The Standard Extension

[Camden_yardbird]

There has been a trend of recent extensions of recent call ups or even prospects who have yet to make a debut (most recently Eloy and Robert).  The deals, generally are in the $35 million to $45 million range and give a player and the team salary certainty through the control period of the player.  These deals usually come with two team options at somewhere around $20 million at the end of the contract, buying out two free agent years.

My question is, would this model make sense as a standard extension for teams that they could opt a player into?   There would be a rule, to the effect of, the player has to be opted into this path before the culmination of their first year in the majors.

There are pros and cons.  I think it would help small market teams immensely with control and cost guarantee allowing for better planning (though perhaps large market teams would just opt all their promising players into it). 

It should on the whole give players more money (especially if it were say tied to baseball salary inflation) as these deals start higher than the baseball minimum. 

It would stop service time manipulation.

It does go against the principals of free agency and as such I dont know that it would ever get off the ground.

Thoughts?

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

There has been a trend of recent extensions of recent call ups or even prospects who have yet to make a debut (most recently Eloy and Robert).  The deals, generally are in the $35 million to $45 million range and give a player and the team salary certainty through the control period of the player.  These deals usually come with two team options at somewhere around $20 million at the end of the contract, buying out two free agent years.

My question is, would this model make sense as a standard extension for teams that they could opt a player into?   There would be a rule, to the effect of, the player has to be opted into this path before the culmination of their first year in the majors.

There are pros and cons.  I think it would help small market teams immensely with control and cost guarantee allowing for better planning (though perhaps large market teams would just opt all their promising players into it). 

It should on the whole give players more money (especially if it were say tied to baseball salary inflation) as these deals start higher than the baseball minimum. 

It would stop service time manipulation.

It does go against the principals of free agency and as such I dont know that it would ever get off the ground.

Thoughts?

So the O's would be on the hook for a 6/36 deal if they call Donovan Tate up?

[Camden_yardbird]

14 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So the O's would be on the hook for a 6/36 deal if they call Donovan Tate up?

Only if they opted the player out of the arbitration process and into the standard extension.

If a team calls a player up they have until the culmination of that league year to decide whether to put the player on the standard extension.

[Can_of_corn]

19 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

Only if they opted the player out of the arbitration process and into the standard extension.

If a team calls a player up they have until the culmination of that league year to decide whether to put the player on the standard extension.

Your has to line confused me.

[Frobby]

I don’t think the union would ever consider the idea.     It caps what players can make but doesn’t provide any real benefit to the player compared to the current system where the two sides can agree to an extension if they want to.    

Now, it might be interesting if the period to free agency was shortened if the team didn’t offer the standard deal to the player.     Maybe the union would find that worth exploring.