2009 SUGGESTED NEW RULES - PLEASE READ!

[Guest]

I'll be running the dual punter backfield -- it will catch everyone offguard

[Guest]

I like option 4, and I think we should make the deal a minimum 3 years for 8 years experience or less. This seems to be the general offer given in the nfl to most FAs that aren't either big name FAs or retreads looking for a retirement home or a ticket to jail.

2 years is good too, but I think three is the magic number.

I'm also fine with removing the franchise tag or limiting it to players who have been with a team more than 2 years.

[aholbert]

Oh, and for the record, I don't think this is a bad algorithm at all for young or mid-career players like the guy I just signed, particularly when one considers how rare career-limiting injuries are in FOF MP compared to real life. The RB I signed will likely make *more* money over the course of his career because he signed the deal I offered him, since he'll be a FA next year and get another big bonus. The issue isn't that it's a bad algorithm; it's that we throw money around in FOF like real-life guys would never do, since it's not real money. Nothing can be done about that.

I have to disagree. If its purely a monetary decision than yes he stands to make 10 million this year which is probably more than more than the other teams offered in year 1. With that said, there is a reason Perkins (and a player in real life) would ask for a 4 yr deal. He is risking future FA money by becoming a backup and getting less money next year. If he runs for 500 yds next year, I doubt anyone is going to pay him 10 mil next year. Lets say he accepted Portland's deal for 4 yr, 40 mil. Even if he has a horrible year, he is pretty much guaranteed to see 3 yrs of that contract because Portland would be hesitant to cut him and take the huge cap hit. From the team's side, a 1 yr deal makes plenty of sense (It was a good move by CLB to sign him) but from Perkins perspective it makes very little sense.


I dont want this league to get to the point where people are only offering bonus heavy 1 yr deals because they know the game looks to bonus and first year salary first. The more I think about it, the more i'm leaning for only allowing offers that are equal or over the amount being demanded by players on the Grey Sheet (top 75 FA) Maybe we lower the number to Top 50 FA or top 25 but I think this restriction needs to be enacted.

[Pat]

I have to disagree. If its purely a monetary decision than yes he stands to make 10 million this year which is probably more than more than the other teams offered in year 1. With that said, there is a reason Perkins (and a player in real life) would ask for a 4 yr deal. He is risking future FA money by becoming a backup and getting less money next year. If he runs for 500 yds next year, I doubt anyone is going to pay him 10 mil next year. Lets say he accepted Portland's deal for 4 yr, 40 mil. Even if he has a horrible year, he is pretty much guaranteed to see 3 yrs of that contract because Portland would be hesitant to cut him and take the huge cap hit. From the team's side, a 1 yr deal makes plenty of sense (It was a good move by CLB to sign him) but from Perkins perspective it makes very little sense.

100% Agree. Plus, maybe he thinks he is a product of the system in Phoenix? He would of really wanted to make the money he could when he was coming off one of the best seasons ever by a RB in the OSFL.

[Guest]

Nope. Again, we're talking FOF economy, not real-life economy. There's tons of extra cap room to cut a guy like him. He gets cut, then someone else with tons of cap room signs him to another big contract. The only way in FOF-land he doesn't make the big bucks next year is if he gets a ratings-reducing injury. And those are so rare now that it's not really a concern.

It can be argued that the algorithm isn't the best thing for league balance, but given the whole of the system, it most certainly gets players the most money (assuming people understand the system and react accordingly.)

[Guest]

Most of the leagues I'm in have a rule against one year contract offers. . .it's one of the reasons why I go after udfa's with multi year contracts and signing bonuses.

They make more than the drafted rookies that were picked in the lower rounds, but that's my money and my choice.

But I'm all for a league that's not highly encumbered by extra rules. . now if the commish wants to do it, then it's okay with me. ..

I mean, it's still only a game. ..

[Bigsmooth]

I'll go on the record as being down for whatever.

[aholbert]

Nope. Again, we're talking FOF economy, not real-life economy. There's tons of extra cap room to cut a guy like him. He gets cut, then someone else with tons of cap room signs him to another big contract. The only way in FOF-land he doesn't make the big bucks next year is if he gets a ratings-reducing injury. And those are so rare now that it's not really a concern.

It can be argued that the algorithm isn't the best thing for league balance, but given the whole of the system, it most certainly gets players the most money (assuming people understand the system and react accordingly.)

It depends on what you mean by another big contract. I dont see a ton of owners offering Perkins (a RB rated in the 50s) a 10 mil a year contract if he has a subpar year with CLB especially with the doubts people have about his stats being inflated because of Phoenix. I know I wouldnt. I think he makes around 6-8 million next year if he has an above average year. So instead of a guaranteed 20 mil plus (40 mil plus if he plays the 4 yrs) in Portland or Charlotte, he took 10 mil to become a backup and risks making less next year.

Even in a FOF economy, I dont think I (or most owners) would cut Perkins after 1 yr if I was going to take a cap hit of more than 3 or 4 mil a year unless they had to because there were other cap issues. So unless Perkins has a killer year as a backup, he probably lost out on 2-3 million minimum over the next two years.

[aholbert]

Most of the leagues I'm in have a rule against one year contract offers. . .it's one of the reasons why I go after udfa's with multi year contracts and signing bonuses.

They make more than the drafted rookies that were picked in the lower rounds, but that's my money and my choice.

But I'm all for a league that's not highly encumbered by extra rules. . now if the commish wants to do it, then it's okay with me. ..

I mean, it's still only a game. ..

I totally agree that its only a game. I just dont want to play a game that feels cheesy and if I think I can sign any big free agent by just throwing a bonus heavy 1 yr deal at them...that just feels cheesy.

One other point for everyone here. I dont intend to make this league rule heavy. In the 7 seasons of this league, I think we've added 4 rules and all of them were good for the league imo. Some people pushed back on shortening the draft time limits as much as we did but I think we can agree that was a success. Same goes with no midweek sims in Preseason and the roster minimum. Whatever we decide to do I think it wont be much of a problem.

[Clay]

It's CHANGE we can depend on! ;)

[aholbert]

OK...I was going to leave this open until Sunday but a big majority agrees that something should be done about the one year contracts. I've come to a decision on how we should handle this and while everyone may not agree with it, I think its the best way to resolve it.

The new rule is that players on the Grey Sheet (the top 75 FA) are only allowed to be offered a 1 or 2 yr deal if the player asks for it.

At the beginning of the FA period, Pat and I will document the number of years each player is requesting. Any offer of 1 or 2 yrs will be immediately withdrawn if the player does not ask for it. If the player accepts the invalid offer before an owner is able to withdraw the offer, the owner will be forced to immediately cut the player and will take the cap hit as a penalty.

If a player on the GS requests a 1 or 2 yr deal, an owner is free to offer him a contract of that length. 3 yrs is the magic number. If a player asks for a 4 or 5 yr deal, Owners are permitted to offer him a 3 yr deal. This rule does not apply to any player not on the GS or to UDFAs.

I didnt want to eliminate 1 or 2 yr contacts as a whole for UFAs because there are many FAs who want to sign those contracts. I didnt want to eliminate 1 yrs for players on the GS because there are plenty of players from 25-75 who want to sign one years. I also thought that forcing every player available in FA1 with single digit experience to be signed to multi year deals was too restrictive. There are players with 5-8 yrs experience who just want to sign for 1 yr.

I think this is the the least restrictive way to lessen the effect of the bonus heavy 1 yr offers and will add needed realism to the FA process. I also think its a very easy rule to follow. Let me know if you have any questions.

[aholbert]

One last thing:

Like any rule if it doesnt work or its too cumbersome, we can always change it in the future. The rule doesnt go into effect until next offseason.

[Clay]

Do we know for sure that a player's demands are the same for every team?

After you and Pat review the list, will you post a list of players and what their parameters are?

[Guest]

Do we know for sure that a player's demands are the same for every team?

Yes, they are.

[aholbert]

Do we know for sure that a player's demands are the same for every team?

After you and Pat review the list, will you post a list of players and what their parameters are?

Ive heard different things. Ive heard and read at FOFC that the years are the same but that the money they demand can differ but someone posted in this thread that the years can be different.

From experience, I think that the years are the same. There is a reason why most FA offers are for the same # of years. Take Perkins for example, he had 8 offers and only 1 was for anything other than 4 yrs. It appears to be the same with others FA from this year's offseason.

Yes we will.