FanGM

75% salary is fine, it's the total I am concerned about. Salary the SB should equal to or be greater than the deal the player can receive from his current team. Transition players could be argued differently since they can't be signed long-term from current team unless they have an offer on the table to match.

Wow, you guys in the CFFL are pulling some shady sh#$.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

larry linke wrote:Wow, you guys in the CFFL are pulling some shady sh#$.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

Larry it is not just happening in CFFL it is happening in every league..

Royce R wrote:I like the 75% rule so you can put in a high SB.

I agree... but the high SB needs to be required if it's less than 100% of the total value.



I honestly think we need to move to a "total value" system... that averages SB and Annual salary to compute what's the best contract.

Jared A wrote:

Royce R wrote:I like the 75% rule so you can put in a high SB.

I agree... but the high SB needs to be required if it's less than 100% of the total value.



I honestly think we need to move to a "total value" system... that averages SB and Annual salary to compute what's the best contract.

I think we brought up a vote on this a couple of seasons ago and it never passed or was to hard to implement.

Jared A wrote:

Royce R wrote:I like the 75% rule so you can put in a high SB.

I agree... but the high SB needs to be required if it's less than 100% of the total value.



I honestly think we need to move to a "total value" system... that averages SB and Annual salary to compute what's the best contract.

I agree. I am not a fan of having a certain percentage tied only into the annual salary, when the true annual value of the deal is with the signing bonus included.

Yes, we make more deals here than the real NFL, but the fact still remains that the signing bonus is what every player is looking for. Its guaranteed money, and should absolutely be counted towards the annual salary.

I understand Troy's concern about giving a guy a 535K salary with a 35M SB, and then trading that player.

So, perhaps a nice compromise would be to have the SB not count for more than 50% of the contract. Therefore, if the required salary is 10M per year, you're still going to be required to have a 5M annual salary + 5M per year SB AT A MINIMUM.

I like where you're going sport... but I'm not sure 535k with a 35mil SB is bad for the league. Not that it's a good thing... but it wouldn't be the end of the world. It would especially help rebuilding teams, and would in turn probably provide a better turn over.

I believe we should limit the number of years a player will sign to 4 or 5 (no more 7 year deals)... except for draft picks. And, really try to figure a fair way to determine if certain restricted players would accept offers.

Jared A wrote:I like where you're going sport... but I'm not sure 535k with a 35mil SB is bad for the league. Not that it's a good thing... but it wouldn't be the end of the world. It would especially help rebuilding teams, and would in turn probably provide a better turn over.

It's partially because of the complete unrealism of having elite superstars only costing 535K against the cap for many years as well as another avenue for abuse potentially. Super stars hardly ever get traded in reality but traded here all the time where SB is irrelevant from that point forward for their cap impact for years ahead.

Imagine a highly creative playoff caliber team that doesn't have a ton of cap space but wants to creatively improve to be the dominant team in the league. They have a buddy with a rebuilding team and 80M available cap space at the other end of the spectrum. So the team with a ton of cap space throws minimum salary bids with massive SBs at the top free agents and snags several of them with those crippling signing bonuses. They then trade these ELITE players for multiple nice draft picks (since they are rebuilding) to their creatively competitive buddy trying to win a championship at all costs without cap space and they get Peyton Manning and Chris Johnson for only 535K against their cap each and dominate the league with the most ridicuous cap value for talent. Or maybe they just make a fortune saying who wants Tom Brady or Drew Brees at 535K for the next several years? And that becomes the popular way to rebuild to have enough available cap space to sign and then trade minimum salary elite players to where we have dozens of those must unrealistic cases around the league.

That to me would be bad for the league and bad for our attempts at realism. But we can probably try to incorporate looking at salary + sb/yr more in the bidding requirements and maybe structuring in a way that wouldn't allow for completely unrealistic too creative approaches.

Troy, my idea would defeat that purpose for the most part.

Again, using the 10M required salary as an example, teams wouldn't be able to account for more than half the salary through a prorated SB.

Therefore, you'd be guaranteed that the player would be making 5M (at a minimum) per year even after being dealt.

It could be structured many ways though, just so long as the SB doesn't exceed 50%.

So let's say the offer is 5 years, 7M per year + 15M SB. They meet the minimum requirements, and even though a player is dealt, he is still making 7M a year.

Furthermore, if you increase the minimums for franchised players, you're also closing the price fixing that is going on right now.

So what you're doing there is:

1. eliminating price fixing (at least in terms of any sort of hometown discount)
2. combining both the salary and prorated SB to the annual value of the deal
3. guaranteeing that the overall value of the contract can't be discounted below 50% in the case of a trade.

Lastly, you'd think if someone somehow managed to sign a guy for 535K a year, and he was a stud, their value would be even higher through the roof as opposed to them making 10M a year.

Its not going to be a perfect system and never will be. You want to jump through loopholes to win a free league, knock yourself out. You aint cheatin', you aint tryin'. By no means am I accusing anyone of any of that here as I dont have any issues with the deal.