:: Possible contract ru

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

Possible contract ru http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3607	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Doug5984 [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:47 am ]
Post subject:	Possible contract ru
If you missed the other discussion check it out- but this is just a feeler to see where we need to go with this...

Author:	TurfToe [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:02 am ]
Post subject:
I voted and would like to add that whatever rule we come up with should be applied to FA only, so as not to restrict restructuring and other contract perspectives that have, do, or might come up.

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:03 am ]
Post subject:
[quotef7b7a67="TurfToe"]I voted and would like to add that whatever rule we come up with should be applied to FA only, so as not to restrict restructuring and other contract perspectives that have, do, or might come up.[/quotef7b7a67] yes yes

Author:	JJ Smitty [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:08 am ]
Post subject:
[quotedaaed2b="TurfToe"]I voted and would like to add that whatever rule we come up with should be applied to FA only, so as not to restrict restructuring and other contract perspectives that have, do, or might come up.[/quotedaaed2b] Agreed..

Author:	Doug5984 [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:17 am ]
Post subject:
[quotef2573e0="TurfToe"]I voted and would like to add that whatever rule we come up with should be applied to FA only, so as not to restrict restructuring and other contract perspectives that have, do, or might come up.[/quotef2573e0] I agree with that, should have made that an option as well.

Author:	Hoosier [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:
one year contracts okay, limits on bonuses, and only in free agency stages and not restricted free agents.

Author:	Shooter [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote68d5259="Hoosier"]one year contracts okay, limits on bonuses, and only in free agency stages and not restricted free agents.[/quote68d5259] ???

Author:	Stretch [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:03 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteaab49bf="TurfToe"]I voted and would like to add that whatever rule we come up with should be applied to FA only, so as not to restrict restructuring and other contract perspectives that have, do, or might come up.[/quoteaab49bf] Agree.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:
I think the best wording would be any rule we come up with [b5e1980f]Only applies to unrestricted free agents[/b5e1980f]

Author:	wademoore [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote75917dc="Doug5984"]I think the best wording would be any rule we come up with [b75917dc]Only applies to unrestricted free agents[/b75917dc][/quote75917dc] Actually, I'd say unrestricted Free Agents in FA-1 ... otherwise (mainly for option 2 here) it gets real tricky in relation to undrafted rookies.

Author:	Hoosier [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote="Shooter"][quotee52b466="Hoosier"]one year contracts okay, limits on bonuses, and only in free agency stages and not restricted free agents.[/quotee52b466] ???[/quote I suppose writing it correctly would have made it clearly. I believe one year contracts are okay, but only on restricted free agents, not the unrestricted or undrafted free agents.

Author:	Shooter [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:
While I did vote for one of the first 2 options, I also feel we need to limit this to unrestricted free agents and not limit it to any stage. The rule should apply to all FA rounds.

Author:	wademoore [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:32 am ]
Post subject:
[quote10ec59f="Shooter"]While I did vote for one of the first 2 options, I also feel we need to limit this to unrestricted free agents and not limit it to any stage. The rule should apply to all FA rounds.[/quote10ec59f] That's fine for rule #1, but for rule #2 - how do you handle all of the undrafted rookies?

Author:	Raven Hawk [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:37 am ]
Post subject:
[quoteacfc20a="wademoore"][quoteacfc20a="Shooter"]While I did vote for one of the first 2 options, I also feel we need to limit this to unrestricted free agents and not limit it to any stage. The rule should apply to all FA rounds.[/quoteacfc20a] That's fine for rule #1, but for rule #2 - how do you handle all of the undrafted rookies?[/quoteacfc20a] I guess I'm not aware of what benefit could be derived from offering a rookie a 1 year deal. For the most part they are reasonable offers. It behooves you to make longer offers to rookies because you have exclusive negotiating rights to that player. The 1-year contract exploit only seems to be an exploit when trying to draw talent in a competitive bidding process.

Author:	wademoore [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:14 am ]
Post subject:
[quote8134e6a="Raven Hawk"][quote8134e6a="wademoore"][quote8134e6a="Shooter"]While I did vote for one of the first 2 options, I also feel we need to limit this to unrestricted free agents and not limit it to any stage. The rule should apply to all FA rounds.[/quote8134e6a] That's fine for rule #1, but for rule #2 - how do you handle all of the undrafted rookies?[/quote8134e6a] I guess I'm not aware of what benefit could be derived from offering a rookie a 1 year deal. For the most part they are reasonable offers. It behooves you to make longer offers to rookies because you have exclusive negotiating rights to that player. The 1-year contract exploit only seems to be an exploit when trying to draw talent in a competitive bidding process.[/quote8134e6a] key word there is undrafted rookie.. Undrafted rookies all ask for 1 year deals.

Author:	Raven Hawk [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:41 am ]
Post subject:
[quotee3dbbaf="wademoore"][quotee3dbbaf="Raven Hawk"][quotee3dbbaf="wademoore"][quotee3dbbaf="Shooter"]While I did vote for one of the first 2 options, I also feel we need to limit this to unrestricted free agents and not limit it to any stage. The rule should apply to all FA rounds.[/quotee3dbbaf] That's fine for rule #1, but for rule #2 - how do you handle all of the undrafted rookies?[/quotee3dbbaf] I guess I'm not aware of what benefit could be derived from offering a rookie a 1 year deal. For the most part they are reasonable offers. It behooves you to make longer offers to rookies because you have exclusive negotiating rights to that player. The 1-year contract exploit only seems to be an exploit when trying to draw talent in a competitive bidding process.[/quotee3dbbaf] key word there is undrafted rookie.. Undrafted rookies all ask for 1 year deals.[/quotee3dbbaf] Gotcha, I misunderstood. Excellent point, Wade.

Author:	wademoore [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:17 am ]
Post subject:
Outside of that, I just don't know that there is any real practical purpose outside of FA-1. I don't think there have been insane 1-year deals outside of that set of stages - if a player is good enough to get worked up about an unfair deal, they're gone by the time FA-2 rolls around. It just seems to eliminate potentially unnecessary policing/griping if we limit it to that area. Let's face it, if someone offers 4x the salary of a 35/35 mentor after the draft, do we really care?

Author:	Shooter [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:21 am ]
Post subject:
[quote8f63810="wademoore"]Outside of that, I just don't know that there is any real practical purpose outside of FA-1. I don't think there have been insane 1-year deals outside of that set of stages - if a player is good enough to get worked up about an unfair deal, they're gone by the time FA-2 rolls around. It just seems to eliminate potentially unnecessary policing/griping if we limit it to that area. Let's face it, if someone offers 4x the salary of a 35/35 mentor after the draft, do we really care?[/quote8f63810] There were cases last year that the 1-year deal was used to sign players 45/45 guys that were being heavily sought after last year as the drafy was going on. So the answer is yes, some of us do care. I also care about the integrity issue.

Author:	wademoore [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:45 am ]
Post subject:
[quote016d807="Shooter"][quote016d807="wademoore"]Outside of that, I just don't know that there is any real practical purpose outside of FA-1. I don't think there have been insane 1-year deals outside of that set of stages - if a player is good enough to get worked up about an unfair deal, they're gone by the time FA-2 rolls around. It just seems to eliminate potentially unnecessary policing/griping if we limit it to that area. Let's face it, if someone offers 4x the salary of a 35/35 mentor after the draft, do we really care?[/quote016d807] There were cases last year that the 1-year deal was used to sign players 45/45 guys that were being heavily sought after last year as the drafy was going on. So the answer is yes, some of us do care. I also care about the integrity issue.[/quote016d807] Again, that was still during FA-1 then if it was during the draft. I don't think I have ever seen a highly sought-after guy in FA-2. A guy in FA-2, who has gone through all of the main FA, through the draft, etc and garnered no contract offers - you don't think it is logical for him to sign a high-bonus, 1-year deal?

Author:	TurfToe [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:51 am ]
Post subject:
Wade, I fully understand what you are saying and agree with it. For those that don't understand, FA-1 means the whole set of stages that occur before, during, and after the draft. FA-2 is the shorter set of stages where you complain about rookies not signing.

Author:	Castlerock [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:53 am ]
Post subject:
[quote734d67e="wademoore"][quote734d67e="Shooter"][quote734d67e="wademoore"]Outside of that, I just don't know that there is any real practical purpose outside of FA-1. I don't think there have been insane 1-year deals outside of that set of stages - if a player is good enough to get worked up about an unfair deal, they're gone by the time FA-2 rolls around. It just seems to eliminate potentially unnecessary policing/griping if we limit it to that area. Let's face it, if someone offers 4x the salary of a 35/35 mentor after the draft, do we really care?[/quote734d67e] There were cases last year that the 1-year deal was used to sign players 45/45 guys that were being heavily sought after last year as the drafy was going on. So the answer is yes, some of us do care. I also care about the integrity issue.[/quote734d67e] Again, that was still during FA-1 then if it was during the draft. I don't think I have ever seen a highly sought-after guy in FA-2. A guy in FA-2, who has gone through all of the main FA, through the draft, etc and garnered no contract offers - you don't think it is logical for him to sign a high-bonus, 1-year deal?[/quote734d67e] Only exception might be a guy who got cut due to cap reasons. Pretty rare, though. And I don't think worth worring about. I think FA-2 should be wide open.

Author:	timmynausea [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:53 am ]
Post subject:
I'm disappointed that there isn't more of a concensus. I've seen the NAFL rule in action, and it really works.

Author:	Cheesehead Craig [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:08 am ]
Post subject:
[quotec6d4ad5="timmynausea"]I'm disappointed that there isn't more of a concensus. I've seen the NAFL rule in action, and it really works.[/quotec6d4ad5] I think this is indictative of how divisive this issue has become. There's been more heated discussion over this than any other issue I've seen.

Author:	TurfToe [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:37 am ]
Post subject:
[quote8d2b3c6="Cheesehead Craig"][quote8d2b3c6="timmynausea"]I'm disappointed that there isn't more of a concensus. I've seen the NAFL rule in action, and it really works.[/quote8d2b3c6] I think this is indictative of how divisive this issue has become. There's been more heated discussion over this than any other issue I've seen.[/quote8d2b3c6] Shouldn't have to look too hard to find more heated discussions. It happens every year around this time and I'm waiting for it to escalate a little more.

Author:	Stretch [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:38 am ]
Post subject:
[quotea3f5533="Cheesehead Craig"][quotea3f5533="timmynausea"]I'm disappointed that there isn't more of a concensus. I've seen the NAFL rule in action, and it really works.[/quotea3f5533] I think this is indictative of how divisive this issue has become. There's been more heated discussion over this than any other issue I've seen.[/quotea3f5533] It's not divisive and I'm not over emotional! You're a big doodoo head whose big ugly face stinks of skunk! Okay, seriously now, the way the A.I. signs contracts is fundamentally broken. I think some rule needs to be put in place, whether it's the NAFL rule or the 1-year rule. Either one works for me.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/