Future Rule Change

[sportznut]

I'd agree with Ben here. If there was ever a rule change allowing extensions, it should be all encompassing, and teams shouldn't be penalized by acquiring such players if its not their original team.

I'd be more concerned with the contracts being realistic though, than worrying about what team someone is or isn't on. IRL they're allowed to walk to whatever team wants them, and here should be no different.

I do think Ben brings up a good point here. Perhaps to even have the chance to consider an extension it has to be a raise from what they're making in this league either annually, in guaranteed money, or perhaps both. Maybe the other caveat would be that only players in the final year of their deals could be extended.

I'm pretty indifferent on the idea though, as there are plenty of factors here that allow us to set the market for those types of players already.

[Jared A]

I don't see anything in this that would be benificial.


First off, SB's are low, but annual salaries are quite a bit higher. I don't see the lack of SB's as a bad thing. The higher the SB's, the more trouble teams can get into financially. It also will cause fewer trades.

Secondly, the value in the real world does not reflect the value in FanGM world. Contract extensions aren't something that promotes level competition.

[Dan R.]

I've firmly believed for a few years now that we need to have a system for extensions. In these leagues, players on FA with upside tend to go for insanely high prices that they just don't go for on the open market.

Building a team from the draft first is risky in these leagues, because you can't sign players you like to extensions even a little below market-value. If you have a good draft year, be prepared to kiss two or three of those players goodbye as FA comes near, unless you want to put yourself into cap jeopardy.

So, here's my proposal:

Starting retroactive to two (or three...) years ago, players drafted as free agents who signed extensions with their NFL team are eligible to be signed to the same deals here.

But here's the catch: a team only has two of these "extension tags" per year, though they can be applied to any draft class. While people may find ways to abuse this system, if someone drafts well (3-or-more starters/key-backups) for these years, they won't be able to keep all of their players from these drafts. And some of the best players (i.e. Johnathan Joseph) don't sign extensions with the teams that drafted them. So free agency should still remain a vital part of this league.

Also, so that we don't have people who draft a ton of players start selling them off to players who don't like to draft, we could limit extensions to those players who you personally drafted and have not been cut/traded.

Granted, while this idea may water down FA a bit, it puts a lot more emphasis back on the draft, which is where it is in the NFL. And, after all, isn't our mantra here to be as realistic as possible?

[charlie813brown]

I do really support some form of extension system. Right now Haloti Ngata sits at 12.5 mil a year, in order to extend his contract I have to offer him more money, which the market deemed he wasn't worth, whereas a player like Antonia Gates can be extended for cheaper just because someone bid on him. I really like the two extension exemptions per year with the caveat that the player must have signed an extension in real life.

[Jared A]

All this would do is make it more difficult to rebuild, and allow the good teams to keep all their players all the time. Basically, the free agent market would be decreased by the best 40 players every year.



Charlie,

If Ngata isn't worth more than 12.5mil, then either don't franchise him or don't extend him... I'd agree that the 75% bid should be removed. And players being franchised/transitioned shouldn't be allowed to be signed for less.

[Dan R.]

All this would do is make it more difficult to rebuild, and allow the good teams to keep all their players all the time. Basically, the free agent market would be decreased by the best 40 players every year.



Charlie,

If Ngata isn't worth more than 12.5mil, then either don't franchise him or don't extend him... I'd agree that the 75% bid should be removed. And players being franchised/transitioned shouldn't be allowed to be signed for less.

Isn't that how the NFL works? Those who draft well inherently have the advantage over those who don't. It's the way things work, and while it allows for a bit less parity here, it's more realistic.

And, if we are striving to be realistic here, as we claim to be, the way we do free agency now is grossly unrealistic. As a result, we have many teams who had trouble getting under the salary cap this year because our contracts are so inflated in free agency. I had to pay Owen Daniels - a tight end - over $8M last year, and he signed a contract worth $5.75M/year this year. In the NFL, Antonio Gates is only making $5.2M this year - so how is that realistic?

I'm also not advocating allowing teams to sign extensions based on the ones they sign after they are franchise tagged (as a good number of star players sign extensions this way) - though it could definitely be an option for their teams if they go unclaimed.

[Jared A]

Realism isn't obtainable. People need to stop making the "realistic" excuse. This isn't reality. If we want realism, let's go back to the original rosters, and only allow trades/signings that the real life team did. Then we can just use the real life score instead of using a sim.


My point is this... realism is NOT a reason to make a rule. It's a horrible excuse. We are supposed to be the GM's. Benefits from what your "real life" team or "real life" player does out of sheer luck is a bad idea. It messes up the fairness of each situation.


Teams that draft well already greatly benefit in this league. They get a great player.


Basically, what I'm saying is this. We are the GM's at this point. We set the value of the player. Nothing that happens in reality is supposed to affect us (other than cap, injuries and performance). Incorporating reality would completely change the direction of this league.

[Dan R.]

Nothing that happens in reality is supposed to affect us (other than cap, injuries and performance).

That's a pretty weak excuse, honestly. EVERYTHING that happens in reality affects us right now, other than monetary issues.

- Where a player goes in the draft in real life directly (whether subconsciously or not) affects where he goes here.
- What team a player goes to (whether drafted or FA signee) affects his value as seen in this league
- Real life draft salaries are used to calculate our own
- And as you pointed out, cap, injuries and performance

That's a pretty encompassing set of ramifications, don't you think?

Since you went to the far extreme with me (who ever advocated returning to original rosters?), if you want this to be a purely SIM league, let's do away with all the injuries, performance, etc. real-life ties and base our decisions solely on a Madden sim of each week...

<Not seriously arguing for that, just illustrating a point>

A person who drafts well only gets to benefit 4-5 years after the draft, and if the player is anything but a QB, RB, or WR (who have stat-based updates), it can take 2-3 years for their Madden grade to really reflect their actual talent-level, especially offensive linemen. So most draftees don't actually pay dividends for a few years in on their contract, which already is a negative for teams that draft well.

Seriously, I don't understand why you're so staunchly for a system that is broken (and it is...especially when a player like Geno Hayes goes for over $8M/year [no offense to the GM who signed him intended]), instead of looking for potential improvements.

I'm not saying that everyone who signs an extension should be able to sign one here, just one or two per team, if they keep those players on their original FanGM teams from draft to extension. Is that seriously so outrageous a proposition?

[Ben C.]

In five years in this league I have only lost three players to free agency when I wanted to keep them (Charles Tillman, James Jones, and Justin Forsett). All others I was able to re-sign either by putting a tag on them and matching a contract or signing them on my own in free agency. And with Forsett I was able to turn someone who was a 7th round pick into a 3rd and 4th.

My team's picks that are no longer playing for their rookie contracts:
- CB Aaron Ross (2007 2nd round)
- P Daniel Sepulveda (2007 5th round)
- RB Jamaal Charles (2008 3rd round)
- G Jeremy Zuttah (2008 3rd round)
- DT Red Bryant (2008 4th round)
- SS Josh Barrett (2008 6th round)

Other players I have acquired over the years and was able to re-sign when the time came up:
- DE Antonio Smith
- G Deuce Lutui
- QB Aaron Rodgers
- LB Thomas Howard
- LB D'Qwell Jackson
- DT Johnny Jolly (bad one, I know)
- WR Roscoe Parrish
- WR Miles Austin
- CB Antonio Cromartie

So the bottom line is that while the system can be frustrating at times because some players get way overpaid and could absolutely be improved, it is most definitely not broken. A team has a number of significant advantages on its side when re-signing players, and teams that look to build through the draft are able to do so.

[Jared A]

Dan, there's not a single thing that I agree with in your post. So, instead of going through it I'll just say this.



What a real life GM does should never affect what we do as FanGM's. NFL rules are one thing...

The system is not broken. Even if there's a couple of bad signings. Honestly, there's bad signings in real life all the time. (Ask the Redskins about Albert Haynesworth)

If you want your free agents, you already have a bunch of advantages. Unlimited bids, transition tags, and franchise tags. The only thing is, you actually have to pay what is fair value in this league.



Last point, and I'm done with this... our teams have a total of about 25 "valuable" roster slots out of 53. (1qb, 1 rb, 4 te/wr, 6OL, 8 F7, 5 sec) Depth means very little in game time unless someone gets injured. So, our "A" rated players are worth more to us than the same player in real life. I would say that players rated highly should be making better salaries than their real life counter parts. If we're going to compare apples to oranges. They also do not have the right to "hold out" as they do in real life. So, I have Daryn College signed for next to nothing in AFFL. In real life he just signed an enormous contract... that's not very "realistic". (also can check out Michael Vick in AFFL)