2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Would you be in favor of restricting sign-and-trade deals in future seasons?

Yes - All free agency signings come with 1-year no-trade
27
41%
Yes - All free agency signings come with a 1-month no-trade
0
No votes
Yes - All free agency signings come with a 3-month no-trade
30
45%
Yes - All free agency signings come with a 6-month no-trade
0
No votes
Yes - But some other way than no-trade period after signing
3
5%
No - Keep the same
6
9%
 
Total votes: 66

rabbitrun
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:18 pm

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by rabbitrun »

soonertf wrote:Because it's a different salary to signing bonus ratio. If we can get a similar ratio for free agency then i dont think anyone would have an issue. I think 200% max would be much more realistic.
If the aim is truly wanting to reach towards realistic possibilities then a team signing a player to a 1 year $51M contract with $35M in Signing bonus and $16M in Salary and then trading that player for draft picks is no different than a team signing a player to a 5 year LTC for $117.6M contract with $33.6M in signing bonus and $16.8M in salary and trading said player for draft picks!

Actually the team signing the FA incurred a bigger financial hit by $1.4M! The first team had to eat 69% of the total value of the contract while the team trading the LTC’d player only had to eat 29% of the contract!

Now the LTC’d player is going to be at a discount to the team acquiring the player for multiple years while the player that was signed as a FA will need to be resigned again in a year and will not be at a discounted price!
NO GM-AFFL
TB GM-DFFL
2017 CFFL Super Bowl Champion-Bears
Strategist
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 pm

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by Strategist »

rabbitrun wrote:
soonertf wrote:Because it's a different salary to signing bonus ratio. If we can get a similar ratio for free agency then i dont think anyone would have an issue. I think 200% max would be much more realistic.
If the aim is truly wanting to reach towards realistic possibilities then a team signing a player to a 1 year $51M contract with $35M in Signing bonus and $16M in Salary and then trading that player for draft picks is no different than a team signing a player to a 5 year LTC for $117.6M contract with $33.6M in signing bonus and $16.8M in salary and trading said player for draft picks!

Actually the team signing the FA incurred a bigger financial hit by $1.4M! The first team had to eat 69% of the total value of the contract while the team trading the LTC’d player only had to eat 29% of the contract!

Now the LTC’d player is going to be at a discount to the team acquiring the player for multiple years while the player that was signed as a FA will need to be resigned again in a year and will not be at a discounted price!
I agree with this there is not much of a difference. Probably should be a 1 yr NTC on all LTCs.
DFFL - DAL 09-20: 113-63 .642 (6-5) 3X DIV Champs. 6 Playoff apps. DFFL Bowl I Champs
CFFL - NYG 10-12: 34-13-1 .708
AFFL - WAS 13-19: 53-59 .473 (5-3) '14, '15, & '17 Div, '17 AFC Champs
FFFL - PIT 16-17: 45-19 .703 (3-3) '16-18 Div, 16' AFC Champs
Onyxgem
Posts: 758
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:32 pm

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by Onyxgem »

Strategist wrote:
rabbitrun wrote:
soonertf wrote:Because it's a different salary to signing bonus ratio. If we can get a similar ratio for free agency then i dont think anyone would have an issue. I think 200% max would be much more realistic.
If the aim is truly wanting to reach towards realistic possibilities then a team signing a player to a 1 year $51M contract with $35M in Signing bonus and $16M in Salary and then trading that player for draft picks is no different than a team signing a player to a 5 year LTC for $117.6M contract with $33.6M in signing bonus and $16.8M in salary and trading said player for draft picks!

Actually the team signing the FA incurred a bigger financial hit by $1.4M! The first team had to eat 69% of the total value of the contract while the team trading the LTC’d player only had to eat 29% of the contract!

Now the LTC’d player is going to be at a discount to the team acquiring the player for multiple years while the player that was signed as a FA will need to be resigned again in a year and will not be at a discounted price!
I agree with this there is not much of a difference. Probably should be a 1 yr NTC on all LTCs.
Disagree it is fine how it is right now with a next on the short term Ltc
jerrydlux
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by jerrydlux »

Ultimately teams would not sign a player to a long term contract and then trade them. (because out LTCs have significant bonus money attached)

Jared's suggestion of no trade for a year if SB over X amount makes sense because a real life GM would not have a job if they signed someone to big guaranteed money and then moved them immediately.
bpboguta1483
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:08 am

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by bpboguta1483 »

Yes Jerry and Rabbitrun, all I am saying is a realistic ratio salary vs signing bonus, and not trade the player 5 minutes after acquiring him, if GM's in the NFL did that there would be a lot of unemployed GM's out there
Onyxgem
Posts: 758
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:32 pm

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by Onyxgem »

jerrydlux wrote:Ultimately teams would not sign a player to a long term contract and then trade them. (because out LTCs have significant bonus money attached)

Jared's suggestion of no trade for a year if SB over X amount makes sense because a real life GM would not have a job if they signed someone to big guaranteed money and then moved them immediately.
Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.
jerrydlux
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by jerrydlux »

Onyxgem wrote:
jerrydlux wrote:Ultimately teams would not sign a player to a long term contract and then trade them. (because out LTCs have significant bonus money attached)

Jared's suggestion of no trade for a year if SB over X amount makes sense because a real life GM would not have a job if they signed someone to big guaranteed money and then moved them immediately.
Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.

I apologize, you're right,we should have no semblance of realism in the leagues
Zapotek
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by Zapotek »

Onyxgem wrote: Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.
No it wouldn't. Consider the list of trades involving players (ie, not including straight pick-for-pick swaps) from 2017 found at http://nfltraderumors.co/list-completed ... fl-trades/. For example:

SF: 12 player trades
NO: 5 player trades
BUF: 6 player trades
NYJ: 10 player trades
PHI: 7 player trades
SEA: 13 player trades

I think it's fair to say that there are some teams that trade a lot.

In the absence of anyone providing examples to the contrary, I also think it's fair to say that no teams set out to sign multiple top-tier players to contracts with massive signing bonuses and then immediately flip them for picks.
Manager of AFFL NYJ and FFFL CLE since before the 2016 draft.

CFFL IND: Took control after 2011 draft, relinquished after winning 2013 and 2015 season SB.
Onyxgem
Posts: 758
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:32 pm

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by Onyxgem »

Zapotek wrote:
Onyxgem wrote: Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.
No it wouldn't. Consider the list of trades involving players (ie, not including straight pick-for-pick swaps) from 2017 found at http://nfltraderumors.co/list-completed ... fl-trades/. For example:

SF: 12 player trades
NO: 5 player trades
BUF: 6 player trades
NYJ: 10 player trades
PHI: 7 player trades
SEA: 13 player trades

I think it's fair to say that there are some teams that trade a lot.

In the absence of anyone providing examples to the contrary, I also think it's fair to say that no teams set out to sign multiple top-tier players to contracts with massive signing bonuses and then immediately flip them for picks.
And how many of those teams have multiple first round picks compared to here...how many have multiple picks in any round compared to here....picks are traded so much more here than IRL it isn't even funny.

This is for fun, not to limit people and take the fun out of the GAME...
Zapotek
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:47 am
Location: Australia

Re: 2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

Post by Zapotek »

Onyxgem wrote:And how many of those teams have multiple first round picks compared to here...how many have multiple picks in any round compared to here....picks are traded so much more here than IRL it isn't even funny.

This is for fun, not to limit people and take the fun out of the GAME...
I don't see the logical equivalence.

Teams in reality do trade picks to some extent. Teams in our sim also trade picks, though obviously to a greater extent. It's unrealistic in extent, not in the type of transactions.

Teams in reality do not make a habit of signing top-flight players to contracts with massive SB and then flipping them for picks. The very type of transaction is unrealistic.

To me, the game is fun if it comes close to mirroring the constraints of the NFL. I see a difference between allowing players to make greater use of acknowledged NFL practices (trading picks, etc) and allowing players to make use of tactics that are not present in the NFL.

Edit: Now, if you're suggesting that we should limit the number of first-round picks a team should be able to stockpile, that's a whole different debate.

If alternatively you're suggesting that because the current degree of pick stockpiling is unrealistic we should allow another practice that is not realistic at all then I'd have to disagree.
Manager of AFFL NYJ and FFFL CLE since before the 2016 draft.

CFFL IND: Took control after 2011 draft, relinquished after winning 2013 and 2015 season SB.
Post Reply