Off-Season Rules Discussion

[Onyxgem]

Commish,

Like Sooner I'm fine with the ways things are. I know at least one another GM that feels the same way but doesn't want to get into it on the forum.

I only see a couple of GM's with objections to the current system.

Maybe we should put a poll up and see if there's any support for it before we make changes.

Whte

Third

Fourth

5th

[Nathan S.]

I typically stay quiet on the forums because I am happy with how things are currently setup.

Regarding QB LTCs it is a tough situation with QBs stepping into starting roles their last year into their rookie deals. While on a case-by-case basis I wish their were some contracts that were higher than signed, overall I think the system works.

Every position has situations where people sign for more or less than their value but this happens in real life as well and for every one that hurts your team you’ll eventually be able to sign one that helps your team. I think it all evens out.

[JonC]

I still think simply not allowing players to sign LTC once they are designated as UFA solves this perceived problem.

[soonertf]

While I didn't necessarily say I oppose a change, I probably lean toward voting no change. I was mainly pointing out that Keenum in AFFL was plenty expensive enough. I would say that I think 49ers way overpaid Jimmy G IRL. There is very small sample to say he will be a high level QB in the NFL. I looked at all my potential LTC's and I think they are all overpriced. I don't see myself using the LTC a whole lot, unless it's a low level guy that I think is going to improve in the next few years. Then again I haven't seen how expensive this year's Free Agency is going to be either!

I would be in favor of LTC's not eligible for UFA's though, but I think that would have to be a rule that is put into place for 2019 season. It wouldn't be fair for the GM's that already planned that strategy, to change it last minute. Just my thoughts.

[Ben C.]

I agree with the several AFFL players that have voiced opinions. I feel like this is another topic that comes up every year. Let's just keep it the way it is for now.

[jerrydlux]

I would agree with both JonC and sooner. UFA's cant be LTCd but not to implement this season but next.

[Goodell]

Technically UFAs cannot be LTC'd. Only pending UFAs who will have their contracts expire this off-season. Once free agency hits and players become actual UFAs available on the market, they can no longer be LTC'd. That has to happen before free agency.

The pending UFAs can't be LTC'd thing support kind of surprises me. I guess because we didn't used to have LTCs (everyone was UFA and teams had to just rely upon unlimited bidding advantage) but introduced them mostly as a way for a team to sign their own pending free agents before they hit the market, like real teams do and not have to only rely upon bidding advantages. We added being able to sign a guy to LTC a year early before free agency kind of as an afterthought to that primary objective, recognizing that some players sign extensions before their contract runs out.

I'm not sure I fully follow the difference it would make, but if there's a ton of people wanting to not be able to sign your own pending free agents to deals before they hit the market, and making teams do LTCs a year before contract expires, we can put some polls up about that for future season changes (like mentioned, we wouldn't do that this off-season).

[whteshark]

Technically UFAs cannot be LTC'd. Only pending UFAs who will have their contracts expire this off-season. Once free agency hits and players become actual UFAs available on the market, they can no longer be LTC'd. That has to happen before free agency.

The pending UFAs can't be LTC'd thing support kind of surprises me. I guess because we didn't used to have LTCs (everyone was UFA and teams had to just rely upon unlimited bidding advantage) but introduced them mostly as a way for a team to sign their own pending free agents before they hit the market, like real teams do and not have to only rely upon bidding advantages. We added being able to sign a guy to LTC a year early before free agency kind of as an afterthought to that primary objective, recognizing that some players sign extensions before their contract runs out.

I'm not sure I fully follow the difference it would make, but if there's a ton of people wanting to not be able to sign your own pending free agents to deals before they hit the market, and making teams do LTCs a year before contract expires, we can put some polls up about that for future season changes (like mentioned, we wouldn't do that this off-season).

I'm completely against this.

A couple of GM's complain and now let's change the whole system.

[tino38]

A couple of GM's complain and now let's change the whole system.

Isn’t that essentially how every rule ever created/changed on here has gotten to the table to be voted on?

[whteshark]

A couple of GM's complain and now let's change the whole system.

Isn’t that essentially how every rule ever created/changed on here has gotten to the table to be voted on?

I'm fine with voting on it....again.

My guess is it will be the same outcome so it's a waste of time.

Maybe we should vote on every rule in the game to make sure there's support for it and we can start our off season when the real season starts.

Taking away the LTC's rewards the bad teams with tons of salary cap space who use free agency to amass more draft picks.

GM's complain about reality but players get overpaid every year.

Phillip Rivers made 30 million in 2017 in AFFL.

His real cap hit in the NFL was 18 million.

Is that reality or is that "our" market determining his worth?

If you're going to go that far with it you might as well make it unlimited bidding and institute a minimum bottom salary cap that must be maintained at all times while knocking out the ability to trade a player signed in free agency for at least three years.