LTC Restrictions

[Strategist]

There is definitely some interest in limiting those and could see that justified within NFL rules by just making our LTC language contain those provisions with limited no-trade clause. It is also true that we have a lot more trades and rapidly changing team situations than real NFL that has very few trades, and where our teams might find themselves more often in situations like the Jets signing a backup QB one week but acquiring a new one the next and being able to trade out of that. Very big gatherings at the extremes, which is why I threw in that compromise that allows such trades but would seem to make them more costly and perhaps reduced in number.

Another potential compromise could be some of our LTC contract options having a no-trade clause and some not.

Say 2- or 3-year LTCs come with limited no-trade clause for the first year, 4- or 5-year LTCs have no no-trade clauses. Then the only way a team could LTC and trade someone would be if they were willing to go with 150%-200% SB LTC options where player gets more guaranteed money but doesn't have no-trade.

That seems more than fair to me. Are we going to limit how many LTC's each team can have on their roster at one time?

[Leb]

Say 2- or 3-year LTCs come with limited no-trade clause for the first year, 4- or 5-year LTCs have no no-trade clauses. Then the only way a team could LTC and trade someone would be if they were willing to go with 150%-200% SB LTC options where player gets more guaranteed money but doesn't have no-trade.

But the problem with this is then you have relatively reasonable contracts with no SB and 4/5 year deals on the new teams

[Goodell]

But the problem with this is then you have relatively reasonable contracts with no SB and 4/5 year deals on the new teams

That why I fought to keep the annual salary high and add premium SB to it. Otherwise in any trade a player would be making a lower than value salary going forward. We'll always have a ton of trading in these kinds of leagues and SB only go toward signing team by NFL rules. We'd have to prevent all the trades to avoid those situations entirely, but that's why I've tried to ensure league-generated contracts maintain a high salary no matter how many times traded to have some reasonable value against the cap always.

[Royce R]

They aren't going to be low salary for the most part. the 120% raise makes sure of that.

And the signing of stanton in NYJ was not a contract extention of a good player, it was a FA that signed because noone else wanted him. Even the team that did sign him

[Goodell]

That seems more than fair to me. Are we going to limit how many LTC's each team can have on their roster at one time?

Some baseball sim leagues that some of us are in do that, but we have a philosophy of trying to keep things very real here and avoid aritifical limitations where we can. We have to have some since it's sim and not real money, but any artificial limits we have are attempted to recognize reality of a team only able to do so much in a day or season. You can sign 100 players in one hour if you want online in sim, but that's not real so we limit what teams can do online to make it more reflective of reality.

We'd limit it to one per team per 12 months, which I think has some basis in reasonable team activity as well as doesn't drain the free agency pool completely (since we also have less tags than in the past now). Teams in reality may end up doing more extensions than this, but we also give teams big advantages in re-signing their own players if willing to pay market prices.

Having a total roster LTC limit can be discussed, but wouldn't initially see a realistic reason to limit the total number of players resigned. Our limit would be the salary cap and whatever you can fit under it, however accomplished.

[Royce R]

the total LTC on a roster is limited buy the Salary Cap

very much so..

[Ulrich82]

I kind of like the latest suggestion of a no trader clause for the first year in the 2 and 3 year deals.

I generally agree with Ben and Onyxgem that there are punishments against sign and trade options. However, we know some teams will still try to use this system to squeeze value out of FAs they don't expect to keep. I generally think we should discourage such things, and I think having the franchise tag option is enough. It carries a high price, and there is no guarantee you can find a trade partner if you overprice a guy with the franchise tag.

Besides the reasons listed for why teams don't tend to trade players they year they sign them, there is the fact that if a team goes all out for a FA and then turn around and trade him that year, it could really hurt the teams reputation around the league and discourage other FAs from signing there. Also, unlike in the NBA, an NFL player has no incentive to do a sign and trade deal.

The Stanton situation is why I am against trade limits. The Jets signed Stanton without knowing Tebow would end up on the market. However, I think stopping teams from squeezing extra value out of FAs is more important than the rarer Stanton situation.

----

As far as limits on LTC, I really hate the idea that a player can only sign 1 LTC in his career. I think once per player per team (and 1 contract per year) is very fair, but I hate the idea that another GMs action would change the value of a player (so far as how likely the new GM would be able to keep the player on his roster for a longer term). I'd prefer no such limit on the number of LTC's a player can sign in his career, but I think a better compromise would be to limit a player to 6 or 7 years of LTC extension per career. That way, if a player signs a LTC to a 2 or 3 year deal earlier in his career and then decides to trade him later, I don't have to devalue the player as much since I know I could still sign him to a LTC deal at the end of his contract. At the same time, it keeps a guy from being permanently LTCed by multiple teams.

[Goodell]

They aren't going to be low salary for the most part. the 120% raise makes sure of that.

And the signing of stanton in NYJ was not a contract extention of a good player, it was a FA that signed because noone else wanted him. Even the team that did sign him

If it was ever mentioned that the jets backup QB was an extension that would have been mistated, but if the NFL was going to have any kind of limits or regulations on trading someone after signing them you'd think there would be a lot more regulation around new players signed versus someone you already have held the rights (and ability to trade at any time) for possibly years before. You wouldn't think the NFL would say a team is free to trade a player any time but if he extends his contract they are no longer able to trade him just because of that. They'd only not be able to IF there was mutually negotiated language to include a no-trade clause. And we could add that to either some or all of our LTC contract terms also. But the point with the Jets would be looking for actual NFL rules and regulations about signed players and rules on not being able to trade them in general.

Good point about the 120%. Definitely won't be the cheapest option to LTC someone, nor is that the intention. It's basically ripping a guy off the market without having to tag him at elite franchise prices, so the aim would be at least a representative value contract if we're letting teams avoid the risk of losing the player and not having to bid for them as they would have had to here for years before. Now we have another option, but not based upon bargain prices or getting steals as well as avoiding bid competition.

[Goodell]

I kind of like the latest suggestion of a no trader clause for the first year in the 2 and 3 year deals...

Some support that that new twist. Is anyone strongly against that as a potential first year compromise that still allows it under some conditions but also provides discouragement or stronger penalty for those who want to restrict LTC trades? And then re-visiting how LTC went this first year and adjust rules for that as item #1 early in next off-season rules discussions?

We don't have to settle this immediately, but hoping to fill team vacancies this weekend and really start to get closer to ready for the new year.

[Jared A]

One thing I will say in defense is this...


There are teams that still sign players to next to no salary, huge signing bonuses long term, and then trade them. So, it's not uncommon to have players in the league making next to nothing after being traded.


If a 200% signing bonus doesn't slow them down from trading them, then let them trade. I've never been a supporter to limiting any type of trade.