2024 RULES: Free Agency Bids (Backloaded/RB)

[Goodell]

We'll have some more free agency or contract related discussions ahead (and feel free to suggest things either on these forums in responses or sending me a PM), but I'll start with a couple of grouped topics from notes I had throughout the year to possibly address.

BACK-LOADED CONTRACTS:
As things are with back-loaded contracts an option, teams could for example place a 3-year bid, select back-loaded, restructure them the next season, and essentially pay the player only 50% for each of the first two years and cut them before that ballooned third year having never paid them a single season at the full salary they bid. Looking at last year's bid data, there were very few back-loaded deals and mostly from just one league so perhaps won't be missed and creates loopholes that should be closed. Makes sense to me to get rid of that option or perhaps a larger reworking of flexible contract structures in some way that it's fair in a competitive bidding process and not exploitable.

ROSTER BONUSES:
Roster bonuses are not popularly used in free agent bidding, but more so than back-loaded option. We added them from the start as we wanted to bring in real NFL elements to the game, but arguably make things confusing as it's essentially the same for bid purposes as additional salary. The only difference with those roster bonuses from salary is that a team has a 6/1 deadline where they'd have to cut the player before that roster bonus became permanent as part of their cap value for the year.

[JonC]

I rarely use backloaded offers because they are weaker in comparison to equal annual values. That said, why are those of you voting to remove it against it? It’s a viable way to rebuild. It’s a viable way to add a piece at the end of a window of contention. The player gets paid and if they get released they get paid again. I can understand weakening them again, perhaps, but removing them completely seems punitive.

[Royce R]

I don't see the point in removing these options.

We want a realistic gm experience but then want to simplify bidding and contracts? Isn't that the point of a gm? Learn to manage your salary cap and play the money games.

[tino38]

I don't see the point in removing these options.

We want a realistic gm experience but then want to simplify bidding and contracts? Isn't that the point of a gm? Learn to manage your salary cap and play the money games.

I agree with Royce here.

[larry linke]

I try not to agree with Tino and Royce but they are right

Larry

[sillegrant]

These contract options, front loading or back loading, are true to real life and should be an option available to us. While most players don't use Backloaded contracts, I think that both backloaded contracts and frontloaded contracts can help a franchise make more strategic contracts/moves while also increasing intricacy that can be used by astute GM's. Maybe it helps separate the great GM's from the rest.

I would look to add a good player to a frontloaded contract during a rebuild in hopes that in the last years of the deal he is cheap when trying to be competitive, just like in real life. If he is bad or the players flops, then you've used all your money in free agency on one frontloaded NTC contract and it prolongs a rebuild.

[Goodell]

I don't have an issue keeping any of these very under-used options. It's less work to not change it. I do have a pretty major problem if we keep back-loaded for example and also allow back-loaded deals to be restructured the next year. It's kind of like there was a secret few knew that you could bid a huge amount against your competition but never ever pay that player that full amount and actually only half of that salary for two full seasons. And if kept that way but now discussed more, perhaps a flood of offers like that in free agency ahead where back-loaded goes from only a couple people in one league to hundreds of bids with that strategy making things kind of a joke with people knowing they're only ever going to pay 50% salary for multiple seasons.

It's definitely not how the game would be designed and different from option intentions. Understandable if people look for ways to capitalize on something, but definitely in the league interest to close down loopholes or resolve various issues outside of the league intentions.

Perhaps something where back-loading and front-loading allowed as options, but a back-loaded deal that already pays the player 50% the first year would be designed as already being restructured and not eligible for additional restructuring beyond that as it's initially setup exactly how we do restructures already.

[JonC]

Commish, would it be a heavy lift to add a block on restructuring for any backloaded contract in the programming?

[Goodell]

Commish, would it be a heavy lift to add a block on restructuring for any backloaded contract in the programming?

No at the time of signing a back-loaded deal, it would just flip the switch saying it's restructured like we do with restructured contracts to prevent them from being restructured twice.

[Royce R]

I would be ok woth not allowing the restructuring of an already backloaded deal.

I'm pretty sure this rule came up because of me anyway. I 100% planned this with a qb in the brfl and it's why I bid the way I did lol.

As long as we know when bidding back loaded that it's already restructuring then I see no problems.

I'm sure there are instances in real life when I player keeps taking pay cuts to stay on a team, but I see how it can be manipulated like I did in the brfl.