NEW POLL 2020 - Multi-Year contracts - 4yrs/2arbs to 5yrs?

[David - Cleveland]

I have locked the similar poll asking for a vote on whether to move from 4 YEARS & 2 ARB DATES to simple 4 YEARS as the threshold to negotiate a multi-year agreement with controlled players in your system.

ablootp.proboards.com/thread/590/change-multi-contract-threshold-years

This is a brand new POLL, asking a similar question about taking things in the opposite direction.

The idea of imposing a "date" at which you can offer a controlled player in your system a multi-year contract is a good one. It prevents OOTP from agreeing to long-term, highly undervalued contracts. This has improved version to version, but can still be a big problem with players in their first three years (minimum salary) and the whole purpose of forcing players to pass a couple of arbitration dates is that it allows the game to properly value the players in the game annually to that point.

You can actually see this at work in the salary page of your team. And even that has advanced with the release of v18.

Prior to v18 a player's estimated "arbitration price" was static over his three years. With v18 you can now see escalating values projected over a player's arbitration years. I think that is a huge advancement. But the game still does need a little help to get players that far along before they can be locked in.

I will not get into whether an early long-term deal is a good or bad thing, this is simply a poll to get player's a little further along their value arc.

Feel free to leave thoughts below in the forum...

[Deleted]

I voted for the 5 year option. Simply put, i love the idea of making the GM experience a bit harder (decisions, decisions) while driving fair market value for the player performances. Simply put, we already have these 'house rules' because the game still needs work in setting the market value for the player performance.

This change will make it even SIMPLER for the Commissioner (and anyone else who watches contract extensions closely) to monitor. 5 years of service, yes or no? Simple.

My opinion for the small market teams that scream 'unfair' is to watch your talent closely and make a decision that best fits your long term goal. The proposed change can also potentially prevent a player from being locked up too early, suffering talent hits via injuries or TCR and impacting a small market team. Any team, for that matter.

my two cents anyway.

[NYY_Shane]

I voted no because there will be a lot of players that will be forced into free agency and never even have the opportunity to be extended.

Why don’t we help small market teams out by raising their market value and even thenolaying field more? Is that even possible?

Regardless, I don’t like the idea of having players that won’t ever be able to be extended at any point.

[aaron_commissioner]

Dec 20, 2017 8:59:19 GMT -8 NYY_Shane said:

I voted no because there will be a lot of players that will be forced into free agency and never even have the opportunity to be extended.

Why don’t we help small market teams out by raising their market value and even thenolaying field more? Is that even possible?

Regardless, I don’t like the idea of having players that won’t ever be able to be extended at any point.

FYI Shane, it takes six years of service before being eligible for FA, so guys will always have at least a year with the team to offer an extension.

However, I'm voting to keep as is. I think 4yr/2arb is a good balance. It's too bad it's more work...

[David - Cleveland]

Dec 20, 2017 8:59:19 GMT -8 NYY_Shane said:

I voted no because there will be a lot of players that will be forced into free agency and never even have the opportunity to be extended.

Why don’t we help small market teams out by raising their market value and even thenolaying field more? Is that even possible?

Regardless, I don’t like the idea of having players that won’t ever be able to be extended at any point.

I don't want to say too much for fear of colouring the decision, but I do not view this poll as being a "helping or hurting small market" thing.
It is simply a calculation point for maximizing player value by how far they get before being offered a multi-year contract.

[Deleted]

Dec 20, 2017 8:59:19 GMT -8 NYY_Shane said:

I voted no because there will be a lot of players that will be forced into free agency and never even have the opportunity to be extended.

Why don’t we help small market teams out by raising their market value and even thenolaying field more? Is that even possible?

Regardless, I don’t like the idea of having players that won’t ever be able to be extended at any point.

As others have stated Shane, 6 years of ML service allows a player to test FA. At 5 years, the delay when they are added to the roster means in MOST cases, the player 5 years, 0 days service will have two seasons to work out extensions.

[NYY_Shane]

I don’t know the math but this happened in PBL where some players lose a year of control but I’m not knowledgeable enough to explain myself.

But the players that lost a year could not be signed under the rules and therefore if nothing was changed they would have been forced to let them go to free agency.

[tycobb32]

voting for 4/2 i like the extra year of control

[David - Cleveland]

Based on the results of the votes cast we will be staying with the current rule of 4 YEARS & 2 ARBITRATION HEARING DATES before offering a multi-year extension.

I am going to track the extensions signings this coming 2019-2020 Off-Season (and into the early part of the new season) just to see what the service times are for players offered extensions under this current rule because I really believe there is an easier way for both the GM's and (especially) the Commissioner for this "rule" to help the AI in OOTP online leagues.

That said, we will stay with this through the coming season, so you can feel confident with your extension offers under this rule.

Thanks for the votes and the input on this POLL.