10 Rules: Free Agency Changes

[Goodell]

While we are in the midst of free agency it is a good time to reflect on possible changes for next year now.

ALTERNATIVE COMPENSATION
One of the more troublesome things right now I think is the agreement to different compensation. We see it in the NFL somewhat where a team tags Cassel, for example, but doesn't get two first rounders for him as nobody willing to pay that but instead deals him to another team for something less. Also examples of other tagged or RFA trades in the past, and we do need some flexibility there for things to get worked out where a team could tag Cassel here also and deal him to another team for something other than two first rounders.

Not only is it harder for me to keep up with alternate compensation sometimes, but potentially could create a he-said/he-said controversy over such agreements. I think next year (and for potential other leagues later this summer) teams that want to exchange a player for some other compensation will primarily have to do it through trading the player's RIGHTS before making a bid and then they can trade a tagged Cassel for something other than 2 first rounders to get him but it would be possible other teams might still bid later (but probably not in most cases where a player traded for less than 2 first rounders where lesser compensation needed). Then if no bids for tagged player, that team can sign long-term based upon that top 5 salary as we have that now.

The other time alternate compensation comes up I'm guessing is in trying to convince a team not to match a deal. I'll give you a 2nd rounder or whatever if you don't match. In these cases the FA process could go through normally without a match and just have a supplemental trade put through the trade tool for that additional incentive given.

MORE AUTOMATED TOOLS FOR MATCHING
Free agency is usually one of the more stressful times for me trying to keep up with posting matchable offers and then keeping track of which haven't been matched yet and trying to contact the other GM in some cases when time running short if they weren't aware.

Next year I probably envision prompts on the roster pages to match or not and have that handled by the system, with alerts similar to trade alerts now, as well as emails sent out in cases involving matching offers.

There is also always some controversies over teams not having the right compensation to put in a bid. That's tricky because sometimes a team might not have the compensation currently but knows they have a franchised tagged player themselves in the process that they are not going to match and will get two first rounders that they don't have now, but need to bid on a different franchised player now before time's up. So I think we need some flexibility there for teams to work toward those requirements and the option of me just removing the bid if it's not going to meet the requirement (and hopefully that's rare so not much to administer in doing that a time or two).

Some teams also wonder about cap space where an offer might be more than the cap space a team has, but they have no idea if they'll win the bid or not and willing to make a cut if they do but not before understandably (like I'll cut my over-paid LB if I sign a new younger one but will have to keep the old over-paid guy if I don't ultimately win the bid for the new guy). Before I think I talked about having a pending status for deals that resulted in a team being over the cap due to it, and will try to incorporate that more.

Also having a little more trouble with the automated contract re-structuring and i know a team or two is waiting to restructure a contract to help on cap space but will hope to have that up soon.

MINIMUM COUNTER-OFFERS
We put in the 5% minimum for raises this year. Wondering how people think that is going in practical use now or if they think it should be altered for future seasons. I mentioned before maybe a 10% minimum for bids under 1M and a 5% for bids over $1M might be good, but a little tricky for bids that start below $1M and get raised above it through counters. Could also go to straight 10% but thought would be a little too extreme initially from past minimum requirements.


So while free agency starts to wind down a bit, if you have some thoughts about improvements for next year that you may forget when we do off-season rules discussions nearly a year from now again, put them out there now. Thanks!

[Joe]

As far as alternative compensation, I think it depends on the situation. If you trade the rights before a bid is made, sometimes you are gonna end up paying a higher salary. If I were to bid under the price of a Franchise or transition tag and nobody else raises, I get the player I want for a cheaper price. Then after the offer sheet is signed, the GM that tagged him can try to get more out of him or just match. I think it works in the favor of both GMs. If you have to trade the rights, I think it take ssome of the fun out of it!!

[Jared A]

I think the 5% was just fine.

As far as alternative compensation, the only one I'd be worried about is the "matching" one. Because, if the team matches, and then trades, they'll be stuck paying the bonus.

[Goodell]

BEING AWAY:
People being away seems like a bigger issue this year than before, but for such cases I was also thinking about putting up some free agency settings.

If you have a player with matching rights but are going to be away on vacation or whatever, you could tell the system to match on this player automatically if the salary/bonus figures are below an entered amount (match anything below $10M, etc.). That could also apply if you got pulled away into work and just forgot to check the site. If time running out to match or not, it would look at your matching settings entered.

I was also thinking of putting in some more automation to away bids. I know some people have a friend who might bid for them if they are away and don't want to lose a player and some have left me with instructions this year about that. But it would be ideal IMO if a team could pre-load a set of bids if they were going to be away.

For example:

Away Bid #1 - Raise Player X's annual salary 7% (if he's not signed by us).
Away Bid #2 - Player Y enter bid of $1M/yr and $3M SB or raise 5% if existing bid higher.
Away Bid #3 - Raise Player X's signing bonus 10% if he's not signed by us already.

Or putting in an e-bay type bidder control where you can put in the most you'd bid on a player and have the system keep bidding for you while away if need up to that max you set -- although could get out of control if two away bidders set to high figures on autopilot.

And perhaps we don't need (or will have time to create) these things, but just some possibilities for teams to keep participating and still live another life that sometimes takes you away without missing out on too much in terms of off-season goals.

[Goodell]

Because, if the team matches, and then trades, they'll be stuck paying the bonus.

To me it would be ideal to move as many of those types of transactions to the trading a player's rights where there is no SB at all before bids entered.

And actually it's not just "rights" so much since signed to the 1-year tender but we still allow on the market to get market offers for teams willing to pay actual compensation required and give the player more money (as players want). We moved a bit toward that this year where I had the default 1-year contract values entered automatically once a team tagged a player or put in a RFA tender amount. I did that in part to remind teams that they don't have as much cap space as they might think if they have some RFAs and tagged players out there, but also because it better represents the reality of Cassel signing that 1-year franchise tag tender and then essentially being on a 1-year deal and his team able to trade him to KC for less than the franchise tag requirement. And Cassel perhaps not the best of examples as other situations where a player was tagged but traded to another team and signs a big deal with new team (if that happened to Peppers for example as he would be hoping, and I believe a RFA last year traded for less than tendered compensation and then signed new deal with new team).

For the situations where agreements came after the fact once the player already switched teams and awaiting a bid match or not, I could potentially make part of that prompt to match or not be to indicate a different compensation agreement and have the system sort that out also potentially or just contact me to do manually and move the player to the team as I do now without effecting the SB on the matching swap.

[Jared A]

But, it does become an issue (especially w/ transition tags) that you have no idea of what kind of salary you'll be paying him. Plus, the team can't make an actual offer for the player...


I understand what you mean though, I just don't think this is something that should be changed. In real life, a team can negotiate with a player prior to him being a free agent. We don't have that luxury. This would just make transition tags have almost no purpose, as almost every tagged player will get matched.

[Troy S]

But, it does become an issue (especially w/ transition tags) that you have no idea of what kind of salary you'll be paying him. Plus, the team can't make an actual offer for the player...

I understand what you mean though, I just don't think this is something that should be changed. In real life, a team can negotiate with a player prior to him being a free agent. We don't have that luxury. This would just make transition tags have almost no purpose, as almost every tagged player will get matched.

I wasn't thinking about transition players there so much as no compensation tied to them, but more franchise tagged players and RFAs with agreements on different compensation than outlined by default requirement. It would be ideal if those went through for the most part before a bid if compensation going to be different. That way the tagged player goes to new team for something less than 2 first rounders and then could potentially get another bid to match to retain (or get 2 first rounders) or if no other bids given the compensation (like in such cases when traded already for something less than 2 first rounders) then the team would have the option of signing long-term at that salary as we have now. That would simulate reality a bit more where Cassel tagged, got the 1-year tender added, traded to a new team for something less than 2 first rounders, and then may sign a deal with the new club rather than having the manual posts about different compensation posted after offersheet signed and would be more efficient and cut down on potential controversy over a misunderstanding over agreements different from the requirement or one team backing out later.

For transition tag players, almost all of them will get bids because no compensation required to hinder an offer and we allow back-loaded offers even for those if the player not really worth the salary. I don't really understand trading the rights to a transition tagged player myself, as he's really not all that different from a UFA since we give home teams unlimited bids to essentially "match" any offer also, other than a security blanket perhaps knowing you have matching rights and don't need to get caught up in UFA bidding. Some teams this year didn't transition tag players that might normally have been before (including myself with my LT) in hopes they could get them for less without the top 10 salary requirement -- and it worked in some cases and didn't in others where bidding skyrocketed.

I would guess it could be a trend that we see less Transition tagged players with more teams relying upon the unlimited bids for their own and hoping to sign for less, but we expanded those also for a reason initially in letting teams know they have more options to retain a player they want, but potentially could be scaled back more like reality and just more education that even your UFA's have "matching" rights pretty much with unlimited bidding for your own. Another benefit to keeping them UFAs instead is that it helps toward compensatory picks if you decide to not over-pay to keep them and could get a 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th rounder in the next year's draft possibly (if more UFA losses than gains) versus nothing for Transition tagged player.

But for cases of Transition tagged players where there is an agreement between the teams that one will give the other something in order to convince them not to match a submitted offer, it could be done with a secondary lop-sided trade to favor the unmatching team once they don't match the deal.

[Jared A]

You used Cassel as an example....


"When talks do begin, Aaron Rodgers' six-year, $65M deal from last October will likely be the Chiefs' jumping-off point. Cassel's side may use Matt Ryan's six-year, $72 million deal. Negotiations should pick up after the draft."

It appears he will be getting between 11mil/year and 12mil/year... (he's getting 12mil in CFFL and AFFL)

He won't be getting a gauranteed 15mil/year, which if we had to pay them the top 5 no matter what, then in this league, he would be. If we do this, we need to be able to negotiate with a franchised player.

[sportznut]

I don't see any reason to change the rules at all.

If its a pain in the ass for Troy to manually do these things, then he can work on the logic to take care of that when he has the time to do so.

Then he won't have to worry about it after that.

[Troy S]

You used Cassel as an example....

"When talks do begin, Aaron Rodgers' six-year, $65M deal from last October will likely be the Chiefs' jumping-off point. Cassel's side may use Matt Ryan's six-year, $72 million deal. Negotiations should pick up after the draft."

It appears he will be getting between 11mil/year and 12mil/year... (he's getting 12mil in CFFL and AFFL)

He won't be getting a gauranteed 15mil/year, which if we had to pay them the top 5 no matter what, then in this league, he would be. If we do this, we need to be able to negotiate with a franchised player.

... which we obviously can't do, of course, as it's all pretend.

If the Chiefs sign him to a new deal, it wouldn't be any different from the Cowboys talking to Romo while he's under contract or Colts talking to Manning about a contract extension, etc. Cassel is currently under contract with them as he was under that 1-year franchise tag tender signed with the Patriots before traded to make a ton of money this year. Although it's a possibility, I cannot really see just make up numbers that I think a player would agree to and allow teams to sign contract extensions with those players at prices I say are okay.

Having the market set the prices I think is the best way, and also extends the game play over a long off-season allowing for more avenues of competition. I don't think it would be so much fun for me to just tell everybody what contracts they can sign a player to or not.

I don't know much about Cassel's situation directly or their plans for new deal, but he's currently under contract for that NFL directed franchise tag top 5 price. New England made that choice and gave him that money. He signed a 1-year tender for that money. It's his listed salary for this year right now in reality. If he wants to sign an extension for LESS than that, that's a choice he can make but otherwise certainly has the right to that top 5 salary this year and that is what he'll make unless he agrees to something otherwise. I can't see a player agreeing to pay for less this year than they are currently set to make, but possibly in exchange for more long-term security.

Those "real" long-term contract possibilities for Cassel could also be bidded here - or something pretty close. Those potential annual salaries listed are more than 75% of the required amount and as such could be entered here. I could enter a 6-year, $11 or $12M/year deal for Cassel here in either league as it sounds like is being talked about in reality. Even as low as around $9M a year. Those could happen here too, but I do get the point generally about more options to set things up differently in reality but that's just a limitation of us not being able to talk to real players and come to different agreements amongst real people.

Teams don't have to tag a franchise player if they don't think he's worth top 5 money for his position. I don't think teams should name inferior players not worth the money to franchise tag levels either here or in reality. That would be a mess with unworthy franchise players littering the market. I don't think NE would have in reality either unless they knew that they'd have two teams (KC and DEN) very willing to pay him that this year or that they could afford it for one year as a security blanket under a worst case scenario if their star QB had a setback. That was somewhat a special circumstance in reality kind of different from the norm.

Ensuring a player a top salary in exchange for limiting their movement is the purpose of it both here and in reality. Rights are restricted for a franchise player and it pisses them off usually but also guarantees them a top 5 salary and lots of money for next year. What happens beyond that would be up to whatever contract they sign at whatever price with the team able to match it. Our teams here CAN pay even a franchised player less. They can do both a back-loaded deal that pays him 50% of that top salary for the first year and loads up unguaranteed money to later in the deal where he could be cut or restructured before that. We also allow bids just 75% of the annual salary in order for teams to put more toward bonuses instead or making it long-term if they wish. Those types of bids aren't going to be winners on the marketplace, though, if a player truly worth a strong top 5 salary. If a team submitted a crappy choice for a franchise player unworthy, that player should go without bids IMO and the team "penalized" for mismanagement by paying an unworthy player a ton of money for the following season versus providing more options for franchise players to make far less. It's pretty rare I would think in the NFL that a franchise tagged player plays for far less -- usually they end up playing for that 1-year tender or signing a massive deal.

I'm not sure if a suggestion to do it differently, but I don't think we should do away with those top salary by position levels as they are used directly in the NFL similarly to how we do and help us also to where I don't have to just make up figures but can use real ones the NFL does also. But we cannot really simulate a player's will here and have to rely more upon the competition between our GMs to determine the market value for players.

I think it would also be a bad idea to remove the bid requirement on tagged players (and sign them to whatever amount) because it creates opportunities for massively unfair deals which are bad for the league overall -- or at worst opportunities for collusion between friends knowing that few teams bid on franchise tagged players because of the heavy ante having to risk giving up 2 first rounders which few players are really worth. I don't think we had that bid requirement the first off-season and felt it was a needed adjustment to prevent problems of wildly unrealistic deals or potential for cheating the system and drastically under-paying a player by using the threat of taking 2 first rounders from all teams other than the one willing to make an under-valued bid.

As we can't talk to the agents and come up with a real deal, we just have to have the rules that create the most realistic and fair deal environments for all.