In addition to rocky's suggestion

[AndyP]

Except what Cdawg said wasn't "extremely incorrect" and you strawmanned his position. His point was that virtually none of the Type A players were signed for only one year. The argument is that adding a second year would force team's hands, but most players are already getting 2 or more year offers. In fact, only 1 out of 16 have had that happen.

Your argument is that it would've taken a bit more cash each time or wouldn't have beaten those offers out, but the years are not the problem. As others are pointing out, most teams wouldn't have flinched at a bit more cash. In all likelihood all of those offers would've been beaten out because they are only mildly different than what would've been required.

You're arguing a counterfactual as if it's truth. Cdawgs point is actual truth - more than one year wasn't stopping anyone in the vast majority of cases.