Post by adamsplants! on Oct 10, 2014 12:07:44 GMT -5
I would like to propose an amendment to the 5-year 172 Rule.
The rule currently states:
The problem is that several players have been signed to 1-year extensions in the last year of their arbitration deals. (Skaggs, Bauer in this previous offseason)
Realistically, a player will NEVER EVER sign a 1-year extension in his last year of arbitration. That's the bottom line. I think this is gaming the spirit of the rule. I think the players that have signed these deals have been given a fair dollar amount, so it's not about the money... I just think that with the rule the way it is, teams are essentially gaining an extra year of team control and players are hitting FA later. It just doesn't sit well with me and I just think its a workaround a rule that's in place to get players to FA.
I also think that this is gaming the system because OOTP still thinks that the player is in arbitration, therefore increasing the likely hood of the player accepting the 1-year "arbitration" deal.
Therefore, I propose an amendment to the 5-year 172 Rule.
The new rule would read:
I'm guilty of abusing the previous iteration of this rule and would gladly see all 1-year deals to 5year+ players from the previous offseason voided (my own included).
Would love to know your thoughts.
The rule currently states:
"No player with less than 5 years, 172 days in service time can be offered a multi-year contract extension. This was instituted in the 2014 season to league wide support and will be included in the next CBA."
Realistically, a player will NEVER EVER sign a 1-year extension in his last year of arbitration. That's the bottom line. I think this is gaming the spirit of the rule. I think the players that have signed these deals have been given a fair dollar amount, so it's not about the money... I just think that with the rule the way it is, teams are essentially gaining an extra year of team control and players are hitting FA later. It just doesn't sit well with me and I just think its a workaround a rule that's in place to get players to FA.
I also think that this is gaming the system because OOTP still thinks that the player is in arbitration, therefore increasing the likely hood of the player accepting the 1-year "arbitration" deal.
Therefore, I propose an amendment to the 5-year 172 Rule.
The new rule would read:
"No player with less than 5 years, 172 days in service time can be offered a multi-year contract extension. In a players last year of arbitration (between 5 years, 0 days & 5 years, 172 days), a player is not allowed to be signed to ANY extension)
Would love to know your thoughts.
