2009 SUGGESTED NEW RULES - PLEASE READ!

[aholbert]

Every year around this time I list a few suggested rules that could help improve the league and allow the league owners to vote on the rules. This year I could only think of one but its one that a few owners have pm'd me about for the past few seasons.

1) 1 yr contracts- As many owners have seen, 1 yr contracts are prevalent in this league during Free Agency. Owners will offer a FA a 1 yr deal with a high bonus instead of a long term deal. The player will accept the deal over the long term deals because the 1 yr deal offers more guaranteed money and permits the player to test the FA market again in a year. These deals are good for the owner because it allows him to tryout the player for a year and he can decide to not resign the player if he has a bad yr or can franchise him and sign him to a long term deal if he wants to keep him.

While this isnt against the rules (I've been able to sign big FA's to 1yr contracts the past 2 yr's) this isnt always realistic. In real life, I can understand a 10 yr vetran signing a big 1 yr deal but I doubt a 6 or 7yr (or lower) player would sign a 1yr deal especially if he is getting offers that are longer and in the same area monetarily as the 1 yr offer.

The suggested rule is to only allow offers for the number of years a player requests initially. If a player requests a 2yr deal...an owner is only allowed to offer a deal thats 2yrs or longer. Under this rule 1yr deals can only be offered to players that request 1 yr deals.

The poll will close on Sunday at 9. If approved the new rule will not take effect until the 2013 offseason. Any thoughts or other suggested rules?

[Pat]

I'd like to hear Ben chime in on this. He might be able to provide some good insight.

I like the idea.

[Lintyfresh85]

Yes, every other league i've ever been in do it... so why shouldn't the OSFL?

Just never change the rule on renegotiating contracts! We should keep it as is!

[nouvelle_vague]

if the idea is to prevent people from abusing the ability to offer gigantic 1 year deals, then why make the rule "you can only offer what the player is asking for". For example, if I want to offer my up and coming QB a 4 year deal instead of a 3 year deal, and I'm paying him the same ratio in year 4 that I am in the first 3 years, then how does that hurt the league?

I understand the need for this. I get what you are trying to do, but I think that you banning some stuff that has absolutely no adverse effect on the game.

My $.02 is just to ban 1 year deals unless thats what the player is asking for. Or prevent teams from franchising a player after he's been made a 1 year offer. I think those are better options than what you're proposing.

[Bigsmooth]

if the idea is to prevent people from abusing the ability to offer gigantic 1 year deals, then why make the rule "you can only offer what the player is asking for". For example, if I want to offer my up and coming QB a 4 year deal instead of a 3 year deal, and I'm paying him the same ratio in year 4 that I am in the first 3 years, then how does that hurt the league?

I understand the need for this. I get what you are trying to do, but I think that you banning some stuff that has absolutely no adverse effect on the game.

My $.02 is just to ban 1 year deals unless thats what the player is asking for. Or prevent teams from franchising a player after he's been made a 1 year offer. I think those are better options than what you're proposing.

I'm pretty sure that's what he is suggesting:

"If a player requests a 2yr deal...an owner is only allowed to offer a deal thats 2yrs or longer. "

[nouvelle_vague]

I'm pretty sure that's what he is suggesting:

"If a player requests a 2yr deal...an owner is only allowed to offer a deal thats 2yrs or longer. "

Ah. Ok. Didnt see the "or longer". While I'll still vote against this (I'm generally for zero regulation), I understand why everyone wants it.

[Jake]

Not to speak for Ben, but he started a new league over at FOFC (FOWL) that addresses the 1-year contract by outlawing the franchise tag. I think that it's a great idea, since it eliminates the temptation to offer the big time 1 year contract for a young, big time FA, then franchise him and sign him to a long term contract at an affordable rate.

I would say the only negative would be the probable increase in "sign and trades" since you can resign a guy in the first year of his contract if you aquired him in a trade.

[Guest]

Honestly, with the way that some don't pay terribly close attention in this league, my concern would be that you'd be having to hand out punishments (or resim) more often than you want. In theory, it sounds good, but I do wonder how it will work in practice...

[Clay]

Seems like a nightmare to police.

[aholbert]

Seems like a nightmare to police.

It will require more work but I dont think its a killer. My main concern is with the top 50 FA's each year. Each year, I will take a look at the Top 50 FAs and doument the number of years each player is asking for.

I'll rely on other owners to help me police this. If you see someone offering a 1yr deal to someone who is asking for a 3 yr deal, the owner should notify me and either I will resim or force a release of the player from the team.

[Pat]

I agree, I think it will be fine. It will be pretty easy to monitor. Especially during the off-season.

[Clay]

Well... I voted 'no' just because, though the Commish is clearly willing to put in the extra work, I think rules like this will cause more drama than they prevent. I don't think anyone has really gotten bent out of shape over the 1 year deals... but I'd almost guarentee that someone will end up getting booted or quit over this one somewhere down the road. I'm going with the "if it ain't broke" vote on this one.

[Pat]

I completely disagree. I think the extra work will be minimal and I think this will definitely improve things. It is totally unrealistic that a stud FA would take a one year deal when they have multi-year offers with bigger bonus being offered.

"If it ain't broke," well, I personally think it is.

[Clay]

I completely disagree. I think the extra work will be minimal and I think this will definitely improve things. It is totally unrealistic that a stud FA would take a one year deal when they have multi-year offers with bigger bonus being offered.

"If it ain't broke," well, I personally think it is.

But you're asking an online league to mirror reality and that's simply not possible. These players also don't factor anything else into their decisions other than money. Should we also make a rule that only teams with an available spot in their starting lineup be able to make an offer to a top flight FA? What about trades? You personally make a dozen a season if not more... there wasn't that many trades in the NFL all of last year.

Either way... my "if it ain't broke" was more specifically "if it isn't causing drama, fights or garnering complaints... then why mess with it?"

Again, mine is but one opinion of 32.

[Clay]

ADDITION: I hate the idea of "resims" under any circumstance. What if two teams make an identical offer and one time he accepts Team A and on the "resim" he takes Team B? That won't cause issues?