New Contract Rules Debate

Ideas for Rules Will be Discussed and Debated Here
Locked
User avatar
Eddie Paxil-Commish
Site Admin
Posts: 1904
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:42 am
Location: Union City, New Jersey
Contact:

New Contract Rules Debate

Post by Eddie Paxil-Commish » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:02 pm

One of the most fruitful portions of the Winter Meetings was an ideas for new contract rules that I feel lead to more realistic contacts, BUT when giving the contracts allow for creativity by the GM. here is what we came up with:

1. Players with less than 3 years of MLB service time, and not current Super Two cannot be extended at all.
2. One year extensions are allowed regardless of service time to avoid arbitration.
3. 3 years of MLB service time or current Super Two: Cannot extend more than 7 years
4. 4+ years of MLB service time: No restriction on length of extensions to 10 years. (The 10 years is a restriction of the game.)
5. Team Option Years can be no greater that 125% of the highest guaranteed year.
6. Team Option buyout values must be at least 25% of the value of that option year's salary value.
7. The maximum limit for minimum plate appearances bonus is 550
8. The maximum limit for minimum IP bonus for starters is 200
9. The maximum limit for minimum IP bonus for relievers is 75
10. No Trade Clauses WILL Be Honored unless the player waives it.

That's what I felt everyone seemed to like. Please discuss below what you think.
Eddie Paxil
OMLB Commissioner
New Jersey Pioneers GM (2025-Present) Continental Expansion League Champions 2025 and 2026
Miami Marlins GM (2014-2024) NL East Champions 2016, 2019, & 2022

User avatar
Eddie Paxil-Commish
Site Admin
Posts: 1904
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:42 am
Location: Union City, New Jersey
Contact:

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by Eddie Paxil-Commish » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:04 pm

I've hated the contract rules since we started. I'm fine with most of this. My only issue is the 125% on the team option year. I'd prefer 150%.Thoughts.
Eddie Paxil
OMLB Commissioner
New Jersey Pioneers GM (2025-Present) Continental Expansion League Champions 2025 and 2026
Miami Marlins GM (2014-2024) NL East Champions 2016, 2019, & 2022

User avatar
Bigkizen
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:09 pm

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by Bigkizen » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:20 pm

I like most of what was discussed, feel like its a bit stricter than what we have in place currently but still allows for flexibility.

We did agree for allowing 2 team options?
GM for the Milwaukee Brewers
Years Managing - 10
OMLB Career Record 847-773, .523 PCT
Reputation - Outstanding
Current Outlook: Win
Playoff Appearances: 4
Championships: 3 (2023, 2024, 2025)

Welcome to the Slick Daddy Club. - Runyan99

User avatar
MMonroe98
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:23 am

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by MMonroe98 » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:18 pm

Since I've entered the league, I've felt we've needed new contract rules. The current ones, while OK, simply don't work as many people still find a way to get their stars on cheap and long contract extensions, if they follow them at all. These rules, many of which I already follow trying to make it realistic, would allow the FA classes to be more fruitful, while also giving GM's the flexibility of offering reasonable contract extensions. I'm all for these new rules.
GM - Tampa Bay Rays
2018 - 70-92
2019 - 91-71
2020 - 80-82
2021 - 87-75

dmastin

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by dmastin » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:38 pm

No opinion on these specific rules, simply because I can't even understand all of them. I'm just not as knowledgable of this side of baseball, which is fine, but with more contract rules, just keep in mind the 2 allowable strikes may need to be loosened as well. I already broke one contract rule, which I actually do understand now that it was brought to my attention, but I'm gonna be breaking a few more as I continue to learn all of the intricacies and terminology that come with baseball contracts.

User avatar
bwburke94
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by bwburke94 » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:01 pm

I vote yes. Contract rules are always a problem, but these ones seem good.

Oh, and we'll need to officially define "current Super Two", which I've already done: if it is the offseason and the player is currently up for Super Two arbitration, they are current Super Two.
New York Mets GM, 2018-present
NL East Champions: 2018/2020/2021
NL Wild Card: 2019/2022

DonkeyKong
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:22 pm

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by DonkeyKong » Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:02 pm

I vote yes for all of the above except make the vesting option cap 150% instead of 125%. If a GM maxes out a team option just to make the rest of the contract jucier, then he'll be on the hook for a bit more penalty if he doesn't exercise the option. I think 150% is fair.

And I sympathize with dmastin (ChiSox) on the contract rule strikes...I'm sure I'm going to accidentally get some strikes despite doing my best to remember all the contract rules when working out a deal.
Seattle Mariners

User avatar
Eddie Paxil-Commish
Site Admin
Posts: 1904
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:42 am
Location: Union City, New Jersey
Contact:

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by Eddie Paxil-Commish » Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:44 am

I'd be fine bumping the strikes to 3??? 2 is just the number that came about when we first installed contract rules, I think inspired by another league. is 3 fair?
Eddie Paxil
OMLB Commissioner
New Jersey Pioneers GM (2025-Present) Continental Expansion League Champions 2025 and 2026
Miami Marlins GM (2014-2024) NL East Champions 2016, 2019, & 2022

dmastin

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by dmastin » Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:21 pm

3 is better than 2! Fair or unfair isn't really how I'd classify it, and I get that it creates extra work for the commish, but if nothing is getting abused, I'd rather err on the side of working with young GMs as they learn the ropes.

User avatar
urbscholar
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:38 pm
Contact:

Re: New Contract Rules Debate

Post by urbscholar » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:12 pm

We've got some incoming GM's that don't have a ton of experience with the game, so 3 strikes seems fair as these guys learn the ropes.

I'm more comfortable with the 125% rather than 150% on team options. I would be interested in data showing how many times team options are actually exercised in the OMLB. If they're exercised a lot, then I might change my mind to 150%. I have no idea if that type of data is easy to access though and I don't want to overburden our fearless leader in asking for it.

I'm of the belief though that team options are put in with absolutely no intention of ever exercising them for the most part.
GM - Detroit Tigers

Warwick Saupold for Cy Young 2018

Locked