Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post Reply
Onyxgem
Posts: 758
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:32 pm

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Onyxgem »

I like the top 15 and I do like throwing out the top 2 and bottom 2 just because sometimes we got some stupid contract out there and then people restructure them to make them even worse
Bucs99
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:07 pm

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Bucs99 »

VinceO wrote: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).

I disagree. Anyone over a 90 makes 75% of the franchise tag regardless of who signed what deals. The top paid player should be cut out because APs 12 mil base salary isn't a starting point for any running under 90. Same with many other positions.
Fish
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 7:05 pm
Location: Washington D.C.
Contact:

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Fish »

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2017/ ... t-id=67123

Couple other thoughts after seeing some of this for the first time:

- I would lean towards being in favor of more LTCs/restructures, but not a huge deal.
- We have the option to backload contracts, how about ability to frontload? I was reading an article that DAL plans to lockup Martin with a front loaded extension to benefit from their QB and RB being under team friendly contracts.
- Still feel lifting the restriction on the number of bids in FA makes sense given the sophistication of the tool/site and the league structure (roster limits, cap, etc), but seems I'm very much in the minority on that.
EFFL - Steelers
Record - 42-9
2017 EFFL Champions

Image
Fish
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 7:05 pm
Location: Washington D.C.
Contact:

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Fish »

Knights Knight posted about eliminated the 75-man cut down, but they also approved allowing a second player to return from IR.
EFFL - Steelers
Record - 42-9
2017 EFFL Champions

Image
Testa_315
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:01 am
Location: NY

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Testa_315 »

Fish wrote:https://www.profootballrumors.com/2017/ ... t-id=67123

Couple other thoughts after seeing some of this for the first time:

- I would lean towards being in favor of more LTCs/restructures, but not a huge deal.
- We have the option to backload contracts, how about ability to frontload? I was reading an article that DAL plans to lockup Martin with a front loaded extension to benefit from their QB and RB being under team friendly contracts.
- Still feel lifting the restriction on the number of bids in FA makes sense given the sophistication of the tool/site and the league structure (roster limits, cap, etc), but seems I'm very much in the minority on that.

I like the first two points you made. I understand why we have LTC/restructure limits, but I think adding to the limit, even if it is just by adding one more, would be a huge benefit to teams. I've always loved the idea to frontload contracts, I always offer players frontloaded contracts in video games (although it always seems like the total contract cap hit seems to be more, then in a backloaded deal).

As far as the restriction on FA bids, I would go ahead and confirm that you are very much in the minority on that topic. For one, if you give every team unlimited bids on every player, then what advantage would the players current team have over the others? There's always a resigning phase in the real world, before FA starts. So maybe if we added in a resigning phase? However, that just seems boring and would make the leagues less competitive in my opinion.

Just some food for thought on the topics.
Strategist
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:06 pm

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Strategist »

I am fundamentally against adding more LTCs. If anything we need to go back to 1. The FA pool this year was so thin. Leading to massive contracts.
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
jerrydlux
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by jerrydlux »

I think 2 ltcs is good. I'm not sure if that is the reason FA was weak or if it's just players from those expiring contracts are aging or just not developing (haven't looked into it in detail). In real life you don't have a limit on how many players get extended and I'm not saying ltcs should be unlimited because obviously financially it wouldn't make sense.
Knighty Knight
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:33 am

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Knighty Knight »

Contracts are growing because the cap space has been expanding quickly the last few seasons, and everyone has money to spend. I think 2 LTCs are good and simulates a more realistic free agent market. Most A level players never hit the free agent market.
Brian Orr
AFFL New York Giants (56-52)(2-2) 2022, 2023 NFC East Champions
BRFL Washington Commanders (15-12)(0-1)
DFFL Miami Dolphins(106-81)(3-5) 2018 AFC East Champions
Bucs99
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 12:07 pm

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Bucs99 »

The FA pool isn't supposed to be loaded with talent. Real teams retain their players. I understand we want to have fun but taking away an LTC just makes the game easier for the people who draft poorly.

Adding an LTC would give added value towards the draft, isn't that the point of what we do here?
Tmoore55
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:44 pm

Re: Off-Season Rules Discussion - Open Mike

Post by Tmoore55 »

Bucs99 wrote:The FA pool isn't supposed to be loaded with talent. Real teams retain their players.

Agreed
EFFL BAL
2016 4-12 - Rebuild
2017 0-0
Post Reply