2019 RULES: Sign and Trade

[rabbitrun]

Because it's a different salary to signing bonus ratio. If we can get a similar ratio for free agency then i dont think anyone would have an issue. I think 200% max would be much more realistic.

If the aim is truly wanting to reach towards realistic possibilities then a team signing a player to a 1 year $51M contract with $35M in Signing bonus and $16M in Salary and then trading that player for draft picks is no different than a team signing a player to a 5 year LTC for $117.6M contract with $33.6M in signing bonus and $16.8M in salary and trading said player for draft picks!

Actually the team signing the FA incurred a bigger financial hit by $1.4M! The first team had to eat 69% of the total value of the contract while the team trading the LTC’d player only had to eat 29% of the contract!

Now the LTC’d player is going to be at a discount to the team acquiring the player for multiple years while the player that was signed as a FA will need to be resigned again in a year and will not be at a discounted price!

[Strategist]

Because it's a different salary to signing bonus ratio. If we can get a similar ratio for free agency then i dont think anyone would have an issue. I think 200% max would be much more realistic.

If the aim is truly wanting to reach towards realistic possibilities then a team signing a player to a 1 year $51M contract with $35M in Signing bonus and $16M in Salary and then trading that player for draft picks is no different than a team signing a player to a 5 year LTC for $117.6M contract with $33.6M in signing bonus and $16.8M in salary and trading said player for draft picks!

Actually the team signing the FA incurred a bigger financial hit by $1.4M! The first team had to eat 69% of the total value of the contract while the team trading the LTC’d player only had to eat 29% of the contract!

Now the LTC’d player is going to be at a discount to the team acquiring the player for multiple years while the player that was signed as a FA will need to be resigned again in a year and will not be at a discounted price!

I agree with this there is not much of a difference. Probably should be a 1 yr NTC on all LTCs.

[Onyxgem]

Because it's a different salary to signing bonus ratio. If we can get a similar ratio for free agency then i dont think anyone would have an issue. I think 200% max would be much more realistic.

If the aim is truly wanting to reach towards realistic possibilities then a team signing a player to a 1 year $51M contract with $35M in Signing bonus and $16M in Salary and then trading that player for draft picks is no different than a team signing a player to a 5 year LTC for $117.6M contract with $33.6M in signing bonus and $16.8M in salary and trading said player for draft picks!

Actually the team signing the FA incurred a bigger financial hit by $1.4M! The first team had to eat 69% of the total value of the contract while the team trading the LTC’d player only had to eat 29% of the contract!

Now the LTC’d player is going to be at a discount to the team acquiring the player for multiple years while the player that was signed as a FA will need to be resigned again in a year and will not be at a discounted price!

I agree with this there is not much of a difference. Probably should be a 1 yr NTC on all LTCs.

Disagree it is fine how it is right now with a next on the short term Ltc

[jerrydlux]

Ultimately teams would not sign a player to a long term contract and then trade them. (because out LTCs have significant bonus money attached)

Jared's suggestion of no trade for a year if SB over X amount makes sense because a real life GM would not have a job if they signed someone to big guaranteed money and then moved them immediately.

[bpboguta1483]

Yes Jerry and Rabbitrun, all I am saying is a realistic ratio salary vs signing bonus, and not trade the player 5 minutes after acquiring him, if GM's in the NFL did that there would be a lot of unemployed GM's out there

[Onyxgem]

Ultimately teams would not sign a player to a long term contract and then trade them. (because out LTCs have significant bonus money attached)

Jared's suggestion of no trade for a year if SB over X amount makes sense because a real life GM would not have a job if they signed someone to big guaranteed money and then moved them immediately.

Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.

[jerrydlux]

Ultimately teams would not sign a player to a long term contract and then trade them. (because out LTCs have significant bonus money attached)

Jared's suggestion of no trade for a year if SB over X amount makes sense because a real life GM would not have a job if they signed someone to big guaranteed money and then moved them immediately.

Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.

I apologize, you're right,we should have no semblance of realism in the leagues

[Zapotek]

Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.

No it wouldn't. Consider the list of trades involving players (ie, not including straight pick-for-pick swaps) from 2017 found at http://nfltraderumors.co/list-completed ... fl-trades/. For example:

SF: 12 player trades
NO: 5 player trades
BUF: 6 player trades
NYJ: 10 player trades
PHI: 7 player trades
SEA: 13 player trades

I think it's fair to say that there are some teams that trade a lot.

In the absence of anyone providing examples to the contrary, I also think it's fair to say that no teams set out to sign multiple top-tier players to contracts with massive signing bonuses and then immediately flip them for picks.

[Onyxgem]

Yeah and there would be nowhere near as many trades irl as there are here either so if we want to make that more realistic then what teams only get 1-2 trades a year. I mean that would only be more realistic.

No it wouldn't. Consider the list of trades involving players (ie, not including straight pick-for-pick swaps) from 2017 found at http://nfltraderumors.co/list-completed ... fl-trades/. For example:

SF: 12 player trades
NO: 5 player trades
BUF: 6 player trades
NYJ: 10 player trades
PHI: 7 player trades
SEA: 13 player trades

I think it's fair to say that there are some teams that trade a lot.

In the absence of anyone providing examples to the contrary, I also think it's fair to say that no teams set out to sign multiple top-tier players to contracts with massive signing bonuses and then immediately flip them for picks.

And how many of those teams have multiple first round picks compared to here...how many have multiple picks in any round compared to here....picks are traded so much more here than IRL it isn't even funny.

This is for fun, not to limit people and take the fun out of the GAME...

[Zapotek]

And how many of those teams have multiple first round picks compared to here...how many have multiple picks in any round compared to here....picks are traded so much more here than IRL it isn't even funny.

This is for fun, not to limit people and take the fun out of the GAME...

I don't see the logical equivalence.

Teams in reality do trade picks to some extent. Teams in our sim also trade picks, though obviously to a greater extent. It's unrealistic in extent, not in the type of transactions.

Teams in reality do not make a habit of signing top-flight players to contracts with massive SB and then flipping them for picks. The very type of transaction is unrealistic.

To me, the game is fun if it comes close to mirroring the constraints of the NFL. I see a difference between allowing players to make greater use of acknowledged NFL practices (trading picks, etc) and allowing players to make use of tactics that are not present in the NFL.

Edit: Now, if you're suggesting that we should limit the number of first-round picks a team should be able to stockpile, that's a whole different debate.

If alternatively you're suggesting that because the current degree of pick stockpiling is unrealistic we should allow another practice that is not realistic at all then I'd have to disagree.