POLL 2020 - Change Multi Year Contract Threshold to 4 Years

[David - Cleveland]

This is a tricky one, so please think before you cast a ballot.

I am a firm believer in helping the game maximize player value, hence the implementation of 4 years of ML SERVICE TIME and ALSO the 2 ARB DECISIONS rule currently in place.
My DREAM is that the game really tighten up how players negotiate in their early years so they are not taken to the cleaners with long, under-valued deals (I'll set aside my front-loading argument for the time being).

That said, while both the number of arbs and service time are relatively easy to track, the arb is slightly more difficult in that we allow a one-year deal to avoid arbitration (BETWEEN THE START OF THE OFF-SEASON AND THE ARB HEARING DATE ONLY, which will remain in place - please follow that!). Much as I hate to loosen things ever so slightly, ML SERVICE TIME is far easier to track as it is visible right on the player page (and in several other easily accessible places).

So, to make things easier and further reduce (a couple of words at least) the rules of ABL, I would like to POLL the GM's about simply moving to "4 YEARS of ML SERVICE TIME" only as the threshold  for offering a multi-year contract extension.

I am VERY interested in any feedback on this one BELOW too!

[aaron_commissioner]

My opinion: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT VOTE AND HAS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS RAMIFICATIONS!

I actually really like the rule as is. Extensions should be only allowed very late in service time in online leagues, and the two arbs helps that. It also helps maintain player value, as David stated. Furthermore, it gives a small benefit for allowing a player to be Super 2 eligible. I like this balance and strongly believe there is no reason to alter it.

[aaron_commissioner]

(From Slack):
I agree with @nnana-rangers. After looking at the polls, the 4yr/2arb is one that I actually feel strong about. I think it provides a very good balance currently and messing with that is dangerous. Read my full thoughts in the forums, but seriously, consider keeping this rule *as is*, please!

In the PBA, extensions are limited to players with 5 years of service. I actually prefer the balance 4yr/2arb provides, but if we switch to 4yr, I don't think we'll ever see any superstars hit FA. They will be traded to teams who can afford them and stay there.

If this change occurs, I would recommend a limit on extension lengths (I have seen this work in another league) from anywhere to 4-6 years for initial extensions. This could keep large-market teams from monopolizing talent on under-market deals. I would simply hate to see superstars sign cheap, 10 year deals after 4 years of service and never have them hit FA.

[Deleted]

I wish there was a 3rd option, an option that Aaron referenced above (5 years of service). We should be making it HARDER to game the game and quite frankly the game is not where it should be in setting true market value.

I've had a vision of starting a solo offline game that a team has the first 6 years of a player's career, and then straight to free agency. No extensions. Sign the FA deal to what you feel is necessary, and when it ends, FA again. I have to start that one day, just to see how it plays out. It certainly will be a breath of fresh air, rather than trying to sign Mike Trout to 10 year deals worth $75 million.

At any rate, i voted to keep it at 4x2. I wish 5 years was an option!

[tycobb32]

Im voting to keep as is

[David - Cleveland]

I am locking this poll.
Clearly no reason to entertain the alternative.

But I am going to put up another poll, along these same lines JUST to see if there is an appetite for a change in the other direction.

The idea being to maximize the value of players and, quite frankly, make contracts far easier to track because the one-year signing to avoid arbitration, which I am perfectly fine with (between start of OFF-SEASON and ARB DATE) is a little blurry when those one-year deals are signed. A specific date on the calendar is far easier to track as you are either signing a contract before or after that date.