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
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 25 Jan 2017, 9:43 pm

You're missing the point :razz: I'm suggesting that we propose the basic framework as an amendment, then refine it to specific suggestions if it passes.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 26 Jan 2017, 6:06 am

I disagree. Not on missing the point - I did miss it. I think, however, that it's preferable to lock down the inflation rate prior to voting. It's a significant part of the amendment. Owners should know exactly what they're voting for.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jan 2017, 9:01 am

I think Mike is right--owners should know exactly what they will be getting with the amendment.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 26 Jan 2017, 12:59 pm

How about we just don't change the current system, since it works?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 26 Jan 2017, 1:21 pm

Probably where I am leaning. I think it's tough to make major rule changes like this mid-stream. If we really think there is something wrong with the salary structure we would probably be better off blowing up the league and starting all over with the new and improved rules. But I don't think anyone wants to do that. But changing the rules mid-stream and affecting the team I put together...I am finding I have little enthusiasm for any of these changes.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 26 Jan 2017, 2:18 pm

It seems to me that there's a fair amount of discontent with the current rules, though it's unclear to me how much that discontent is distributed across the owners (or conversely, concentrated among a few owners). I'm not discontent with the rules per-se, but I think several of the proposals represent clear improvements.