Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

[Goodell]

I think we'll find examples on all sides for LTC (less than, greater than, and about what they should be) but the aim is a system that generates good figures on average across the board for most on the whole.

Looking at my AFFL team, I don't have a lot of LTC options but one that jumps out is if I wanted to sign Laurent Duvernay-Tardif (grade 76 guard) a year early before his free agency. He signed an extension in the NFL this off-season (five-year, $41.25M).

If I wanted to sign him to 5-year LTC here, I get these generated prices.
Average LTC salary: $6,268,180, Signing bonus for 5-year: $12,536,360.

He got a $10M SB in the NFL plus his 2017 and 2018 base salaries for guaranteed money. Our sim guaranteed money is the $12.5M SB for that LTC here. Seems realistic for what he got in NFL.

He'll make smaller base salaries in the NFL compared to here for two years, but then his salaries go up to 3.3M, 6.2M, 6.45M, 6.7M and 7.95M. Here he'd make 6.2M for all years under the deal. That seems reasonable compared to most of the years under his new NFL deal, but higher than reality on the first seasons with lower NFL salaries.

If we went with a median salary instead of the LTC average, that uses $5M instead of 6.2M. If we took out the highest and lowest from his LTC considered salaries that puts him at 6.06 instead of 6.2. If we looked at top 15 instead of top 10 salaries for the average, it took the LTC down to 5.3M.

I think the LTC generated in this case is somewhat reasonable, especially considering how important lineman are in our game and the prices people will pay for them on the market. Maybe a little high (especially compared to his next two NFL seasons), but also a balances out with a little low compared to his higher paid future NFL season ahead after that.

The easiest LTC adjustment would probably be adding more players to the average (such as top 15 instead of top 10) or using the median. Both of those result in similar figures in this example and about a million less for LTC.

If we did something like that to knock LTC down slightly, I'd also want to check the more elite players and make sure such a change didn't create bargain bins for top talent at lower costs. I believe we added some elite player LTC protections previously (at least 75% of tag value for A-grade players) but want to make sure we don't create other problems lowering LTC generally.

I temporarily adjusted the LTC calculations while we're frozen to consider top 15 instead of top 10 in order to look around to see examples of that impact. If that gives us better results, it'll be an easy fix to make permanent.

[tjbarnaba]

Top 15 looks good to me

[soonertf]

I'm still for top 10, or I'd be good with doing away with LTC all together and letting market set all prices (perhaps build in a small hometown discount that gives owning team a small advantage).

[JonC]

I'm still for top 10, or I'd be good with doing away with LTC all together and letting market set all prices (perhaps build in a small hometown discount that gives owning team a small advantage).

I like the idea of the LTC for one or two players per year. I think it should be a slight discount from the market value because it's an extension, not a free agent contract. I think 15 drops the price a bit much for my taste. If the choice is 15 or 10, I choose 10.

[RyanM]

I'm still for top 10, or I'd be good with doing away with LTC all together and letting market set all prices (perhaps build in a small hometown discount that gives owning team a small advantage).

I like the idea of the LTC for one or two players per year. I think it should be a slight discount from the market value because it's an extension, not a free agent contract. I think 15 drops the price a bit much for my taste. If the choice is 15 or 10, I choose 10.

It's not an extension - you're signing them to keep them from hitting FA. Zeitler, Reed, and Cox would all undoubtedly get more in FA than through the LTC option than I plan on using for two of them. If we want to start doing an extension approach, then the contract needs to be signed in their last year of the old contract - not once it's up.

And I agree on the top 10 salaries, even though it will cost me quite a bit more.

[Goodell]

Okay, some mixed reaction there.

While we're temporarily frozen, trying a different formula tweak. The LTC calculations now are set to use the top 10 average again, but throwing out the highest and lowest figure. For most of the examples I looked at, that seems to be a slight reduction in the LTC figure. That might be a compromise position where we adjust the LTCs down a little but not too much in the other direction. That would help most in the cases where there's an extreme example throwing the average way off for a way over market signing impacting others at their position, since this ignores the highest and lowest extremes of the salary figures for the average.

[JonC]

Only a quick second to peek this morning, but on quick glance that looks a LOT more realistic to me. If lots of players are getting paid well, your LTC is going to be expensive...in DFFL OLB/DE/QB/WR jump out right away. If there is one outlier, it takes that into account...in DFFL some OL/SS/FS were impacted there.

I think this is a good compromise.

[soonertf]

I still think there are some holes in it, but you are never going to get it perfect. If you look at C, which is a weak field, Travis Frederick(rated 92) can be locked up for an average that consist of 80 and 70 rated players, because their isn't any other 90 rated center. Once again, it's never going to be perfect. There are always going to be players that are great deals, some that are fair deals, and some that aren't a very good deal at all.

[bpboguta1483]

I like it being the top10 and keeping the ability to sign LTC's but also showing fiscal responsibility. My LB Jonathan Casillas would go for 6 million a year for 2 yrs if you figure the SB as well. Do I want to sign a 73 rated LB at that price? Or gamble putting him in the FA market?

[VinceO]

I think it would be a huge mistake to throw out the top value. In an actual, negotiation-based world, that's the single most relevant data point. LTC's aren't supposed to be bargains - they are simply supposed to be a way to avoid some risk (for both parties).