2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Should we add another LTC and/or contract restructuring option?

LTC: NO keep same number of LTC options.
22
21%
LTC: YES add another LTC in future seasons.
34
32%
Restructure: NO keep it same number of contract restrutures.
17
16%
Restructure: YES add another available contract restructure during regular season.
32
30%
 
Total votes: 105

Ulrich82
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:17 am

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by Ulrich82 »

I'm really against adding more LTC's. I like the option, but it's already really diluting the FA market.
CFFL SF 49ers since 2010
NFC West Champions: 2011, 2012, 2013 , 2014, 2015
Undefeated 2013-2014 Regular Season

AFFL:
Assistant GM with Car Panthers since 2012
Carolina Panthers GM Since 2014
whteshark
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by whteshark »

I gotta disagree. The free agent market is always robust and all the top players are taken off the market anyway (that's if the GM's are active).

The home field advantage for above average players is a joke in many ways. You have to throw franchise money at them to keep them. Unlimited bids doesn't stop that.

On top of that you have teams that every year are in full rebuild and have the money to throw around because they cut their teams to the bone and don't even try to put a team on the field.

I don't think an extra LTC hurts. In the NFL teams offer contract extensions to more than one player all the time.
Regular Season: 161-79-1
Playoff Appearances: 10 of 16
Division Titles: 9
Conference Titles: 5
Playoffs: 17-7
AFFL Bowls: 3-2

AFFL Bowl I Winner
AFFL Bowl IV Winner
AFFL Bowl VIII Winner
Nathan S.
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by Nathan S. »

whteshark wrote:I gotta disagree. The free agent market is always robust and all the top players are taken off the market anyway (that's if the GM's are active).

The home field advantage for above average players is a joke in many ways. You have to throw franchise money at them to keep them. Unlimited bids doesn't stop that.

On top of that you have teams that every year are in full rebuild and have the money to throw around because they cut their teams to the bone and don't even try to put a team on the field.

I don't think an extra LTC hurts. In the NFL teams offer contract extensions to more than one player all the time.
I 100% agree with this. There are teams who cut their salary number to 30-40 million, don't really attempt to win at all, then throw insane amounts of cash at FAs. The unlimited bids is nice for your own player but it doesn't help all that much. Every year we have 80 rated OL getting 8 million a year, where if you're a good team, with other good players, you have no chance at keeping them.

Look at Cobb and Bulaga IRL taking less money to stay with the Packers, here we don't have the ability for players to decide that. Two LTCs makes that more realistic.
GM Tampa Bay Buccaneers - AFFL
RebelFan
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: MS

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by RebelFan »

Nathan S. wrote:
whteshark wrote:I gotta disagree. The free agent market is always robust and all the top players are taken off the market anyway (that's if the GM's are active).

The home field advantage for above average players is a joke in many ways. You have to throw franchise money at them to keep them. Unlimited bids doesn't stop that.

On top of that you have teams that every year are in full rebuild and have the money to throw around because they cut their teams to the bone and don't even try to put a team on the field.

I don't think an extra LTC hurts. In the NFL teams offer contract extensions to more than one player all the time.
I 100% agree with this. There are teams who cut their salary number to 30-40 million, don't really attempt to win at all, then throw insane amounts of cash at FAs. The unlimited bids is nice for your own player but it doesn't help all that much. Every year we have 80 rated OL getting 8 million a year, where if you're a good team, with other good players, you have no chance at keeping them.

Look at Cobb and Bulaga IRL taking less money to stay with the Packers, here we don't have the ability for players to decide that. Two LTCs makes that more realistic.
I third this.
GM - Chicago Bears - AFFL
GM - San Francisco 49ers - DFFL

"Talent Hoarder"
RyanM
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:33 pm

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by RyanM »

If we're going to do more LTCs (which I disagree with) then we need to cut back on the transition/franchise tagging options.
Ryan McKnight
Seattle GM - AFFL
Seattle GM - EFFL
Leb
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:59 am

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by Leb »

I am against another LTC, I think it greatly depletes the market. And while the contracts that are resulting from LTC are for the most part fair now, I think the lower number of FA reaching the market is only going to ramp up spending on mid level free agents which would damage the LTC contract calculation in the future.

One compromise that I like could be adding an LTC for guys 80 and under so as to not deplete the core free agents but providing an opportunity to secure a low level starter or depth guy at a good price
Philadelphia AFFL
Regular season record 84-46
S10, S12, S15 NFC East Champs

Washington DFFL
Regular season record 165-61
S5, S6, S7, S8, S10, S11, S12, S13, S14 NFC East Champs
S8 DFFL Champs
Ben C.
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by Ben C. »

Leb wrote:I am against another LTC, I think it greatly depletes the market. And while the contracts that are resulting from LTC are for the most part fair now, I think the lower number of FA reaching the market is only going to ramp up spending on mid level free agents which would damage the LTC contract calculation in the future.

One compromise that I like could be adding an LTC for guys 80 and under so as to not deplete the core free agents but providing an opportunity to secure a low level starter or depth guy at a good price
On the other hand, if the spending on mid level free agents goes up due to fewer being on the market, consequently raising the price of the LTC calculation would likely result in fewer GMs choosing the LTC route. In other words it should balance itself out:

More LTCs ---> Fewer FAs ---> Higher Contracts for FAs ---> Higher price for LTCs ---> Fewer LTCs ---> More FAs ---> Lower contracts for FAs ---> Lower price for LTCs ---> More LTCs
AFFL Arizona - General Manager
Regular Season Record - 174-66-1
Playoff Record - 13-12
AFFL Bowl Record - 0-2

2x NFC Champions - 2010, 2016
11x NFC West Champions - 2007-12, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2021
AFFL History
tino38
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by tino38 »

Ben C. wrote:More LTCs ---> Fewer FAs ---> Higher Contracts for FAs ---> Higher price for LTCs ---> Fewer LTCs ---> More FAs ---> Lower contracts for FAs ---> Lower price for LTCs ---> More LTCs
It keeps going and going and going...

This made me laugh, I had to do it :D I agree here
AFFL Patriots - Super Bowl Champion: 22’
DFFL Jets - Super Bowl Champion: 21’ & 22’
FFFL Jets - Super Bowl Champion: 17’ & 18’
BRFL Saints - Super Bowl Champion: 23’
Jared A
Posts: 1130
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:18 pm

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by Jared A »

Right now, we have a decent balance. Fewer guys on the open market is a bad thing. We already can keep two per year. Very few teams sign more than 2 players per year to extensions before they hit the open market.
Strategist
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 pm

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Post by Strategist »

I think adding an LTC in the AFFL isn't that bad of an option because people don't get fleeced on trades but in the other 2 leagues you have it happen often therefore these teams that are taking advantage of new gms would have a way to keep more of their players from hitting the open market and I don't like that idea.
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
Post Reply