1. Yearly salaries within any multi-year contract offer (as a free agent or as an extension of an existing contract) may never decrease. Salaries may only be at or above the value of the previous season’s salary within a multi-year contract offer. While not a requisite, GMs are strongly encouraged to realistically escalate salaries over the life of a multi-year contract.
There's not much support for this rule, and I agree that GMs should be free to structure contracts as they wish, and that there is such a thing as the time value of money.
2. The salary in the first year of an extension must be at or above the value of the player’s current year salary. If you wish to sign the player to a contract with a salary lower than what he is currently making, you must first let him test free agency. Once a player reaches free agency, you may offer him whatever you like.
There has been support for this rule, however, I think this rule is closely tied to no. 1. If this rule stays in place, but no. 1 is scrapped, then there is a heavy disincentive to escalate salaries in a multi-year deal, since it basically takes away the option of a later one year extension for that player, and generally hinders the flexibility of a GM to negotiate an extension for that player down the road.
3. Extensions of three or more years in length must adhere to the following minimum salary restrictions:
All contract years that cover a player’s arbitration years must feature a salary at least equal to the league average salary.
All contract years that cover a player’s free agency years must feature a salary at least triple the league average salary.
For the purpose of calculating contract years, an option year will counted as a contract year.
The purpose of the rule is to keep teams from exploiting young talent, though GM's tend to focus on competitive advantage here, but it amounts to the same thing. There should be a way to adhere to the spirit of the rule and eliminate complexity. In think we should start with the assumption that the AI can negotiate fair contracts for players who are FA eligible.
Exception : Between the conclusion of a league’s playoffs and the arrival of free agency, qualifying veterans may be offered a 1-year contract at a salary no less than 75% of the player’s current salary. The qualifications are as follows:
Player is at least 33 years old as of the conclusion of a league’s playoffs
Player has a Loyalty rating of “Normal” or higher
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
Again, In think we should start with the assumption that the AI can negotiate fair contracts for players who are FA eligible.
4. Teams may not sign a player to a major league extension within 45 days of his signing a major league contract. A brief cool-down period is required before a new contract may be extended.
The only instance that I could think of where a team might want to break this rule, is extending a player recently called up. If sufficient rules exist to protect such players from disastrous long-term deals, then I don't think this rule would be needed.
5. If a contract with a player is voided, the GM’s next contract offer to the player must feature a guaranteed average yearly salary at least 150% of the average salary of the previous offer (including option years).
This is an area where the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime, at least with respect to extensions, where a team is only bidding against itself. I come at the issue of compliance with the assumption that GMs aren't actively trying to cheat the system. We've been restructuring, rather than voiding contracts, though I do think that free agent contracts and extensions should be treated differently.
Bonus Clauses: Bonus clauses in contracts are governed by several house rules, both for free agents and extensions. Contracts in violation of these rules are subject to review by the Board, which reserves the right to void the contract. If you wish to offer a contract that breaks one or more of these rules, contact the Board prior to making the offer to explain your intent. You will be provided with guidance on an agreeable contract offer.
1. Players must meet a minimum average guaranteed salary value in order to qualify to be offered Royal Raker or Golden Arm bonus.
Contracts require an average guaranteed yearly salary value of at least $5M to qualify for award bonus offers.
Example: GMs are allowed to offer a Royal Raker bonus along with a contract offer of $4M for 2010, $5M for 2011 and $6M for 2012 (average value of $5M). If the $6M for 2012 is absent from the offer (dropping the average value
2. PA/IP bonuses can be given to any player, up to 650 PA / 200 IP.
3. The cap on the amount of total bonus money that may be offered is 25% of the highest guaranteed yearly salary in the contract.
Example: In a contract offer of $5M for 2010, $6M for 2011 and a $7M option for 2012, a GM may offer bonuses up to $1.5M (25% of $6M, the highest guaranteed yearly salary in the contract).
4. From June 6th until the end of the PEBA playoffs, bonuses may only be offered to free agents if the contract spans multiple seasons.
5. If a contract features an illegal bonus, the bonus will be added to yearly salaries. Example: GMs cannot include Royal Raker or Golden Arm bonuses unless the average guaranteed yearly salary value of the contract is at least $5M. If a PEBA team signs a contract with a player that features an average guaranteed yearly salary value of $4.5M and includes a $1M Royal Raker bonus, that bonus will be eliminated and $1M will be added to the base salary of each season covered by the contract.
These are my least favorite rules. If GMs truly believe that bonus clauses can be used to unfairly exploit the AI, then such restrictions could be kept at least in some form. My preference would be to cut them and monitor.
Vesting, Player and Team Options
These are allowed in multi-year contracts subject to the following provisos
Player options must precede team options when both are offered in the same contract
Team options must include a buyout fee of at least 25% of that year's salary
Vesting options must be realistic. You cannot ask for more than PITCHERS 30 games started, 180 IP (starters) , 20 games finished (Relievers). BATTERS 450 AB, 120 games played.
I think this rule can be simplified, eliminating the math.