FanGM

If you missed the previous announcement, our free agency will begin on

WEDNESDAY, April 27th at 9:00 AM ET

There has been much discussion in past free agency sessions about deals that slip through that seem unrealistic or unfair, with some suggesting we should re-evaluate some of the bid restrictions prior to free agency this year. For example: http://www.fangm.com/sportstalk/viewtop ... f=7&t=1223

MINIMUM SALARY: To keep pace with the NFL we'll be increasing our rookie and veteran minimums for free agency bidding (up 15K) to $450,000 and $760,000 for veterans over 2 years experience.

Previous free agency bid restrictions were as follows:
- Multi-year deals for veterans over 2 years experience must include a signing bonus.
- 7 Years is the longest contract that can be offered.
- Minimum signing bonus is $1000.
- Minimum roster bonus $1000
- If years over 6, you must have $7M+ signing bonus.
- If years over 4, you must have $3M+ signing bonus.
- If years over 3, you must have $1M+ signing bonus.

HERE'S SOME RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS FOR THIS SEASON:

- For 7-year deals, you must have $10M+ signing bonus.
- For 6-year deals, you must have $6M+ signing bonus.
- For 5-year deals, you must have $5M+ signing bonus.
- For 4-year deals, you must have $2M+ signing bonus.
- For 3-year veteran deals, you must have $1M+ signing bonus.

- Plus new minimum salary for longer deals:
- For 7-year deals, 7 x .760 min salary = $5.3M minimum annual salary on 7-year deals.
- For 6-year deals, 6 x .760 = $4.6M minimum annual salary.
- For 5-year deals, 5 x .760 = $3.8M minimum annual salary.
- For 4-year deals, 4 x .760 = $3M minimum annual salary.

- New cap on max SB 60M (40M highest SB in NFL), so if player concussed/dies/incarcerated/suspended/etc that's 30M cap hit split over 2 years. Only a couple SBs higher across all leagues from previous years.

- Minimum signing bonus is $3000.

I don't like the new high salary floors on long term deals. I think the SB floors make more sense. Raising both though means that 6 year deals will require $5.6 mil per year of cap hit.

I'd be fine with higher SB requirements so that long term deals have some repurcussions, but I also think I shouldn't be prevented from signing a 71 rated player with potential to a long term deal. But at 5.6 mil per year, that won't work.

Ulrich82 wrote:I don't like the new high salary floors on long term deals. I think the SB floors make more sense. Raising both though means that 6 year deals will require $5.6 mil per year of cap hit.

I'd be fine with higher SB requirements so that long term deals have some repurcussions, but I also think I shouldn't be prevented from signing a 71 rated player with potential to a long term deal. But at 5.6 mil per year, that won't work.

Problem is a young player with potential wouldn't want to sign a 6 year deal unless it was substantially worth it.

There aren't any sim agents here to say a sim player won't sign for 7 years at $1M per year and be tied the rest of his life to a roll of the dice team deal that strips away all freedom for the player's full career for possibly pennies on the dollar at near league minimum prices forever. The league has to simulate that part of the action rejecting unrealistic offers players wouldn't agree to. From the beginning we've put in some restrictions to ensure that deals submitted are realistic. Such as no 7 year deal with only $1000 signing bonus.

The scenario mentioned in the tread link above from last off-season was a complaint about the unrealistic nature of several deals from last free agency like "6 year deals 1mil per year 3mil sb" mentioned. To some those deals are great and fine if the league is full of them. To others, not. That's why put to a vote to see where most come out on that.

The teams, for the most part, are understandably on their own side and wanting to pay the players less. Get as many great players for less as they can on their roster. The league isn't so much for that. It's for realistic game play. Whether a 6 year deal for 1M per year with 3M SB is realistic or not, I'd probably say not. But that's why the poll getting some feedback.

In the league's view, the more unrealistic deals allowed, the worse things are for game play in terms of mirroring the NFL environment and situations. Arguably an NFL team can't sign a bunch of guys to a 6-year 1M deal and build their team around that. If it's not realistic in the NFL to build that way and not part of the NFL team building environment, then I'd personally be against it here. The league in some ways has always had restrictions on bids in part to simulate the player reactions to bids (whether reasonable bids they'd agree to or unrealistic bids that players would reject). Real GMs can't sign wildly unrealistic deals and build around that, so the rules here in that regard replicate those conditions for a sim GM putting their bids out to players where those bids have to be somewhat reasonable for a favorable player response and agreeing to a reasonable bid.

I'll be working on those free agency scripts prior to Wednesday so we'll have some final thoughts on this probably Monday night, but from initial reaction to the numbers here it probably makes sense for most of these adjustments to be made -- but to reduce the minimum salary amounts for the longer term deals. Instead of .760 x number of years for that number as above, perhaps we'd go .5 x number of years so the range would be 2M to 3.5M instead of the 3-5.3M proposed to compromise and wade more slowly into that to see the results and revisit next year if it was a good change or not.

I think slowly moving towards it is ideal. The change to LTC's was a big difference for me this year and I may not had made a trade last year knowing the impact it would have this year. So instead of it being a shock right before FA we can do a small bump and know that next year we are going up again.

Or have two waves to free agency. The first would be at the new higher numbers, which would last a week or ten days. Then wave 2 would be similar to what we had before. I think this makes sense and is realistic.

That sounds like a better approach to me. I understand the concept, and I am for it. The numbers just seemed high.

I think higher SB makes sense. It forced the signing team to take on more risk on long term deals. And if players are going to take long deals, those deals would usually favor high guaranteed money.

I disagree. I think we let the voting speak for itself. Personally I would rather see both increase, that way you don't see ridiculous cheap contracts after player is traded. It just not realistic to real life, which is what we should be shooting for here.

soonertf wrote:I disagree. I think we let the voting speak for itself. Personally I would rather see both increase, that way you don't see ridiculous cheap contracts after player is traded. It just not realistic to real life, which is what we should be shooting for here.

Agree.