seems the most forgiving relative to what we have.

1. Contracts may only be written for one year and are always renewable.
2. The value of the contract is 1.5 x base value, rounded up.
3. Rookie contracts are exempt from the system.
4. Transition: The system becomes operational with 2018 keeper contracts. Existing contracts extending into 2019 will be honored.

Notes:
Well, that was easy.
Again, rookie contracts will be voted on separately.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 2:24 pm

Note that you didn't even say what the contract progression would look like under Matt's system - is there any reason to think it would/should be +5/+3/+1? Or that contracts should be limited to a 3 year duration if there's more service time left? Yeah, this is why I prefer Nick's framework, it's just SO much simpler. You don't need any historical data, just what players went for at auction or were kept for going into the auction, and whether any of them cleared waivers.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 25 Jan 2017, 11:45 am

Something else that occurs to me is that under Nick's system (or set of systems, I suppose), we could cap yearly inflation. Suppose we do 2x and then cap it at $10- so a $1 player would go $2/$4/$8/$16/$26/$36/$46... we don't really need it to accelerate past a certain point.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jan 2017, 12:29 pm

Giving more options is not helping us narrow this down. :razz:

At this point, I suppose I'll put out two amendments. One for Matt's system and one for Nick's. I'll change the inflation increments with Nick's blessing - in fact, why don't you two work it out and tell me what you want. You both seem the most invested in that option.

Re contracts in Matt's system - there would be no change to the current contract structure.

If both amendments pass, I would then do a follow up vote on which system is preferred (majority rules).
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 25 Jan 2017, 4:23 pm

I guess my point is that within the framework of one year contracts with escalating increases, we can find something that is on the more forgiving side - it doesn't have to be one of the progressions I identified, and hopefully if we like the framework, we can find a progression that everyone likes. I don't want people to get hung up on something like "players will price out after 5 years, it should be 6, so I'm voting against this".

Anyway, I've updated the spreadsheet I made to add another sheet where you can play with the max yearly increase:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jan 2017, 5:40 pm

Hell, Todd, I don't know. Consult with Nick and pick something.