New Renegotiation Rule

[Aston]

Yeah, it'll replace the old one, but don't go changing it just yet.

ONLY if they are on the Grey Sheet (list of 75 or so top FAs), in which case you have to at least offer them the years they request. I think you can offer them longer contracts, just not shorter ones. Of course, if they aren't on the Grey Sheet, you can offer whatever you please. We should put this into the Rules list for clarity.

Speaking of which, I realized in typing this that I broke that rule with this export, and now I have to go back and re-do mine! Go hypocrisy x.x

[Guest]

Looks like I was ok except for 1-2 guys. It worked out though, I forgot to offer a contract to one guy that I wanted to. :)

[Guest]

I think there's also 'you can't offer a Grey Sheet (or was it Green List?...) recruit less years than what he asks for.'

but this is the main thing at this point about UFA's bo mega 1 year deals guys

[BradZ]

We're rolling up fast on the end of the season so it's a natural time to start thinking about/discussing any potential rules changes that may be warranted.

We have quite a bit of experienced new blood that has joined the league recently so any input from anyone is welcomed. I'm posting in this particular thread because it is probably one of our more prominent "outside-the-game" restrictions, with the other being the Grey Sheet FA offer restriction. Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts, please share. Thanks!

[Guest]

I would scrap the "grey sheet" completely --- and just go with 3 year contracts required for all of FA1 --- alot simpler to check for the commish and still accomplishes the intent

[Aston]

I haven't minded either of these rules so I'd have little problem with the status quo. That said:

The big issue with the Grey Sheet Rule is that it's easiest to forget, it's hard to search through the list, and different teams will sometimes see different asking terms and years from the same FA targets.

1-year contracts do undercut the longer contracts, and it does seem cheap, but it isn't without a price: those players will be back in FA next year. I wouldn't mind the Grey Sheet rule if the bidding wars didn't get so crazy anyway. Year limit or not, they get as crazy as cap space will allow.

Reneg rule -- Personally I almost never want to renegotiate before the last year anyway. I think the original intent of this rule was for rookies: if you select a bust, you can't cheaply lower your salary cap hit by re-signing to lesser deals year after year.

I don't think that is such a big problem. It can reduce the cap hit, but all it does is add even more bonus to what you already paid the guy, making it more expensive to cut him if you wanted to. It isn't really gaming the system. Besides, the amount of cap scrimped from rookies is small potatoes compared to the real heavy hitters against the cap, which are veteran re-negotiations (they are going to ask a LOT, especially QBs) and FA imports. It would help teams to be able to renegotiate those as they need to.

I think as big as FA wars get no matter what the rules, there's no reason to make the consequences of them even more damaging to teams than they already can be. It is easy enough to land in cap trouble - don't want to make the potential for franchise-killing to be so high.

Mostly I think we should keep it simple. Rules that exist have to be good for competitive balance and things like that; otherwise. With these, I am not sure there is a clear-cut or significant gain in that - anymore, at least.

But please, if there are angles to this I am missing, please be sure to raise them!

[Plastic]

my two cents:

I think these rules help the continuity of the league a little too. It helps curb a new owner coming in and renegotiating the hell out of contracts, and giving a bunch of one-year high bonus deals and then bolting and leaving the team in financial ruins for the next owner.

That being said...I have always been against the grey sheet rule but I also don't like the unrealistic high bonus one-year deals you can get without some sort of rule about contracts.

I am all for the renegotiation rule: you offered the contract and you have to honor it unless you're willing to cut the player, trade him, or wait the contract out till you can renegotiate.

[Guest]

i think the grey sheet rule is the best way to deal with it. i mean last year i didnt put in the highest offer for allen rose, there were a lot of "shadow offers" as one owner put it i just held my ground and i got him in the long run. and paid him the same that i paid Isaac andrews

the problem is these "shadow offers" that some owners make to inflate the bidding wars contracts that have almost no bouns money but are ridiculously high. and since you cant stop guys from making those offers youll have the bidding wars like we saw a few seasons back for some CB cant think of his name

[mike17]

Thoughts on the rules:

The grey sheet one is fine with me. Several other leagues I'm in do something similar, requiring 3-year deals to all unrestricted free agents.

The renegotiation rule I am not so keen on... The main problem I have is; say you give a 55 rated guy a nice contract and then he drops to 35-40 in camp, or if you draft a bust with a 1st round pick. Now you are either forced to cut the guy because he is not worth the contract you gave him, or deal with the big cap hit for a few years before you can renegotiate. This doesn't seem realistic. If a guy starts under-performing what he gets paid, it makes sense that he would take a lesser contract to avoid getting cut.

[Guest]

i think its very realistic guys get cut after signing big contracts
sean alexander in seattle is the most recen example that comes to mind and the raiders just ate a crapload of jemarcus russelles contract. david gerrard just a few days ago was cut to save 9 mil

[Guest]

I think 3 year deals required through FA1 is easy to enforce and very similar to the grey sheet rule. If you want to put any cap on it, I think it should be that we require 3 year deals for any player with less than 11 years of experience.

I don't think we should eliminate the rule entirely and allow one year deals, because I think there should be some risk involved when signing players. If everyone signs to a one year deal, we will have the same cycle of players hitting FA every year and the same teams bidding the same insane amounts on them. People won't offer a 40 million a year contract to someone if they have to sign them for 3 years at a minimum. And if they do make such an offer, that money will be tied up for the next 3 years as a consequence. It brings more strategy to the table when renegotiating with your own players and determining who to try and acquire and when its ok to let a guy go sign elsewhere.

[Aston]

Putting a 3-year deal limit on all of FA1 doesn't make much sense to me. It makes sense for the better players, but not for the not so good ones. If you want to bring in a 6th year, 23/23 team leader, you have to give him a 3-year deal with a bonus?

I am sold on the argument though on 1-year deals and I guess I'll have to reverse my earlier position on the 1-year deals. In the CyFL, I haven't seen crazy one year offers like that in FA1, but it could happen.

How about this for a middle ground: 3 year minimum on any Grey Sheet player in FA1? I think the Grey Sheet may be the same for everyone. Just that contract demands are sometimes different. This would be a way of normalizing it, and 3 is a good number.

And by the time time FA2 comes around, open hunting.

[Guest]

so you think the 3 year deal in addtion to the grey sheet rule?

[Aston]

I think Julio was saying 3-year rule in lieu of the Grey Sheet Rule.

I was saying make the Grey Sheet rule "3 years or more" instead of "what they are asking for or more".

In any case I now think minimal change is probably best. Until we come across a big reason to I guess.

[mike17]

I think it should be one or the other. Too many rules makes my head hurt. In response to giving 3 year deals to below average players, they are likely to want a minimal bonus (30k) if they are truely poor players