2009 SUGGESTED NEW RULES - PLEASE READ!

[Pat]

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.

It is garnering complaints. By multiple owners, hence the outrageous favor in the voting.

Also...mirror reality...just because trades don't happen all that often in the NFL doesn't make it unrealistic. Trades happen in professional sports all the times. Even in other professional football leagues.

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?

Won't happen. It will be instituted and hopefully no one will continue to make 1-year offers to non 1-year contract demanding players.

Especially if we develop some sort of penalty.

[aholbert]

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.

Actually a number of owners have pm'd me about this privately since I became commish and some are still with the league. We have a pretty drama free league so most owners are hesitant to speak out about this. The most ive seen in public is statements like " Ugh...another one year deal offer."

I dont think anyone will get booted because of this. The rule is pretty clear and straightforward. If someone breaks it, I wont kick someone out of the league. The only way I would do that is if it was blatant or continuious.

[aholbert]

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?

I just threw resims out there but this is how I would do it in reality.

- LB wants a 3 yr deal. Pat offers him a 1 yr deal. If the player accepts that deal, I will force Pat to immediately cut the LB. As a penalty he will be forced to take the cap hit for cutting the player.

- If the player doesnt immediately cut the player, I will force the owner to withdraw the offer.

[tarcone]

Wouldnt eliminating 1 year contracts to all except UDFAs be easier to monitor? Just a thought.

[aholbert]

Wouldnt eliminating 1 year contracts to all except UDFAs be easier to monitor? Just a thought.

Monitoring is not an issue and the 1 yr contracts to UDFA's is the main reason for this suggested rules. I'm thinking of just asking Pat to monitor the FA offers. Because we are having issues with him running sims, this could be his main responsibility as co-commish.

[Jake]

Monitoring is not an issue and the 1 yr contracts to UDFA's is the main reason for this suggested rules. I'm thinking of just asking Pat to monitor the FA offers. Because we are having issues with him running sims, this could be his main responsibility as co-commish.

BURN!!! I think.

[Pat]

I would now like to formally step down from my position as OSFL co-com....




I could likely do it. I don't have the game here, but don't most UDFAs ask for 1 year deals?

[Guest]

Won't happen. It will be instituted and hopefully no one will continue to make 1-year offers to non 1-year contract demanding players.

Especially if we develop some sort of penalty.

I hate to say it, but this is incredibly naive. It will happen, and not because anyone is trying to cheat. It will happen because people will just plain forget, or not be paying attention. I am in several leagues with multiple veteran players, and these sorts of rules get broken in every one of them. Theykey is putting a rule in that's easy to police.

This proposal is not.

Sure, someone will probably know what the studs want. But we won't know what the marginal players were requesting. The mistake may happen on a mentor or moderate backup--the kind of player who often requests two years, but may well get signed to a one-year deal. Are you really going to check every single contract of every single FA who gets signed? Because that's what the proposed rule would require...unless we're just gonna have a "rule" that we routinely let people break.

[Pat]

I hate to say it, but this is incredibly naive. It will happen, and not because anyone is trying to cheat. It will happen because people will just plain forget, or not be paying attention. I am in several leagues with multiple veteran players, and these sorts of rules get broken in every one of them. Theykey is putting a rule in that's easy to police.

This proposal is not.

Sure, someone will probably know what the studs want. But we won't know what the marginal players were requesting. The mistake may happen on a mentor or moderate backup--the kind of player who often requests two years, but may well get signed to a one-year deal. Are you really going to check every single contract of every single FA who gets signed? Because that's what the proposed rule would require...unless we're just gonna have a "rule" that we routinely let people break.

1. I was saying "it won't" cause issues.

2. You wouldn't have to check every single contract of every single FA who gets signed. You go to the transaction log, see who signed a 1-year deal, and you go from there. I think it will actually be pretty easy.

[Guest]

2. You wouldn't have to check every single contract of every single FA who gets signed. You go to the transaction log, see who signed a 1-year deal, and you go from there. I think it will actually be pretty easy.

The rule proposed doesn't just apply to one-year deals.

The suggested rule is to only allow offers for the number of years a player requests initially.

We're in the middle of free agency now, so we can't say how many FAs will get contract offers (not just signings....the rule says that offers are illegal). However, well over 200 (maybe 300) have been signed. Under this rule, you'd need to revert to the previous stage for every one of them to determine what they were being offered. *shurg*

[Pat]

Hmmm...you might be right...

Maybe we should just police ourselves?

[bignej]

I think that is the key here. It can be a loosely enforced rule but one that inhibits the ridiulous deals. Everyone knows whats up when a guy signs a 20 mil 1 yr deal. How about a cap on the amount a 1 yr deal can be instead?

[Pat]

Also, the biggest issue isn't signing some backup or mentor...its about that top FA WR who passes up a 5-year $40 million contract, at 32 years old, for a $1 year $10 mill.

[Guest]

Completely eliminating 1 year deals for unrestricted free agents in FA1 would seem to be easy enough to police. Maybe- "any players available in FA1 with single digit experience must be signed to multi year deals"

FA2 should be fine without a rule.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the franchise tag go, but i know thats probably not where we're going with this.

[Guest]

Also, another reason its hard to police multi-year deals based on player request is that different players request different deals from different teams.