http://www.thecfl.us/forum/

Free agency 2 is don
http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2360		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Taco [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:08 am ]
Post subject:  Free agency 2 is don
New league file: http://www.thecfl.net/cfl.zip

Upcoming schedule (all sims at 6am EST):
Thu, 4/6 - Free agency 3
Fri, 4/7 - Free agency 4
Sat, 4/8 - Free agency 5
Sun, 4/9 - Free agency 6
Mon, 4/10 - Free agency 7-8, draft starts
Tue, 4/11 - Free agency 9-12, draft continues
Wed, 4/12 - Free agency 13-16, draft continues
Author:  Joe [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:17 am ]
Post subject: 
Welcome to Sacramento, Butch Fulton!
Author:  wademoore [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:11 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote9dedf77="Joe"]Welcome to Sacramento, Butch Fulton![/quote9dedf77]

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting...
Author:  Raven Hawk [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:51 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote16fd38a="Joe"]Welcome to Sacramento, Butch Fulton![/quote16fd38a]

That was sneaky . . . I wonder if he's got a no-franchise clause in his contract . . .
Author:  timmynausea [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Great move by Sacramento to get Fulton. What's up with him turning down the huge offer (43.62 over 5 years) from San Antonio for a one year deal, though? We had to change the rules in the NAFL because someone tried to sign all their free agents to one year deals with big bonuses.
Author:  timmynausea [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:24 am ]
Post subject: 
In fact, I shouldn't say they "tried" to sign all their free agents to one year deals. They did do it. Apparently there is something of an AI flaw and the free agents will take the one year deal every time, which is pretty much entirely unrealisitc.
Author:  Fonzie [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:26 am ]
Post subject: 
[quotece6a17f="timmynausea"]In fact, I shouldn't say they "tried" to sign all their free agents to one year deals. They did do it. Apparently there is something of an AI flaw and the free agents will take the one year deal every time, which is pretty much entirely unrealisitc.[/quotece6a17f]

Yeah, I've noticed that too. One year deals with relatively large bonuses will win out over longer deals with bigger bonuses (almost) every time.
Author:  Joe [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:33 am ]
Post subject: 
probably because the 1-year bonus is larger than the prorated bonus of the other contracts. I like offering contracts such as this if I have the space and need a player and want to bring him in for a year before committing long-term. But I'd have no problem if there was a rule in place as long as it was sensible.
Author:  Grid Iron [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:49 am ]
Post subject: 
What was the bonus offered by San Antonio?

If it was $6 or 7 mil for a long-term deal, the one-year deal for a $5 million bonus makes sense to me.

Now if San Antonio's bonus was $10-15 million, then the one-year deal makes so sense at all. Unless Butch is really cocky.
Author:  Fonzie [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 7:55 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote1d5c288="Grid Iron"]Unless Butch is really cocky.[/quote1d5c288]

With a name like "Butch" he'd pretty much have to be, right? I think it's in the Name Manual somewhere - if your name is "Butch," "Bad Larry," or "Chuck" you are required to be cocky.
Author:  Raven Hawk [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:01 am ]
Post subject: 
As much as I can understand Fulton not wanting to go to that cesspool that is San Antonio, the Stingers got jobbed.

Bonuses are prorated only for cap calculation reasons. Bonuses are "Guaranteed" money for the player and in essence paid to them when they sign the contract. If San Antonio's offer included a normal sized signing bonus, there is not a chance that Fulton goes to Sacramento. Sacramento's offer was better than the other two offers out there, but nowhere near what San Antonio was offering (unless, of course, Shooter is a cheap bastard and didn't pony up a decent signing bonus . . . which is entirely possible).

However, just because I think that San Antonio got jobbed, that doesn't mean that I think Sacramento was in the wrong with their offer. It just means that I don't agree with how the software chose the offer.

But this is just my opinion. Take it for what it is.
Author:  Grid Iron [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:03 am ]
Post subject: 
We really can't draw any conclusions about the software, however, until we know what he bonus was.

SHOOTER, WHERE ARE YOU!?!?
Author:  TurfToe [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:56 am ]
Post subject: 
Does the injury play any part of this?

A lot of free agents don't want long term deals because they want to prove themselves. Would Butch's injury play a part in him taking the short term deal?

If it did, I would think he wouldn't be requesting the multi-year deal to begin with.

Shooter, what was the structure of the deal you offered?
Author:  GoldenEagle [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Why did Tulsa even let Fulton test the market?
Author:  Fonzie [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:36 am ]
Post subject: 
[quoteecedd29="GoldenEagle"]Why did Tulsa even let Fulton test the market?[/quoteecedd29]

Operator error.
Author:  Joe [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:53 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote19e565a="Raven Hawk"]

Bonuses are prorated only for cap calculation reasons.
[/quote19e565a]

Is that fact or speculation? I don't know if the first years of contracts are considered evenly by the AI. I'd think it wouldn't weigh as heavily as the total amount, but I'd have to think there was some consideration.
Author:  Shooter [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 
I offered his asking price, flat out. It was for a $17,000,000 bonus over 5 years plus a yearly decent salary. Total value was around $43,000,000. I don't have the game here at work, but I can check more specifics when I get home.

I was trying to steal him a week before he wanted to sign and figured after a measily $25 Mil offer, his base asking price wouldn't be too bad.

It was a stab to get a top tier running back in the fold behind a offensive line that kept San Antonio at or near the top of the league in rushing with a below average running back.
Author:  Shooter [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Let me add some thoughts as well.

I am not asking for this to be looked into. If it is a matter of exploiting a bug or something then I will leave the matter in the hands of the league commish. I do feel that the player was offered and accepted a fair deal. A $5,000,000 signing bonus for 1 year is nothing to sneeze at. On a yearly average it is more than what I offered.

I would hate to see an owner have issues for getting creative with the salary cap and thinking "outside the box" from the league.

I also accepted a trade with Cleveland based on not getting Mr. Fulton. To avoid integrity issues, I would prefer not to go back on a deal with another owner.
Author:  Raven Hawk [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:49 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote7992e23="Joe"][quote7992e23="Raven Hawk"]

Bonuses are prorated only for cap calculation reasons.
[/quote7992e23]

Is that fact or speculation? I don't know if the first years of contracts are considered evenly by the AI. I'd think it wouldn't weigh as heavily as the total amount, but I'd have to think there was some consideration.[/quote7992e23]

Fact. You can validate it if you keep track of signing bonuses spent during a season and compare it to the balance sheet the following season.
Author:  wademoore [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:46 am ]
Post subject: 
To me this is totally legit. As a player, being locked up for 5 years and only having a 17 mil bonus vs. 1 year, 5 mil, and a chance for another deal at the end of the season is not outrageous at all. I think that there are many players in real life that would at least consider a similar option.
Author:  TurfToe [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:59 am ]
Post subject: 
[quote2c24176="wademoore"]To me this is totally legit. As a player, being locked up for 5 years and only having a 17 mil bonus vs. 1 year, 5 mil, and a chance for another deal at the end of the season is not outrageous at all. I think that there are many players in real life that would at least consider a similar option.[/quote2c24176]

That was my point, especially coming off of surgery. If he produces, a $43m package will be nothing if he kicks out 1600 yards this season.

Shooter is right, if he offered the asking price, it was a $43m deal with a $17m-and-change bonus.
Author:  Aylmar [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
[quotea7a7aa0="wademoore"]To me this is totally legit. As a player, being locked up for 5 years and only having a 17 mil bonus vs. 1 year, 5 mil, and a chance for another deal at the end of the season is not outrageous at all. I think that there are many players in real life that would at least consider a similar option.[/quotea7a7aa0]

Plus, this is what, Fulton's 8th season? This payday (and now that he has a one year deal, the next) are his chance to grab for the big money. The infamous third contract. From a player perspective, I agree this deal makes sense for Fulton. If I had $6 million on the table for one season (and barring serious injury, probably at least that much again next season), I know I'd take it.
Author:  thater [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
[quoteb134d1b="wademoore"]To me this is totally legit. As a player, being locked up for 5 years and only having a 17 mil bonus vs. 1 year, 5 mil, and a chance for another deal at the end of the season is not outrageous at all. I think that there are many players in real life that would at least consider a similar option.[/quoteb134d1b]

The idea of taking a nice payday one year, and hoping to test the market again happens alot in baseball, but not nearly as much in football because of the franchise tag. Players are worried about it. I can see him hoping to hit the FA again next year and getting a nice deal, but what does he have to prove. His health shouldn't be a problem, and he was the MVP, offensive player of the year, and 1st team RB. Is he waiting to have a good year? Either way, I don't think the contract is wrong or bad, just odd for the year he just had.
Author:  wademoore [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
[quotecbba8eb="thater"][quotecbba8eb="wademoore"]To me this is totally legit. As a player, being locked up for 5 years and only having a 17 mil bonus vs. 1 year, 5 mil, and a chance for another deal at the end of the season is not outrageous at all. I think that there are many players in real life that would at least consider a similar option.[/quotecbba8eb]

The idea of taking a nice payday one year, and hoping to test the market again happens alot in baseball, but not nearly as much in football because of the franchise tag. Players are worried about it. I can see him hoping to hit the FA again next year and getting a nice deal, but what does he have to prove. His health shouldn't be a problem, and he was the MVP, offensive player of the year, and 1st team RB. Is he waiting to have a good year? Either way, I don't think the contract is wrong or bad, just odd for the year he just had.[/quotecbba8eb]

My thought actually as to why this doesn't happen in the NFL is the owners don't want to do it. In baseball, one year deals benefit the owners too because the contract is guaranteed, but not in football, so the owners get the upper hand with longer deals vs. baseball where the player gets the upper hand.
Author:  Grid Iron [ Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
This deal makes no sense at all, guys. How is he gonna get that "big" contract?

I [b0d3b783]guarantee right now[/b0d3b783] 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. :lol:

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.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/