extension discussion

[Minnesota Twins]

What if a player in the last yr of their contract you Could post them in an extension negotiation thread?

Then you and others can post offers and whoever is highest gets him.

The catch is you have to give him a raise compared to what he is getting now. So i could try to extend latos at market value off his rookie deal, but extending votto would cost big bucks! It would make cap room during season super valuable.

You could only be negotiating w one person at a time.

Prob would have to give a long time before negotiations concluded, maybe a month?

Discuss...

[Detroit]

I don't like the sound of this. Guys like Mike Trout would be in a bidding war forever and go for big bucks. I like the free agent draft format. If you could come up with a really robust way of doing this, my opinion could be changed.

Generally, guys like Latos, or anyone else who is coming off of their rookie contract would be highly coveted.

Also, this would have to be done silently...? If it were an open forum, say for a month, and everyone else could see the highest bid, what is the difference between that and the free agent draft?

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Here's an idea I've been thinking about.

MLB teams get 6 years of rookie control. How about if we let rookie contracts be up to 6 years? Veteran FAs would still be 5 years max. But that initial contract could be for 6 years.

If we do that, I think we need to change the cost structure of rookie contracts as well. in MLB, the first 3 years are at the minimum. then the player gets into arbitration. so what i could see us doing with rookie contracts is a yearly structure like this: 325k, 325k, 325k, 1m, 2m, 4m. Adds some risk to signing those guys to max contracts.

Like it? no?

[Minnesota Twins]

I get what your saying DET about it just being FA auction in season. Maybe it is a restricted FA format to set the price to resign. For example say I designate Latos for negotiations and Det says I would bid 5 mil for 3 yrs and Pitt says 7 mil for 2 yrs then I have to decide to pay Latos 7 mil for 2 yrs or let him go to Pitt. Negotations would be in the open for 1 month then I must decide to match or let him walk. Then say I nominate Beltre and nobody is willing to give him more than $13.2 he is currently making, so I can give him a 5 yr, $13.2 mil deal, if I had the money of course.

Pitt: I like the idea of having it closer to mlb Pitt and making you think before assigning the max yrs to a prospect coming up.

[Deleted]

pitts
i like your idea. can possibly get some young talent into the fa pool earlier. who knows if trout now would be available in the off-season? i can dream.
how would this affect the calc's on the spreadsheet...the programming of it?
how about 325-500-750-1m-2m-4m just a thought

[torontobluejays]

I do not like these changes. It is just making the league more complicated to keep up with.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Did Toronto poop in the punch bowl again? lol. Just kidding.

[Detroit]

I kinda like Pitts proposal for rookie contracts, 6 yrs max, and staggered structure to increase pay on the back end. The player is still cheap (especially for the big players...Trout, Puig...). I like the idea of increasing their contracts to 6 yrs. this should be our focal point of discussion.

No offense Minnys, but what you're proposing sounds too much like FA off season bidding. I think that format and structure are solid.

I second the motion to establish a new rookie contract level, with staggered increasing salaries on the back end. Who is with me?

Who wants to have Trout make 720,000 in his 5th year? The Angels already gave him a butt load of money in an extension... It makes sense to me.

[torontobluejays]

The only thing these proposals do is extend the length of time an owner can keep his player and prevent him from becoming a free agent. If we are going to increase the rookie contracts max to 6 years because that is how the big leagues do it, why not let us sign regular free agents to unlimited contract lengths? That is how the big leagues do it. The reason we limit contracts to 5 years is so that we all have a chance to acquire quality players. Keeping the contract lengths shorter keeps the league competitive.

[Deleted]

tor, what if we kept it at 5yrs but incorporated the new salary structure? b 4 it then?

[Detroit]

I agree Toronto. I do like the idea of restructuring the rookie contract salary though...it makes it more strategic. 5 yrs, new salary structure???

[Deleted]

I say leave things as they are. 5 years is plenty for rookie contracts. Restructuring rookie contracts to pay more money on the back ends penalizes owners who put in the time to research minor league, college, and high schoolers for the 2 drafts we have.I put alot of time to research andmake trades to build my minor league. some people get lucky and draft a player that pans out, where some do the research to compete. I for one have plenty of minor leaguers that will be worth owning longer than 5 years on a MLB contract, but will have to win the FA Auction if I want them back, Fernandez, Bryant, Corres, Baez, plus others, I can lose most or all of them to free agency.

I also think 5 years is plenty for the bidding and free agent auction on eligible MLB players. I don't think a person should be allowed to put players like Trout, Scherzer, etc for 10 years. Everyone should be entitledto win those type of players before their careers begin to decline.

[Deleted]

I would be for the new salary structure for rookies, but only if it doesn't apply to any minors already drafted. A number of managers have decided to build their teams through the drafts, and I'm sure the existing rookie salary structure was a part of their decisions. Instituting a higher salary structure for players already drafted penalizes these teams retroactively for using the drafts to build their teams.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Any rule we applied would only be for newly drafted players.

I understand the Padres concern also...I wouldn't want to increase rookie contracts without giving owners the bonus of another year to balance things out. Makes it more strategic I think, instead of automatically signing every rookie to 5 year deals.

Another option, perhaps we had 2 flavors of rookie contracts. You could do the standard 5x600k that we have now, OR you could do with a graduated salary 6 year deal. So the owner would have to weigh the risk/reward of the higher salary but keep the player an extra year.

Just thinking out loud. I'm starting to sour on the 1 size fits all rookie contract structure.