I would love to figure out a way to address the problem above. Every year, none competitive teams start selling off any player whose contract is up at the end of the season because those players have no value to that franchise the following year. I am trying to give value to those players (at least one of them). Adding them to the tender offer list, allowing 1 year extensions all seem reasonable. Otherwise, we will keep getting these complete selloffs - making the middle ground teams ever worse, like we have seen.
Its a problem that needs to be addressed - other suggestions?
I would support this proposal because it increases the incentives to win with Bay City's friendly amendment:
urrent Rule: Rule 14.4/14.5/.14.6 - states that veterans need be on a team and under contract for 3 years or more to be tender/franchise eligible.
Proposed Rule: Before the start of free agency, each non playoff team may extend the contract of one player with an increase in salary under current contract rules regardless of contract length.
Explanation: The very worst part of the KRFL is the annual dumping of players for draft picks. Non-playoff teams trade away as many of their upcoming free agents for whatever draft picks they can get. The reason? These upcoming FAs have no future value to them. This rule gives them the potential to have value. Instead of trading away a highly rated player for a middle of the road draft pick, they can keep that player and franchise/tender offer them in the off season.
This version seems to have the current support of 4 owners.
This proposal needs a number of clarifications and needs to be restated.
1. What does "Before the start of free agency" mean? There is nothing on the league calendar or Rules called that. Is that supposed to be "During the annual Roster Cut-Down period" which is what Rule section 14 is?
2. Rule 14.4 applies only to players drafted in the prior season's Free Agent Draft or a player drafted in the Rookie Draft who has never had a KRFL contract. These players are not eligible to be Franchised or Tendered since they do not have an expiring contract. Rules 14.5 and 14.6 apply to a player who is already under contract and who contract has expired. It appears this proposal applies to the latter group (Rules 14.5 and 14.6) and rule 14.4 is irrelevant since this would not apply to them. Please confirm or clarify.
3. Does the Proposal Rule apply to all players with expiring contracts or only players with expiring contracts who were signed for 3 years or more?
4. Is there a minimum and maximum number of years the player can be res-signed for?
5. Under current rules, a player can only be franchised or tendered once. In this proposal, can this be done only once with a player or can this be done more than once and the player can be continually recontacted?
6. If a player is signed for 4 years or less, his salary increases $1.0mil per season. If a player is signed for 5 years or more, his salary increases $1.5mil per season. Under the "revised" proposal, what is the salary in years 4, 5 and 6 of a player who was originally signed for 3 years and under this revised proposal is signed for an additional 3 years? Seems like his salary should increase $2.0 million per season, $1.5 million for being contracted longer than 5 years and an additional $0.5 million to make up for the difference in the salary increases the first three years based on being contracted for 6 years and instead of 3 years.
7. Doe this "revised" proposal eliminate the current player Franchise and Tender rule or can a team still Franchise/Tender two players in addition to doing whatever this rule will allow?
Since Jeff P. made the original proposal, he needs to state what the proposal currently is since it appears to have been modified (including changing the title if the proposal is now to extend a player contract instead of Franchise or Tendering the player). Please address my questions as well.
