[quotedd30fd0="Grid Iron"]This deal makes no sense at all, guys. How is he gonna get that "big" contract?

I [bdd30fd0]guarantee right now[/bdd30fd0] that Butch will NEVER see free agency again until his best days are behind him. He is gonna be franchised (especially if he has the "monster" year he is hoping for), hence he will never get the "big payday", or bonus, he was hoping for.

It seems that the AI doesn't take a potential franchise tag into account for "elite" players, which is something that maybe Jim should add in the next patch/version.

Otherwise, how could any player turn down $17 million in up front money knowing that he will most definitely be franchised if he has the "huge" year he's hoping for.

This will be an interesting thread to see after free agency in 2011. Then we'll know if Butch was a genius or an idiot.

BTW, I don't think the transaction should be reversed and I don't consider it exploiting or cheating. I do think it's a fun discussion.[/quotedd30fd0]

Well I can tell you that it will depend on if he suffers any further hit from his injury, and on his contract demands. If he stays intact, he will be getting a tag and a possible long term deal from Sacramento. If he wants too much money, I'll trade his ass.

*cough* overrated *cough*

_________________
GM of the 2004 CFL Champion Charleston Sixpacks - #1 Hater of Hawaii

ImperialFL Co-commish

The real fix should perhaps be a higher tendency to not sign the offer sheet on a franchised player. Or a highly increased holdout rate. Or fixing the tag so that it actually carries over to any long term deal you reach with that player and cannot be used again while that player is under contract. All things to discourage the use of the franchise tag by owners.

It ironic that we expect Fulton to be smart when looking at contract offers, but are perfectly okay with him being stupid year after year as he continues to play for the franchise tender, isn't it?

_________________

[quoteeef1a3c="Joe"]Well I can tell you that it will depend on if he suffers any further hit from his injury, and on his contract demands. If he stays intact, he will be getting a tag and a possible long term deal from Sacramento. If he wants too much money, I'll trade his ass.[/quoteeef1a3c]

So, you're not gonna just let he walk and be an unrestricted free agent?

But he signed that one-year deal with the hope of getting his BIG PAYDAY next season!

_________________
Former Owner of the Orgeon Ice:
2003 CFL Champions
'03, '04 and '06 Ring of Ice Division Champs

[quote9b2f60f="Grid Iron"][quote9b2f60f="Joe"]Well I can tell you that it will depend on if he suffers any further hit from his injury, and on his contract demands. If he stays intact, he will be getting a tag and a possible long term deal from Sacramento. If he wants too much money, I'll trade his ass.[/quote9b2f60f]

So, you're not gonna just let he walk and be an unrestricted free agent?

But he signed that one-year deal with the hope of getting his BIG PAYDAY next season! [/quote9b2f60f]

Maybe I'll just run him until his legs fall off like I did with Alexis Rounds.

The 1-year contract "exploit" (I'm not entirely sure it is one, hence the quotes) is a known issue and has been discussed already in some other leagues...

The knock on it is that it seems that a 1 year contract with a huge bonus will [b510ace3]always[/b510ace3] be accepted by the player, no matter how high the other offers are.

I'm just sayin'...

_________________
Former Detroit Vampire owner

Great Lakes division champions -2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025
Eastern Conference champions - 2005, 2006, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023
CFL Champions - 2021, 2023

I have no problem with any one year offer. I'm wondering do other leagues have anything in place to police it? I'm not sure what you could do....

I [i10d7fee]think [/i10d7fee]one league put a cap on the allowed bonus to a certain percentage for a 1 year contract.

In the HFL, the following rule 'A GM can not franchise a player signed to a 1-year deal during the Free Agency stages of the previous offseason'
was proposed but rejected by an owner's vote.

I don't really have a problem with these contracts either, as long as they remain the expection and not the norm. Obviously, if everybody starts offering only 1 year contracts, it will take most of the fun away from building a franchise...

_________________
Former Detroit Vampire owner

Great Lakes division champions -2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025
Eastern Conference champions - 2005, 2006, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023
CFL Champions - 2021, 2023

[quote1e5ec00="fantastic flying froggies"]The knock on it is that it seems that a 1 year contract with a huge bonus will [b1e5ec00]always[/b1e5ec00] be accepted by the player, no matter how high the other offers are.[/quote1e5ec00]
For the record, that's not true. I ran some tests a while back to show that one year deals aren't the guarenteed signing like people think...that's why I didn't end up putting in a rule that would disallow the practice.

_________________

I guess since Butch is a Talon legend I'll throw my hat into the ring on this also. Why the hell did he leave? I offered 35 million, where is the loyalty man? lol- ok now that I got that out.

I have no problem with this contract. Just wish he would have resigned here.


[quote271b112="fantastic flying froggies"]

I don't really have a problem with these contracts either, as long as they remain the expection and not the norm. Obviously, if everybody starts offering only 1 year contracts, it will take most of the fun away from building a franchise...[/quote271b112]

This is my only concern as well, if one year deals are thrown around some thats great, I've used them before in other leagues and they can be good for both parties. My issue becomes if like someone said earlier an owner tries to make an entire team on one year deals and has a huge turnover every season. I think that would fall under the cover all rule of "play nice"

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

[quoteacabb0c="Doug5984"]I guess since Butch is a Talon legend I'll throw my hat into the ring on this also. Why the hell did he leave? I offered 35 million, where is the loyalty man? lol- ok now that I got that out.

I have no problem with this contract. Just wish he would have resigned here.


[quoteacabb0c="fantastic flying froggies"]

I don't really have a problem with these contracts either, as long as they remain the expection and not the norm. Obviously, if everybody starts offering only 1 year contracts, it will take most of the fun away from building a franchise...[/quoteacabb0c]

This is my only concern as well, if one year deals are thrown around some thats great, I've used them before in other leagues and they can be good for both parties. My issue becomes if like someone said earlier an owner tries to make an entire team on one year deals and has a huge turnover every season. I think that would fall under the cover all rule of "play nice"[/quoteacabb0c]

I guess it depends on if doing that gives someone an unfair advantage. Does anyone know if someone who did such a thing and acually had some success?

Doesn't sound like a way to build a winner.

_________________
Former Owner of the Orgeon Ice:
2003 CFL Champions
'03, '04 and '06 Ring of Ice Division Champs

[quote9b062a4="Grid Iron"][quote9b062a4="Doug5984"]I guess since Butch is a Talon legend I'll throw my hat into the ring on this also. Why the hell did he leave? I offered 35 million, where is the loyalty man? lol- ok now that I got that out.

I have no problem with this contract. Just wish he would have resigned here.


[quote9b062a4="fantastic flying froggies"]

I don't really have a problem with these contracts either, as long as they remain the expection and not the norm. Obviously, if everybody starts offering only 1 year contracts, it will take most of the fun away from building a franchise...[/quote9b062a4]

This is my only concern as well, if one year deals are thrown around some thats great, I've used them before in other leagues and they can be good for both parties. My issue becomes if like someone said earlier an owner tries to make an entire team on one year deals and has a huge turnover every season. I think that would fall under the cover all rule of "play nice"[/quote9b062a4]

I guess it depends on if doing that gives someone an unfair advantage. Does anyone know if someone who did such a thing and acually had some success?

Doesn't sound like a way to build a winner.[/quote9b062a4]

When I would use it would be for older players who wanted 2-3 year deals with big bonuses, and I was scared of retirment and having to eat all the bonus. I would give them more in the 1 year than they wanted in the first of their original request. I never had much success in that league, and it was more just a way of preventing my team of having a lot of dead cap room. I wouldn't say it gives an advantage so much as just a way of being careful, since you can only franchise 1 player a year you are taking a chance of getting a guy for a year.

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

F*cking Bullsh*t.

The NAFL rule is the best one I have ever seen and is necessary.

_________________


Trample On!

[quote593e29c="General Mike"]F*cking Bullsh*t.

The NAFL rule is the best one I have ever seen and is necessary.[/quote593e29c]

What's the rule?

_________________
Former Owner of the Orgeon Ice:
2003 CFL Champions
'03, '04 and '06 Ring of Ice Division Champs

This is the NAFL rule:

**Due to a game bug that allows Free Agents to accept 1 yr. deals over multi-year contract offers, the following rule is in place in the NAFL: Any free agent asking for 3 or more years MUST be offered a contract for at least 3 years until Week 15 of Free Agency. From Week 15 on, any contract may be offered.

Any GM violating this rule will have the player immediately cut (thus penalizing with bonus payment) and will also lose a draft pick at the Commissioner's discretion.

[quote8e59019="timmynausea"]This is the NAFL rule:

**Due to a game [b8e59019]bug[/b8e59019] that allows Free Agents to accept 1 yr. deals over multi-year contract offers, the following rule is in place in the NAFL: Any free agent asking for 3 or more years MUST be offered a contract for at least 3 years until Week 15 of Free Agency. From Week 15 on, any contract may be offered.

Any GM violating this rule will have the player immediately cut (thus penalizing with bonus payment) and will also lose a draft pick at the Commissioner's discretion.[/quote8e59019]

Disagree

[quotef0c4e57="VPI97"]
For the record, that's not true. I ran some tests a while back to show that one year deals aren't the guarenteed signing like people think...that's why I didn't end up putting in a rule that would disallow the practice.[/quotef0c4e57]

I trust VPI's tests, and would disagree with it being a bug as well. Maybe a design flaw, but I wouldn't say a bug- as long as it doesn't become a huge problem I have no problem with these contracts.

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

[quote9001fbb="Aylmar"]The real fix should perhaps be a higher tendency to not sign the offer sheet on a franchised player. Or a highly increased holdout rate. Or fixing the tag so that it actually carries over to any long term deal you reach with that player and cannot be used again while that player is under contract. All things to discourage the use of the franchise tag by owners.

It ironic that we expect Fulton to be smart when looking at contract offers, but are perfectly okay with him being stupid year after year as he continues to play for the franchise tender, isn't it?[/quote9001fbb]

Agreed. However, I'm not OK with him being stupid year after year accepting to play for the franchise tender. Erwin Koch, playing for us is a great example. I franchised his ass three years ago, letting him play out the franchise tender. Then last year I franchise him, hoping to sign him to a multi-year contract (due to cap limitations), but he won't sign with me. Instead of holding out, he plays another and allows me to franchise him again. Granted, I'm trying to move his ass, but I'm in the spot where if I don't get a good offer for him, I'll let him play out another franchise tag. He won't hold out because he doesn't want to re-sign with me. This is definitly an area of the game that needs to be fixed. Oh, yeah and offer sheets for restricted free agents - fix that, too.

_________________

Deep South Division Champions
2006, 2009-10, 2019, 2023-24, 2027, 2031-32, 2034-35, 2040, 2044, 2046-47, 2051-53, 2055-56, 2058-62
Eastern Conference Champions
2009, 2031, 2055
CFL Champions
2031, 2055
Hall of Fame
Joshua Mask, Douglas Hartman, Carl Bradford, Leland Wellins, Wally Wooden (#80), Brantley Gilmore (#9), Mo Kirwan, Josh Stanton, Efrain Tate

[quote1e45367="Doug5984"][quote1e45367="Grid Iron"][quote1e45367="Doug5984"]I guess since Butch is a Talon legend I'll throw my hat into the ring on this also. Why the hell did he leave? I offered 35 million, where is the loyalty man? lol- ok now that I got that out.

I have no problem with this contract. Just wish he would have resigned here.


[quote1e45367="fantastic flying froggies"]

I don't really have a problem with these contracts either, as long as they remain the expection and not the norm. Obviously, if everybody starts offering only 1 year contracts, it will take most of the fun away from building a franchise...[/quote1e45367]

This is my only concern as well, if one year deals are thrown around some thats great, I've used them before in other leagues and they can be good for both parties. My issue becomes if like someone said earlier an owner tries to make an entire team on one year deals and has a huge turnover every season. I think that would fall under the cover all rule of "play nice"[/quote1e45367]

I guess it depends on if doing that gives someone an unfair advantage. Does anyone know if someone who did such a thing and acually had some success?

Doesn't sound like a way to build a winner.[/quote1e45367]

When I would use it would be for older players who wanted 2-3 year deals with big bonuses, and I was scared of retirment and having to eat all the bonus. I would give them more in the 1 year than they wanted in the first of their original request. I never had much success in that league, and it was more just a way of preventing my team of having a lot of dead cap room. I wouldn't say it gives an advantage so much as just a way of being careful, since you can only franchise 1 player a year you are taking a chance of getting a guy for a year.[/quote1e45367]

Dola -

This is exactly what a 1 year contract should be used for. Get that 17 year veteran tackle to play for another year without exposing yourself to the cap risk of retirement. I don't agree with the NAFL rule - it's too restrictive.

_________________

Deep South Division Champions
2006, 2009-10, 2019, 2023-24, 2027, 2031-32, 2034-35, 2040, 2044, 2046-47, 2051-53, 2055-56, 2058-62
Eastern Conference Champions
2009, 2031, 2055
CFL Champions
2031, 2055
Hall of Fame
Joshua Mask, Douglas Hartman, Carl Bradford, Leland Wellins, Wally Wooden (#80), Brantley Gilmore (#9), Mo Kirwan, Josh Stanton, Efrain Tate

[quotef768f15="Raven Hawk"]
Dola -

This is exactly what a 1 year contract should be used for. Get that 17 year veteran tackle to play for another year without exposing yourself to the cap risk of retirement. I don't agree with the NAFL rule - it's too restrictive.[/quotef768f15]

17 year tackles will never ask for more than a two year contract and the rule only applies to guys asking for at least a 3 year deal. I think 12 or 13 years is the cut off. Guys older than that only ask for 2 or 1 year deals.

I know if the NAFL had not implemented that rule one of the teams would've signed several big name free agents to one year deals all of whom had multi-year offers that were over the player's original asking price. We had to halt free agency and decide on how to handle the situation.

Basically the rule applies to star players in their prime that in real life get multi-year deals 99% of the time.

I don't see a problem here.

Was the player's decision interesting and curious? Yes.

Was there any harm or intent to do harm? No.

If this becomes a problem, I believe the commissioner has the authority to make the executive decision based strictly on our "sportsmanship" clause in the constitution.

I say game on.

BTW, I need to go adjust some of my offers for tomorrow's export...

Relax, I'm joking. Besides, free agents never want to come to Vegas regrdless of what I offer. Hey Fonz, did you get those slander lawsuit papers served to your office yet?

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quote046cef7="TurfToe"]Hey Fonz, did you get those slander lawsuit papers served to your office yet? [/quote046cef7]

If by [i046cef7]slander lawsuit papers[/i046cef7] you mean [i046cef7]hot lesbian three-way[/i046cef7], then yes, I did get those served at my office. That was very thoughtful of you to send them, thank you.

And I agree with you - I don't see a problem with Joe's offer. Fulton made a weird decision, but it isn't anywhere near weird enough to justify a "do-over." A reasoned consideration of rules changes, possibly, but I don't even think we need to rush into that. Let's take our time and think about it.

That said, I certainly hope this type of offer remains the exception rather than the rule, as the way Jim has modeled player decision-making clearly hasn't taken into account the looming threat of the franchise tag. One more thing for Jim to think about in coding the next FOF.

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025

I offered the same contract to a player in another league today and look what happened:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/player/player.php?playerid=1772

OMG they do turn down 1 year deals!

[quote3159110="Joe"]I offered the same contract to a player in another league today and look what happened:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/player/player.php?playerid=1772

OMG they do turn down 1 year deals![/quote3159110]

I just think it'd be weird if everyone started doing it. I guess it is unclear exactly how much of an advantage it is to offer one year contracts. It seems to greatly lower the risk for a GM going after a star player, so I'd say it's a great strategy as long as everyone is ok with it.

[quote7d5a6e3="Joe"]I offered the same contract to a player in another league today and look what happened:

http://www.fof-ihof.com/player/player.php?playerid=1772

OMG they do turn down 1 year deals![/quote7d5a6e3]

I'm very glad to hear that actually.

BTW, when did you join the IHOF? I didn't know about that, congrats!