FanGM

Before we enter the brave new world of LTC's, doing a last check on some of the issues that have been raised by some. This isn't an official vote on anything, but just getting the feel for how everyone's feeling to see if we need to address anything further before I conclude my building of this option into the system.

Call me uninformed, but what the heck is LTC? In my world thats Long Term Care.

vikingfan wrote:Call me uninformed, but what the heck is LTC? In my world thats Long Term Care.

Long-term Contract. For more information, see this: http://www.fangm.com/sportstalk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=684

In real life, a player would not sign a long term extension with a team and be traded in the same season. I doubt this has EVER happen in real life. A short-term no trade makes the most sense as it would give them players some leverage.

Is the 1 LTC per player per team dead, or is that still an option? It makes sense to me. It is unfortunate that a team uses a LTC to sign and trade a player rather than letting him hit FA, but I'd also hate to have to devalue a good player in a deal just because he was previously given a LTC (maybe even a 2 year one), and I know I couldn't give him a LTC to keep him around if I trade for him.

I'm somewhat in favor of a 1 year trade restriction as I agree it isn't too realistic to sign and trade in the NFL, but I am not sure it is fair. Say you give a player a LTC in FA. Then something unexpected happens like getting a bargain you didn't expect on the FA market, another team putting a star on the trade block, or a player falling to you in the draft. I'm not sure I agree with restricting a team's options with the original player in that case.

I don't think we want to be stopping guys from trading players even if they were just signed to a LTC. If we do that then why are we not making no trades on the franchise players also? If a team signs a guy to a LTC he will have to pay the price to trade him by covering the SB.

Onyxgem wrote:I don't think we want to be stopping guys from trading players even if they were just signed to a LTC. If we do that then why are we not making no trades on the franchise players also? If a team signs a guy to a LTC he will have to pay the price to trade him by covering the SB.

Agree with this. The team trading a newly signed LTC player will have to pay the SB, and will have used up their 1 LTC for the season. I think that's restrictive enough.

Nothing's dead or official yet. Continuing and trying to promote more debate to get to the best answers. It's a big change and wanting to implement it right. We had some views expressed on no-trade restrictions and wanted to get the temperature of the league generally on that.

I've reached out to a couple NFL agents asking questions, but it's my general belief that no-trade clauses aren't very common in the NFL (at least not as much as baseball) and the ones who have it probably are the guys very unlikely to be traded like the very elites with negotiation leverage unlike most of the other players.

But I'd certainly agree that it is unrealistic for a player to sign an extension with a team and be traded the next week. We have seen some things like the Jets backup QB signing with them this off-season and then being traded after they acquired Tebow instead. There have also been some things close to sign-and-trade like situations tied to franchise tags where NE signs Cassel to franchise tag and then trades him to KC (instead of letting him walk as free agent) where he signs a big deal there. Tagging is different but not entirely unrelated to how we'd do LTCs.

The biggest reasons to me why you don't see NFL teams sign a guy to a contract and then trade him later that off-season are:

- Signing Bonus (most teams not willing to write a check for millions and then get rid of the player shortly after, putting dead money on their cap paying for a player no longer there).

- If a team wants a player and goes all out to convince the player to sign with them, it's generally because they WANT the player. Trades rarely happen in NFL and players not signed to be traded typically, but because the team wants them as part of their own strategy.

Without a no-trade clause in the specific player's contract, I believe teams probably could trade more recently signed players later that off-season as we saw with the Jets already this year. They just don't because of those reasons above.

So my thinking within this group where you have very popular support on both sides of the extremes, where a lot want to have trade freedom and a lot want no-trade clauses, is that the best answer might be something that technically allows it but presents a realistic downside to it that limits its use.

To me that would be the LTC restriction to once in a career and that encouraging higher signing bonus cap hits.

The biggest SB on LTC is 200% of the salary on a 5-year extension. The smallest is a 50% SB on 2-year extension.

If there are no limits on LTC activities, I think you'd likely see a lot of 2-year extensions on players really signed to be traded. Then it's not a very big cap hit with only 50% of the salary (that can even be split into 2 years again to reduce the cost this year), and the new team still has the option of LTCing the player again (as soon as a year from then when they're headed into their last year under the short 2-year extension).

To encourage more 5-year extensions on the sign-and-trade scenario, if a player was only limited to one LTC in his career then you'd see much less of the short 50% SB 2-year deals on those and a lot more longer-term LTCs and higher SB prices with higher cap hits as a deterent to sign-and-trades because the price may be higher unless someone really wants to trade for a guy on a shorter LTC knowing he can't be extended again other than franchise tag. That also seems realistic to me as a league we want more market prices and a high percentage of players -- or their agents especially -- want to field offers from other teams. While I don't see NFL rules about can't trade players under contract (unless it's written specifically into the individual contract) the LTC is more our creation and I'd be more comfortable adjusting our creations than how we adapt NFL rules. But we could say our LTC deals available have such no-trade language written into them.

More than anything, before LTC issues pop up, want to make sure everyone's aware of the possibilities and that we've had a thorough discussion and opportunties for people to voice their opinions. Better to speak up now and help toward the best solution than to just complain later. It's a very complicated matter and something new that will have an impact on the leagues, so want to make sure we are careful in our considerations and open the floor to all in efforts to get the best outcome.

One agent wrote back to me on Twitter today.

@agentlinton about how many players in the NFL have no-trade clauses these days and is that happening more?

@fanulation not as many as you would think. And the goal is to play. If you have a no trade clause and they don't want you, you risk be cut

https://twitter.com/#!/agentlinton/stat ... 6593824768
https://twitter.com/#!/agentlinton/stat ... 5037065216

Haven't found articles talking about no-trade clause use in the NFL other than it popping up in some elite player contract detail notes. So don't know for sure, but what that agent said kind of re-enforces what I was thinking that no-trades aren't real common. But on the other hand, even if there is no no-trade clause for most, it is also highly uncommon for players to be signed and then traded soon after anyway for various reasons.

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.

Goodell wrote: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.