FanGM

There's been some discussion of teams signing players to trade them this past off-season and now, so wanted to put some structure to that as we think about future (not this season but 2019) rules adjustments while we're in the middle of those issues and not having to wait until next March to remember.

Trades overall in the NFL are very rare. I don't think that means we should artificially limit trades necessarily, though, just to be like the NFL. The NFL's starting to have more trades I think (or feels that way) and we wouldn't want to remove part of the fun of this league when there are no NFL rules about trading frequently. The NFL, for example, doesn't say teams can only make 2 trades per year, even if that's perhaps about realistic.

It's even rarer for a player to sign with a team in free agency and then be traded that same off-season. It's happened, though, I believe and often free agency signings who don't pan out in training camp might be offered up for trade before the team cuts them. You might also see a veteran QB signed in March, the team unexpectedly gets a coveted rookie QB in the draft who impresses, and the team trades the veteran QB to a team that could use him.

You'd never see, I don't think, an unrestricted free agent signing and then immediately traded somewhere else.

There is precedent for some trading restrictions as 1-year no-trade clauses were built into our league-generated LTC contract extensions for some options. The thinking there would be a player wouldn't sign a deal with a team and the team turn right around and trade him before the ink is dry.

Along those lines, in reality if there was a team known for signing a player and then immediately trading them to another team outside of that player's control, how many players do you think would really sign with that team doing that? That might end all of their free agency signing for nobody interested in signing somewhere to be traded elsewhere immediately.

Some like that ability for teams to build that way here, and some don't. I probably fall on the side of that being unrealistic (but not illegal in reality) and might be something to try to think about ways to improve that aspect of the game since as it happens here wouldn't practically happen in reality.

Some recommendations perhaps change the very nature of our contracts setups and guaranteed money being paid by signing team. I'm personally not looking to change some of those core elements if they different from reality where signing bonus paid by signing team and distributed over the deal for accounting purposes.

But there might be ways to put realistic restrictions on sign-and-trades in a similar manner as we structured LTC contract options.

One idea I had today was to implement a no-trade clause on short deals that a high signing bonus. I'm not sure where that would fit into the poll options though.

This would be another way of working towards a salary cap floor like they have in the NFL. No team in the NFL would be able to take a $30 million hit in one year just to buy some draft picks. The team's ownership would probably flip out at the cost of it.

Yes, it "worked" for the Browns last year with Osweiler, but then again the GM ended up fired so I'm not sure that qualifies as "working."

Another option would be that 50%(or some number) of the SB travels to the new owner. I don't how hard that would be system wise, but I think it would solve a lot of these issues.

soonertf wrote:Another option would be that 50%(or some number) of the SB travels to the new owner. I don't how hard that would be system wise, but I think it would solve a lot of these issues.

Open to suggestions, but that falls into my note about I'm personally not interested in changing the core financial structures of the league different from reality. We set this league up around the very basics of how real NFL contracts and caps work generally. That's what I built it on and not looking to go far from that.

A lot of options to choose from, which helps out the keep the same category (as those who want it changed will have their votes split). Perhaps we should have done a simple poll of should it change or not (2 choices) and then if yes wins, we could do new poll and discussions on what the change is. I also like the LTC where low # years can't be traded and 4/5 year contracts can.

I used this to my own benefit in a rebuild in the DFFL a few years ago with Eli Manning. It ended up netting me the #9 pick in that draft and helped me build my team to where it is now. I do agree it is not very realistic and at that time I thought I would catch a whole lot of crap for it when I did it but not a word was said. I think it’s a bigger deal to some GMs than it is to others, but I’m open to a change..

I believe a 1 year no trade clause should be only if the SB is more than 10million dollars.

Jared A wrote:I believe a 1 year no trade clause should be only if the SB is more than 10million dollars.

Agreed.

Edit: Voted for the first option in the poll, but the above is what I'd really prefer.

Jared A wrote:I believe a 1 year no trade clause should be only if the SB is more than 10million dollars.

I could definitely get behind this.

Jared A wrote:I believe a 1 year no trade clause should be only if the SB is more than 10million dollars.

I like that idea. Or what if the sb was over 30% of the total contract, or a % to be determined?