Re: Expansion Discussion
Reply #5 –
Regarding Arbitration:
I love it. But a question/thought: Why don't we just call rookie contracts 3-year contracts, and eliminate any confusion about any difference between year 4 and years 5&6. Basically, the way it stands right now, it's only a "$500k/4yr" deal by force (for that 4th year). Why not call it a $500k/3yr" deal and allow GMs to pass on that 4th year if they want to (thus adding more players to the FA pool, which was a semi-argument about allowing for 5 years of team control with the ICE, if I recall)? MLB teams don't have to pay a player a major league salary in his 4th year if he sucks. Heck, they don't have to guarantee ANY money to players inside their first 3 years unless they're on the 25-man a certain number of games. I even kicked around suggesting we don't have multi-year rookie contracts at all - to better simulate real life - but after trying to explain it by typing it all out, I think that's a bad idea. But 3-year contracts seem to make sense, if you all know what I'm getting at.
So here's what I'm saying: Make rookie contracts 3-year/$500k deals (kicks in the immediate season after that player hits the thresholds, as stated in the proposed rule), with arbitration eligibility kicking in for years 4-6 using WAR from the previous year each new season.