Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 5, 2016 11:04:33 GMT -5
I have always been a big fan of the contract extension rule in this league, as it adds to the realism of the game where certain organizations are allowed to protect their franchise players at a very fair price to both the organization and the player. The current rule as it stands:
"The Extension contract may add up to 3 YEARS on a players current contract and will cost 150% PER YEAR of the players HIGHEST PAID YEAR on their REMAINING contract. A player may not ever exceed a 6 YEARS contract. If a player is under a $5 MIL Salary during time of first extension, those additional extension years must be at a minimum of $5 Mil on the players first extension, and a minimum of $10 Mil on that players 2nd extension."
Now this rule is great in the sense that its a punitive contract, but no too punitive where for certain positions it cant reflect a hometown discount.
However, there are problems with this rule in regards to certain positions, in that the points per game will never justify a $5M extension at certain positions. The current rule works great for virtually every offensive position, and maybe the LB position on defense. But, I cant see a DT or CB ever being signed to a $5M a year contract extension. Generally speaking, these positions don't score enough points to ever warrant that type of an extension.
So here's what I propose, a three tiered contract extension system where GM's get to choose one every year.
Contract option A: 150% or 5M for these positions (QB,RB,WR,TE,LB) --- (10M for 2nd extension)
Contract option B: 150% or 4M for these positions (DE,K,S) --- (8M for 2nd extension)
Contract option C: 150% or 3M for these positions (DT,CB) ---(6M for second extension)
The tiered system is an attempt to represent the general net worth of every position in this league. I think a system like this will help GM's expand their ability to use their contract extensions every year, especially for positions that they normally would never consider because of a price that is unwarranted. Again, this will NOT give GM's the right to use 3 contracts extensions per year, only one. They just get to choose which position they want to extended at a more appropriate market value.
Thoughts?
"The Extension contract may add up to 3 YEARS on a players current contract and will cost 150% PER YEAR of the players HIGHEST PAID YEAR on their REMAINING contract. A player may not ever exceed a 6 YEARS contract. If a player is under a $5 MIL Salary during time of first extension, those additional extension years must be at a minimum of $5 Mil on the players first extension, and a minimum of $10 Mil on that players 2nd extension."
Now this rule is great in the sense that its a punitive contract, but no too punitive where for certain positions it cant reflect a hometown discount.
However, there are problems with this rule in regards to certain positions, in that the points per game will never justify a $5M extension at certain positions. The current rule works great for virtually every offensive position, and maybe the LB position on defense. But, I cant see a DT or CB ever being signed to a $5M a year contract extension. Generally speaking, these positions don't score enough points to ever warrant that type of an extension.
So here's what I propose, a three tiered contract extension system where GM's get to choose one every year.
Contract option A: 150% or 5M for these positions (QB,RB,WR,TE,LB) --- (10M for 2nd extension)
Contract option B: 150% or 4M for these positions (DE,K,S) --- (8M for 2nd extension)
Contract option C: 150% or 3M for these positions (DT,CB) ---(6M for second extension)
The tiered system is an attempt to represent the general net worth of every position in this league. I think a system like this will help GM's expand their ability to use their contract extensions every year, especially for positions that they normally would never consider because of a price that is unwarranted. Again, this will NOT give GM's the right to use 3 contracts extensions per year, only one. They just get to choose which position they want to extended at a more appropriate market value.
Thoughts?
