LTC Issue

[sillegrant]

I have identified a bug related to the implementation of LTCs (Long-Term Contracts) for players who are still under contract for one more year.

• Issue with a 5-Year LTC: When a 5-year LTC is offered to a player, the final year of their existing contract is replaced by the LTC, resulting in a total contract length of 5 years, with no extension beyond the original contract term.

• Issue with a 4-Year LTC: When a 4-year LTC is offered to a player, the final year of their existing contract remains intact, and the LTC begins after the final year of the current contract. As a result, the total contract length extends to 5 years. This is how I think it should work.

The two primary issues are:

• Incorrect Replacement of Contract Years: The final year is sometimes replaced incorrectly based on the length of the LTC.

• Doing the 5 Year LTC increases the first year and the SB is higher over the life of the contract that would be had we known this information.

Just wanted everyone to know since it is always cheaper to give a 4 Year LTC to players still on the last year of their deal. I mentioned this to Goodell but I explained it poorly.

[sillegrant]

4 Year LTC
3,762,647 + 4,881,706 SB Per Year
14,150,400
14,150,400
14,150,400
14,150,400

VS
5 Year LTC same player and situation
14,150,400 + 5,660,160 SB Per Year
14,150,400
14,150,400
14,150,400
14,150,400

[sportznut]

I have identified a bug related to the implementation of LTCs (Long-Term Contracts) for players who are still under contract for one more year.

• Issue with a 5-Year LTC: When a 5-year LTC is offered to a player, the final year of their existing contract is replaced by the LTC, resulting in a total contract length of 5 years, with no extension beyond the original contract term.

• Issue with a 4-Year LTC: When a 4-year LTC is offered to a player, the final year of their existing contract remains intact, and the LTC begins after the final year of the current contract. As a result, the total contract length extends to 5 years. This is how I think it should work.

The two primary issues are:

• Incorrect Replacement of Contract Years: The final year is sometimes replaced incorrectly based on the length of the LTC.

• Doing the 5 Year LTC increases the first year and the SB is higher over the life of the contract that would be had we known this information.

Just wanted everyone to know since it is always cheaper to give a 4 Year LTC to players still on the last year of their deal. I mentioned this to Goodell but I explained it poorly.

Thanks for pointing this out. Actually, I signed Micah Parsons to a 4 year LTC extension. He had one year left, but it didn't keep his year under contract. I have a straight 4 year LTC now, as if he was a FA, which he was not.

[Goodell]

Promise to take a deeper look after I’ve dug out from getting all the different league draft orders and comp picks set and trading going, etc.

I may not be understanding completely. If I understand somewhat, though, it’s not a bug if something works exactly as designed. But more a suggestion of wanting it to work differently especially from example just above, which I understand and we can look at for the future like we do. I think it’s something we’ve talked about looking more options in future.

From the very start of introducing LTCs years ago it’s always essentially worked the way it’s setup now. And similarly in a lot of the baseball sim leagues many here in they do that similarly where ltc options given and if selected start now. And we have bold notes I believe in the process to avoid confusion about that and emphasizing LTC signed now starts now.

I understand teams wanting players for less or longer time, and maybe we can look at adjustments in future years with good suggestions. But from league perspective, LTCs intentionally at a high cost and benefiting the sim player giving up market freedom for a price. And to sign away freedom and market bidding in the future now, sim player wants benefit now not later. Nobody has to sign player still under contract super early, but if do it’s sign now so pay now. Player signs contract for 20m a year he does so to get that now. Player will agree to give up future market freedom and sign today but it’s pay today too. Not much later or he doesn’t want it and won’t sign now if no incentive starting now.

[soonertf]

Also if you restructure a contract, should that last year (which is inflated) be used to count the minimum base of his contract...I've never restructured a person so maybe that's just normal...but it seems a bit unrealistic to me (not sure why anyone would restructure if that's the case).

[Goodell]

Also if you restructure a contract, should that last year (which is inflated) be used to count the minimum base of his contract...I've never restructured a person so maybe that's just normal...but it seems a bit unrealistic to me (not sure why anyone would restructure if that's the case).

The time it makes most sense to restructure a contract (to me) is to give the player a pay cut now deferring that money to a future year knowing they underperformed their contract so it’s likely pay cut now and then cut before deferred balloon salary later. Shortening the time the player has in organization effectively in many of those cases. We’ve discussed restructure additional options and ways to adjust that in past years but not strong support for larger change at that recent year time.

[sillegrant]

Promise to take a deeper look after I’ve dug out from getting all the different league draft orders and comp picks set and trading going, etc.

I may not be understanding completely. If I understand somewhat, though, it’s not a bug if something works exactly as designed. But more a suggestion of wanting it to work differently especially from example just above, which I understand and we can look at for the future like we do. I think it’s something we’ve talked about looking more options in future.

From the very start of introducing LTCs years ago it’s always essentially worked the way it’s setup now. And similarly in a lot of the baseball sim leagues many here in they do that similarly where ltc options given and if selected start now. And we have bold notes I believe in the process to avoid confusion about that and emphasizing LTC signed now starts now.

I understand teams wanting players for less or longer time, and maybe we can look at adjustments in future years with good suggestions. But from league perspective, LTCs intentionally at a high cost and benefiting the sim player giving up market freedom for a price. And to sign away freedom and market bidding in the future now, sim player wants benefit now not later. Nobody has to sign player still under contract super early, but if do it’s sign now so pay now. Player signs contract for 20m a year he does so to get that now. Player will agree to give up future market freedom and sign today but it’s pay today too. Not much later or he doesn’t want it and won’t sign now if no incentive starting now.

I don’t think this is a major issue that urgently needs to be addressed, but I do think it’s worth noting. Im suoper excited for final draft positions!

I signed Penei Sewell in DFFL to a 5-year deal, and the total length of the contract reflects that—5 years. Based on what you’ve said, that seems to be how it should work. However, in contrast, Drake London received a 4-year LTC while still having one year of control remaining, just like Sewell, yet his total contract length became 5 years.

The issue lies in this discrepancy. The second scenario results in a cheaper contract structure due to SB, while the first makes it impossible to reach 6 years of control without hitting free agency. I’m not pushing for a specific change, just for consistency.
I realize this is a minor issue, but it’s still worth mentioning. It’s also strange that this seems to have happened with all Drake London LTC's, including in BRFL. Could be happening with other players, but it's not apparent to me who at this time. Again, not a high-priority fix, but something to be aware of.

[Goodell]

LTCs and picking up 5th year options if that’s the case there for difference are different transactions and circumstances in the system currently.

All LTCs should be the same, and should be implemented immediately.

But if someone picks up a 5th year option for a previous first round pick, in the nfl and reality that’s not a this year thing. That’s an option for next year salary not this year. 5th year option is specific to that future 5th year not this year. So we keep that reality for 5th year option, and added the option to extend that (not as long as ltc because it’s based from that future 5th year salary option picked up for next year).

Understand they are kind of related since extensions and functionally different in how implemented so understand could be confusing and something we can maybe look at maybe next year if we revamp ltc more. But also kind of intentional in their difference to reward draft and develop teams whose gm drafts well being able to build from those draft picks ahead extending their future 5th year salary.

[sportznut]

Also if you restructure a contract, should that last year (which is inflated) be used to count the minimum base of his contract...I've never restructured a person so maybe that's just normal...but it seems a bit unrealistic to me (not sure why anyone would restructure if that's the case).

The time it makes most sense to restructure a contract (to me) is to give the player a pay cut now deferring that money to a future year knowing they underperformed their contract so it’s likely pay cut now and then cut before deferred balloon salary later. Shortening the time the player has in organization effectively in many of those cases. We’ve discussed restructure additional options and ways to adjust that in past years but not strong support for larger change at that recent year time.

Yeah, I tend to have always looked at a restructure as more or less "punting" the last year of the contract, almost always cutting them. I suppose things could change, but to restructure a guy, and offer them an LTC a year later seems ass backwards to me.

[soonertf]

Also if you restructure a contract, should that last year (which is inflated) be used to count the minimum base of his contract...I've never restructured a person so maybe that's just normal...but it seems a bit unrealistic to me (not sure why anyone would restructure if that's the case).

The time it makes most sense to restructure a contract (to me) is to give the player a pay cut now deferring that money to a future year knowing they underperformed their contract so it’s likely pay cut now and then cut before deferred balloon salary later. Shortening the time the player has in organization effectively in many of those cases. We’ve discussed restructure additional options and ways to adjust that in past years but not strong support for larger change at that recent year time.

Yeah, I tend to have always looked at a restructure as more or less "punting" the last year of the contract, almost always cutting them. I suppose things could change, but to restructure a guy, and offer them an LTC a year later seems ass backwards to me.

I figured that was just the way it was...guess I never paid attention. I went to see what Orlando Brown's LTC was and was shocked. Then I noticed he was restructured at one point...guess I need to pay more attention before I trade for players