2011 RULES: No Trade for Free Agents

[Goodell]

I felt that the signing bonus given to most new free agents signed would prevent teams from turning around and dealing that player after a short stay on the roster, but sim leagues tend to be very trade-intensive.

Can't seem to find exact rules in the NFL historically on when free agents signed can be traded, but presumably most of the time when a big free agent signs with a team both sides really want to be there and in no hurry to change teams. Also seems kind of odd sometimes when a sim player comes to agreement with a sim team and then traded a couple weeks later to somewhere he didn't "want" to sign.

Wondering if any interest in a trade restriction on new signings. I'd be more in favor of that if backed by real rules in that regard to protect a player from signing with a team and then quickly being moved to somewhere he didn't want shortly after. Maybe something like a newly signed player wouldn't be traded for 3 months, or off-season signings couldn't be traded until the season started, etc.

[Nathan S.]

I voted to add restrictions. Maybe a year after you sign them you can look to trade them. That may be a bit long so maybe like you said a couple months. But a couple months may be the trade deadline..

[Strategist]

I also posted to add restrictions but one of the big problems with that is when you need a DT and there are 2 or 3 of them you are bidding on and you happen to have the highest bid on both which could put you over the salary cap or make you deeper than you need at that position.

This is a very unrealistic situation so it is hard to know what to do. If you don't allow people to retract their bids then you have to allow them to trade players that they sign for the specific reason i said above.

[Jared A]

I'm against any restrictions on trading. We're already at a major disadvantage of what real teams already know. It's not like there's even a combine for free agents. We're completely guessing. Also, our free agent system doesn't allow us to retract offers after someone signs. So, you could easily get stuck with more than you anticipated.

[Onyxgem]

I'm against any restrictions on trading. We're already at a major disadvantage of what real teams already know. It's not like there's even a combine for free agents. We're completely guessing. Also, our free agent system doesn't allow us to retract offers after someone signs. So, you could easily get stuck with more than you anticipated.

This is a great reason to have no restrictions on trading newly signed guys.

[Ben C.]

I am in favor of this restriction and will attempt to address some of the concerns.

1. No retraction of bids - Simple solution is to only bid when you are serious about a player. Identify your targets carefully and bid accordingly. Perhaps this is a reason why we have some inflated salaries for free agents? If people are bidding on 3 DTs while hoping to land 1, they have effectively raised the bid on 2 players they have no intention of signing. Having this restriction may help alleviate some of that.

2. No "combine for free agency" - There is a lot more information available about free agents than what we get from the combine for rookies. You have measurables (the main draw from the combine) available on all the players. You also have stats that reflect the player's production, and if you google a player you can usually find reports from beat writers. It's true we have less information than a real life team who is able to bring a free agent in for a workout, but we are far from guessing with free agents.

[Strategist]

This is very unrealistic as we only have 24 hrs before a player signs with a team. So if 5 people are bidding on one player then the other 4 teams are just up a creek if they don't have the winning bid? That makes no sense. A team in real life would never have just one FA option to fill a need on their team. They will have plan A, B, and C and with having the previously stated time restrictions we don't have the benefit to see if we can out bid 4 teams for one player before moving on to plan B.

[vikingfan]

I am for the restrictions. Its not perfect but it never will be. I would like to propose a unique rule in regards to extensions. We have no option to extending a contract before hitting the FA market other than the high free agent price tags.
I propose that if you are the Bears and you have for instance Urlacher on your roster as do the real life Bears. If the Bears sign Urlacher to an extension to keep him, as owner of the CFFL Chicago team, you would have the option to also extend his contract. It allows us to keep OUR players. Limits the FA's to the market. The real player thought it was a good deal, why shouldnt it be a good one here. The kicker here is that the sim team and the NFL team are both the same. Urlacher on the SIM Lions doesnt get that opportunity.
In summary, is it really realistic if my Vikings had 0 NFL Vikings on the roster. You can look at it and say that I am trying to stick with as many as possible. Thats my choice, doest have to be others.
Maybe the goal of this SIM is to be one big Fantasy Football league. Thats fine, but it would lose its appeal to me. I am just one of a bunch of voices for these leagues so whatever road they go down, so be it.
Just a thought but I think it adds some kind unique twist to the league. And benefits if you have the NFL team player.

Al

[Goodell]

I am for the restrictions. Its not perfect but it never will be. I would like to propose a unique rule in regards to extensions. We have no option to extending a contract before hitting the FA market other than the high free agent price tags.
I propose that if you are the Bears and you have for instance Urlacher on your roster as do the real life Bears. If the Bears sign Urlacher to an extension to keep him, as owner of the CFFL Chicago team, you would have the option to also extend his contract. It allows us to keep OUR players. Limits the FA's to the market. The real player thought it was a good deal, why shouldnt it be a good one here. The kicker here is that the sim team and the NFL team are both the same. Urlacher on the SIM Lions doesnt get that opportunity.
In summary, is it really realistic if my Vikings had 0 NFL Vikings on the roster. You can look at it and say that I am trying to stick with as many as possible. Thats my choice, doest have to be others.
Maybe the goal of this SIM is to be one big Fantasy Football league. Thats fine, but it would lose its appeal to me. I am just one of a bunch of voices for these leagues so whatever road they go down, so be it.
Just a thought but I think it adds some kind unique twist to the league. And benefits if you have the NFL team player.

Al

I put something like that up for vote in off-season rules discussions previously but not enough support in GM polls. That didn't have the same team requirement, though, but brought up the option of accepting a real extension.

http://www.fangm.com/sportstalk/viewtop ... =extension

How free agency and extensions and trade limitations (and everything for that matter) will depend a lot upon what direction the next labor agreement takes... if they ever get one done.

[Royce R]

I think the idea is fine but seems to lose power into the future.

We can't keep drafting the same players and the real nfl team does. so lets say another 5 years down the road our rosters are going to look very different from the real team.

And think about how the steelers might be able to keep a players cheaper than say the cardinals in real life because of their history. And the cardinals in our league might be awesome while the steelers just plain suck. (im not calling anyone out just saying it COULD happen)

Just thinking quick but on first thought that idea wont work.