Borealis wrote:I don't think we need to overhaul the rules - they've served us perfectly fine, though I think the addition of a back-loaded contract - under certain conditions, would be a good idea... maybe for contracts of 5 or more years, after age 35... something like that...
Unfortunately the new OOTP doesn't let us see those personality traits on a players page (DUMB!),
but they do let you see it on the roster page view under the 'Personality & Morale' subset (go figure - what's the point?). I'd suggest something like if a guy had a
High Loyalty &/or Leadership and a
Normal to
Very Low Greed, that these would be players who could qualify for the front loaded contract. Then we could look to the Constitution for guidance by incorporating the Vet Exception:
qualifying veterans may be offered a 1-year multi-year contract at a salary no less than 75% of the player’s current salary (for the de-escalating years). The qualifications are as follows:
Player is at least 33 years old as of the conclusion of a league’s playoffs (in de-esculating years of the contract)
Player has a Loyalty rating of “Normal” or higher (already addressed)
Player has enough service time to qualify for free agency
Player has signed at least one previous major league contract with his current team
Player has been under major league contract with his current team for the previous three consecutive seasons or six total seasons
I'd say we should have a defined number of years at or above their currant salary (say 1-year on a 3-year deal, 2-years on a 4-year deal, etc... for example), then the values go down...
So, for example, Mike Britt. He'll be 33 after the 2027 season. So if I offered him an extension to his current deal ($13M for 2026), I'd have to make 2027 > or = to $13M for 2027 (for a three year deal) and then 2028 and 2029 could be for less (say $10M).
Of course, we'd have to discuss how much each year could decrease - if at all; maybe it becomes a static salary? IDK - that's something that would have to be discussed.
Britt is a good example, because right now he's asking for an 8-year extension, 3-years at raises, then the last 5 decline, ending at his current $13M for 2024 - not that it's a deal I'm interested in, but I know that there are players who ask for this kind of a deal. A long deal like that would require more upfront, increases, even if the player is over 33 (I think the longer the deal, the longer it should be before you hit de-esculation - again, just my thought).
Any ways, just my 2¢ on the idea - which I think has merit, and although it'll help all teams - rich and 'poor', it will be beneficial to the 'poorer' teams as they at least can commit less on their future balance sheets than they may otherwise do, have more money to negotiate with, and hold players they may otherwise lose.