We need to revisit contract extensions.
 

I think the formula we came up with is flawed. Right now we passed that to renegotiate a player, they would get either a 10% or a 300cb raise (whichever is higher). The problem with the formula is that it will rarely be that the % comes into play. Also, the 300 cb minimum could be prohibitive to renegotiation lower tier positions like K, DL, TE etc.

Right now in the Frenzy only 1 player has a contract over 3000 (LT at 3135)... McAlister is the next closest at an overpaid 2905. The next closest players are 455 cb's below Deuce at 2550. Even taking into account that SACD's salary pool is 15% higher, that's still only 2 players above 3g.

Burt and I were chatting about this. The question is, what is the intent of the renegotiation rule. Is it to lock up studs at top market value? Or is it to allow teams to lock up mid-level value type players? I would argue it should be the latter.

I'm looking for ideas, but I'm thinking we should consider imposing the following structure:

Renegotion of a player with 2 or more years - 20% increase or the average of the top 20 players at his position at the end of the previous season (whichever is higher).

Renegotion of a player with 1 year left after acquiring by trade - 15% increase or the average of the top 30 players at his position at the end of the previous season (whichever is higher).

Anyone care to chime in on this?

Re: We need to revisit contract extensions.
 

And I concur, this is what we talked about and agreed looks better than what was originally agreed on. We had so much fur flying those first few days, I think this one just didn't get totally thought out.

I like the structure proposed here. Seems more fair if indeed everyone agrees on the spirit of the rule, which I agree with Preds is to lock up the mid level players affordably. The only things I would also like to discuss is would this rule be limited to a one time reneg on all players, or unlimited? I would vote for unlimited, but maybe with a minimum 2 year deal. This would drive the price up to beyond mid level and make the owner think twice about continuing to reneg anything but a top player, but would also reward a signing of a diamond in the rough who blossoms under your care.

Re: We need to revisit contract extensions.
 

I guess not having been in the CDL I know know what the intent is over there. I didn't think it was to be able to lock on mid level players long term. We have RFA (and now franchising) for the higher level players. Now we're going to have renegotiating affordable for mid level players. Is there going to be any player movement? Of course there is, but I think the last thing we need is another tool to keep players under conract longer for their current teams.

Also, I don't agree with the top 30 aspect for averages. I'll look further into the numbers this week.

Re: We need to revisit contract extensions.
 

Also, might want to consider the impact of renogation on the contracts of rookies. If you do a player who is under is rookie contract does that eliminate the rookie contracts final couple of years or is the player still under the rookie deal before the renegoaited piece kicks in?

Re: We need to revisit contract extensions.
 

I would say that no mater what, as long as a rookie isn't cut during his 1st 5 years the rookie bonus scale applies. If you renegotiate a rook, all you do is increase his base starting point until the 5th year of the original deal expires.

Re: We need to revisit contract extensions.
 

So, just to clarify, if you sign a rookie to an original 3 year deal, but reneg in year 2, then the bonuses apply in year 4 and 5 even though there weren't an original 4 and 5? That's fine with me, but i just want to clarify that point.

Re: We need to revisit contract extensions.
 

Yes, that's how I think we should play it. But I do not think the rookie bonuses should apply if a player is cut then signed off Free Agency (they currently don't count in the Frenzy for that situation either).