:: Possible Contract Ru

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

Possible Contract Ru http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3614	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Doug5984 [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:44 am ]
Post subject:	Possible Contract Ru
Option 1) The "NAFL" Rule- Any player asking for a contract 3 years or longer MUST be offered a contract of at least 3 years, until stage 8 in FA then they may be offered any contract. Option 2) The bonus on any contract may not be great than 50% of the total value of the contract. This applies on in The first round of free agency (prior to the draft), and only to unrestricted free agents. ---------------------- The thing about option 1 is- it is the easiest to detect, since crappy players only ask for 1 year deals they will only get 1 year deals- a player has to be pretty good to even want a 3 year deal. Since undrafted guys only want 1 year deals, it doesn't have an effect there either. Neither rule would have any effect on players already on your roster, and under contract.

Author:	wademoore [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:21 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Possible Contrac
[quote5f06ad5="Doug5984"] The thing about option 1 is- it is the easiest to detect, since crappy players only ask for 1 year deals they will only get 1 year deals- a player has to be pretty good to even want a 3 year deal. Since undrafted guys only want 1 year deals, it doesn't have an effect there either. Neither rule would have any effect on players already on your roster, and under contract.[/quote5f06ad5] And just for a differing opinion, as I said in the other thread - I think option 1 is actually harder to police. In order to 100% verify, you have to load up an old file. Option 2 you can verify without having to change files, etc, etc.

Author:	fantastic flying froggies [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:37 am ]
Post subject:
So is this an official vote btw, or just to get the pulse of the league?

Author:	Doug5984 [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote2497978="fantastic flying froggies"]So is this an official vote btw, or just to get the pulse of the league?[/quote2497978] Just to get a pulse of the league. Wade- my only concern with option 2 is, it is not stopping the 1 year contract. Lets take Barlow's example... My team has 23 million to spend on new players, this is an obvious rebuilding time for us, and we have a more than full roster. I could have offered Barlow a 1 year deal, knowing I could franchise him and resign him long term... All I would have had to do is offer a contract like this 11 million bonus, 12 million salary. The one year deal is still there- and still enough bonus money that he'd probably take it.

Author:	wademoore [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:17 pm ]
Post subject:
Quiksand did a lot more digging on this and I'll try to find his posts at IHOF, but essentailly it seems like the players really seem to look at the "per year bonus" status of a contract. So, having to put 12 million of that deal in unguaranteed money really hurts the value of the contract.. Yeah, it's not perfect... but I don't think that any of these solutions are perfect, but at least we could make whatever we come up with easy to police.. shrug.. again, I think whatever get the most votes in this poll should get put up to an official rule and vote, and I'll vote for whichever one comes up.

Author:	Fastcat [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Odds are that more than one person will be bidding on players that get these contracts. Thus policing will be easy if say I had to offer this guy 3 years, and then he signed a 1 yr contract, I would be responsible to post on fourm that a foul has occured. This and the fact that the player will be cut from your team and you will be stuck with a big $$$ amount of dead cap space should police itself. The 1 year deal on the other hand will have to be looked at and until the player acually signs I dont think you can tell the amounts "1 year @ $15 Million" well that could be $10m salary and $5m bonus which is legal or it could be $5m salary and $10m bonus which is illegal or anywhere in between, but until he signs that contract we dont know the particulars. That is why I think the 3 year is much easier to police.

Author:	TurfToe [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:47 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteff87aab="Fastcat"]Odds are that more than one person will be bidding on players that get these contracts. Thus policing will be easy if say I had to offer this guy 3 years, and then he signed a 1 yr contract, I would be responsible to post on fourm that a foul has occured. This and the fact that the player will be cut from your team and you will be stuck with a big $$$ amount of dead cap space should police itself. The 1 year deal on the other hand will have to be looked at and until the player acually signs I dont think you can tell the amounts "1 year @ $15 Million" well that could be $10m salary and $5m bonus which is legal or it could be $5m salary and $10m bonus which is illegal or anywhere in between, but until he signs that contract we dont know the particulars. That is why I think the 3 year is much easier to police.[/quoteff87aab] Yes, the 3 year rule will police itself. Additionally, I am hesitant to place specific numerical limits on contracts. Placing a limit on what length contracts can be offered is different as GM's hands aren't tied from being creative but at least the loophole (1 year followed by franchise tag) is avoided. In the 3 year case you have the backloaded contracts but at least those are realistic and like them or not, force the GM to pay one way or another.

Author:	Shooter [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Can someone take a second to explain the FA stage 8 portion of the NAFL rule. Why would we make exceptions after a certain stage? Shouldn't the rule apply throught FA considering we have seen these contracts made after FA 8? The more I think about the NAFL rule, the more it makes the most sense to eradicate the 1 year unrealistic deals. I just want to make sure I understand the complete rule before I put my vote in. Thanks.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:49 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteefdbef6="Shooter"]Can someone take a second to explain the FA stage 8 portion of the NAFL rule. Why would we make exceptions after a certain stage? Shouldn't the rule apply throught FA considering we have seen these contracts made after FA 8? The more I think about the NAFL rule, the more it makes the most sense to eradicate the 1 year unrealistic deals. I just want to make sure I understand the complete rule before I put my vote in. Thanks.[/quoteefdbef6] The reasoning for stage 8 is if a player is asking for 3 years, and way to much money. By stage 8 pretty much all the big name guys are signed so it gives us a chance to then offer that guy a 1 year deal at less or more money to try him out. We could make it stage 10, or not at all- and that player would have to wait until stage 2 (or someone bite and give him what he wants).

Author:	Stretch [ Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:
[quotebcda09e="Doug5984"][quotebcda09e="Shooter"]Can someone take a second to explain the FA stage 8 portion of the NAFL rule. Why would we make exceptions after a certain stage? Shouldn't the rule apply throught FA considering we have seen these contracts made after FA 8? The more I think about the NAFL rule, the more it makes the most sense to eradicate the 1 year unrealistic deals. I just want to make sure I understand the complete rule before I put my vote in. Thanks.[/quotebcda09e] The reasoning for stage 8 is if a player is asking for 3 years, and way to much money. By stage 8 pretty much all the big name guys are signed so it gives us a chance to then offer that guy a 1 year deal at less or more money to try him out. We could make it stage 10, or not at all- and that player would have to wait until stage 2 (or someone bite and give him what he wants).[/quotebcda09e] I'll admit that I'd rather we wait until FA2. It would be a heck of a lot easier to remember.

Author:	nikkelbak [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:59 am ]
Post subject:
[quotefab8897]I'll admit that I'd rather we wait until FA2. It would be a heck of a lot easier to remember.[/quotefab8897] i'm with stretch on this one.

Author:	wademoore [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:47 am ]
Post subject:
Just to point out: There are several FA's with heavy bidding right now that I could swipe up easily with a 1 year contract and would not fall under the NAFL rule: C Leonel Lewis, SE Aaron McGee, TE Marlon Joyner... just to name a few...

Author:	dberner30 [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:20 am ]
Post subject:
[quote6ce05d1="wademoore"]Just to point out: There are several FA's with heavy bidding right now that I could swipe up easily with a 1 year contract and would not fall under the NAFL rule: C Leonel Lewis, SE Aaron McGee, TE Marlon Joyner... just to name a few...[/quote6ce05d1] i have not done this and assume the practice to be illegal now. if not i need to know so I can use my big dollars i have to spend.

Author:	Raven Hawk [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:44 am ]
Post subject:
[quotedd99cc9="wademoore"]Just to point out: There are several FA's with heavy bidding right now that I could swipe up easily with a 1 year contract and would not fall under the NAFL rule: C Leonel Lewis, SE Aaron McGee, TE Marlon Joyner... just to name a few...[/quotedd99cc9] This wouldn't have applied to Lewis because he was a 12 year vet looking for a 2 year deal. The NAFL rule specifically covers players looking for a contract that is 3 years or more. But point well made on the other two.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:56 am ]
Post subject:
It'd be hard to get a good rule in place any way we work it, unless we adopt both rules or something along those lines. With the older players I have no problem with the 1 year deals... And then the younger guys are only asking for 1 year deals mostly because they haven't gotten a chance to start, so they want a year to start before they go after a big money deal... And then TEs, unless great, never ask for much. I wouldn't have a problem with these guys getting 1 year deals, I just want to protect the really good and big name FAs that should be getting huge deals. But that is just me- I guess we need to figure out what the league wants, how to word it- and get it in place. 19 votes for the NAFL method- so it seems like we should go with something similar to that.

Author:	TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:57 am ]
Post subject:
[quote300a94d="Raven Hawk"][quote300a94d="wademoore"]Just to point out: There are several FA's with heavy bidding right now that I could swipe up easily with a 1 year contract and would not fall under the NAFL rule: C Leonel Lewis, SE Aaron McGee, TE Marlon Joyner... just to name a few...[/quote300a94d] This wouldn't have applied to Lewis because he was a 12 year vet looking for a 2 year deal. The NAFL rule specifically covers players looking for a contract that is 3 years or more. But point well made on the other two.[/quote300a94d] I believe he meant that they were exempt from the NAFL rule and if I remember correctly, they all are based on their contract demands. But point well double-made...

Author:	TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:09 am ]
Post subject:
dola Nothing is illegal right now that wasn't illegal at the beginning of the free agency period. If you have money you oughta spend it. I made several bids last night that I thought would get me ass-pounded had they gone through but I have a team to improve. If guys are asking for 1-year deals and are being bid on heavily, I will keep increasing my bonus until I have the superior bid - discussion, opinions, and browbeating be damned. I also think if/when there's a rule on the books that how a deal is structured should be left untouched. The NAFL rule addresses the issue of guys in their prime being offered a 1-year deal (used to specifically manipulate the game) when they ask for 3 or more. A 15-year vet will never ask for more than 2 years and is no way representative of the problem we have identified. I think that if the NAFL rule were adopted, applied to free agents only, and left at that it would cover the issue without a timeframe even being applied. Will there be any players (young or old) that will ask for a 3-year deal late in FA-1 or anytime in FA-2? If so, it won't involve bonus money so having to offer the 3-year deal and cutting the player after one year has the same effect as a 1-year deal except there is now an option to reneg the player. Now that we have two unofficial votes behind us is anyone going to move for a constitution amendment to get some freaking closure already? I'd do it but I don't think I care enough anymore to be properly motivated. Oh, wait, I just checked and it turns out I'm just too damned lazy, motivated or not.

Author:	wademoore [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:33 am ]
Post subject:
[quote8e6733c="TurfToe"][quote8e6733c="Raven Hawk"][quote8e6733c="wademoore"]Just to point out: There are several FA's with heavy bidding right now that I could swipe up easily with a 1 year contract and would not fall under the NAFL rule: C Leonel Lewis, SE Aaron McGee, TE Marlon Joyner... just to name a few...[/quote8e6733c] This wouldn't have applied to Lewis because he was a 12 year vet looking for a 2 year deal. The NAFL rule specifically covers players looking for a contract that is 3 years or more. But point well made on the other two.[/quote8e6733c] I believe he meant that they were exempt from the NAFL rule and if I remember correctly, they all are based on their contract demands. But point well double-made... [/quote8e6733c] Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.. that all of those guys are exempt from the NAFL rule, relatively young (8ish years of experience) and asking for 2 year contracts...

Author:	Doug5984 [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:
Ok I talked to Taco- and he said that now all we need is to get the formal wording, and take the league vote so it can be put into effect. The vote here is 20 for the NAFL rule, and 7 for the other... So it looks like we will go with some form of the NAFL rule. [quote864887e] For competitive purposes, 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 8 of Free Agency. From Week 8 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.[/quote864887e] We need to change this to fit our exact needs, which I think is taking out the week 8 part. If a player is asking for 3 years and no one gives him an offer in FA-1 then he will be there in FA-2 for someone to sign. As far as the players who are only asking for 2 years, they can get 1 year deals and I think we will all be ok with that as they are either unproven, or older guys and we can justify it as something that does happen in the NFL. Anyone want to take a stab at writing up our formal rule so it can be voted on as well?

Author:	timmynausea [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Here's my stab: Any free agent asking for 3 or more years MUST be offered a contract for at least 3 years for the duration of the first (pre-draft) 12 stage free agency period. In the second (post-draft) free agency period, 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.

Author:	TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:
[quotebd17f4d="timmynausea"]Here's my stab: Any free agent asking for 3 or more years MUST be offered a contract for at least 3 years for the duration of the first (pre-draft) 12 stage free agency period. In the second (post-draft) free agency period, 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.[/quotebd17f4d] uh, yes.

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