Yes I've known for a long time about the rules chances and how they affect things, and understand them perfectly. I just meant every discussion we have every had on it, I don't remember anyone every speaking up and saying we were going to try to go along with it. It was always a lets take a year and see what the NFL does.
I hope the NFL does not be stupid and stay uncapped. The only reason this extended RFA is in there is to give the owners something to hold over the players heads. You know the players don't like that and the owners hope to use it to get the players to make a new deal.
If we are mirroring the NFL then our owners have never opted out of the old CBA which would still be in tact with a salary cap and the old RFA. If our sim owners did opt out I was never aware of it
AFFL - Titans GM since 2007
96 - 62 - 2 regular season
6 playoff appearances
4 division titles
2 conference titles
1 AFFL title
Troy, if they were given a good tender, they would have to give 7 or 8mil AND a first.
In an open market they could land that player for fair market value. Going from 3 years to 6 years will double our RFA's...
In our league, players can't hold out, or demand higher contracts. So, studs that would do that if a RFA can't do that.
I would like to hear why some people are for this deal?
And Ben, my thoughts midseason were that the NFL and players could stills trike a new CBA before it went uncapped. I thought that was the general hope. Nobody could've "known" at week 8 that the new (old) rules were going to go into play. Because they were supposed to be working on preventing it.
Jared A wrote:Going from 3 years to 6 years will double our RFA's...
Isn't that realistic, based upon reality happening now with 212+ new RFAs hitting the real market? I guess I don't understand why it would be so bad to have more RFAs just like reality in a reality-based game.
There will be tons of RFAs in reality. Lots of big name high profile RFAs in reality. Most players mad about that and may not get those huge blockbuster contracts they were looking for if unrestricted, but that hasn't really been the case here I don't believe where a lot more RFAs get big contracts or big contract and traded (often for agreed less compensation).
And really there isn't a huge difference here between RFAs and UFAs other than compenstion. Both essentially have rights of first refusal because of our unlimited home team bidding to keep their own players with big advantages there nearing RFA protections already.
Lots of RFAs in reality for real teams to deal with, and I think most experts think most teams will spend roughly the same amount on average as they have before which would be similar to a self-imposed cap not all that different for many real teams probably as our artifically implemented cap.
I also don't think it would be so bad to stick with the old rules and ignore all reality altogether and assume our sim league came to some sim agreement with sim player unions to keep rules as they were, but it just gets further away from the original vision of the league and I don't really want to go far down that road where reality doesn't matter any more and we just make up stuff for ourselves. For one year I guess not too bad, but just not the direction I was hoping the league would be founded in trying to give our players many of their "dream jobs" of being a real NFL GM and dealing with most of the same issues as realistic as we could be so that our sim teams were build under similar environment and rules as real teams were for comparison of how my sim team looks versus the real thing under similar constraints.
My Only reason i choose that w should keep RFA the way it is, is because the ONLY reason taht the NFL has theirs changed is because they are going to be uncapped....so really the only way I would see us changing ours if we are also going to be uncapped.
Onyxgem wrote:My Only reason i choose that w should keep RFA the way it is, is because the ONLY reason taht the NFL has theirs changed is because they are going to be uncapped....so really the only way I would see us changing ours if we are also going to be uncapped.
And I get that. But this is the way I look at capped/uncapped in sim sports.
There are no caps in baseball (luxury tax systems perhaps) but no caps. But every sim league I am in for baseball imposes an artificial cap based upon realistic spending expectations for franchise market.
The NFL will be somewhat like that this year (and maybe beyond we'll see). No caps but any sim league using monopoly money would have to institute some kind of artificial limitations on spending.
Unlike baseball, so far in the NFL it doesn't seem to be the big market teams are the ones who'll spend the most. At least so far. It seems that there will be some extremes on both sides but most franchises will probably spend somewhere in the same neighborhood as usual if trying to field a respectable team.
If trying to apply a baseball sim type system to the NFL now from scratch, it probably would be fairly reasonable to give most if not all teams the same or similar artificial sim cap as a reasonable sim spending budget that is in line with the league you were trying to simulate -- not unlike if I signed up for a new baseball sim league that set my sim team's artificial budget at about what they'd expect them to spend realisitcally.
In uncapped NFL we are dealing more with imposed "budgets" than hard line caps and maybe treating that situation more similar to the baseball sim leagues that deal with uncapped sports there. But if the NFL reality is that the vast majority of teams will end up spending about the same, it's different perhaps but if everyone the same or similar budget about the same as before with just a "budget" instead of a "cap" in uncapped reality.
The big deal will be money saved translating into money spent. Most of our GM's try to maximize their cap situation. Real owners won't spend money just for the fun of it. But, it's not our money we're spending. This will lead to unrealistic contracts.
The big deal will be money saved translating into money spent. Most of our GM's try to maximize their cap situation. Real owners won't spend money just for the fun of it. But, it's not our money we're spending. This will lead to unrealistic contracts.
Having more RFAs will lead to unrealistic contracts? I don't necessarily agree, but also coming from a place where we already probably have a lot of unrealistic contracts based upon the competitive nature here and not being real money in general anwyay. But I don't think RFAs are really getting snagged up cheaply here.
I think there is a bigger difference between RFA/UFA in reality than here, where unlimited bidding for home teams on UFAs essentially makes them real similar to RFAs in terms of control other than compensation and that's often worked around thru trades.
Last edited by Goodell on Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think the demand for the quality of the player drives the salary here more than UFA/RFA designation as we've seen big contracts go out to RFAs last off-season and by the NFL rules then it was only 3 year young players who hadn't reached their peaks probably yet. Myself I don't see people bidding significantly different money for Brandon Marshall for example if he's UFA or RFA in the midst of a bidding war to come up with the best bid to sign the player.
Tennessee has signed restricted free agent Marques Colston (|WR|) to a 5 year offer-sheet @ 6,500,000/yr with 3,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus
Buffalo has signed restricted free agent Tyson Clabo (|G|T|) to a 7 year offer-sheet @ 6,000,000/yr with 6,000,000 signing bonus and 100,000 annual roster bonus
Pittsburgh has signed restricted free agent Marques Colston (|WR|) to a 5 year offer-sheet @ 5,000,000/yr with 3,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus
New England has signed restricted free agent Lance Moore (|WR|) to a 5 year offer-sheet @ 4,500,000/yr with 3,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus
Washington has signed restricted free agent Cortland Finnegan (|CB|) to a 5 year offer-sheet @ 4,500,000/yr with 3,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus
Pittsburgh has signed restricted free agent Tramon Williams (|CB|) to a 4 year offer-sheet @ 3,150,000/yr with 1,000,000 signing bonus and 100,000 annual roster bonus
Detroit has signed restricted free agent Jahri Evans (|G|) to a 5 year offer-sheet @ 4,000,000/yr with 7,500,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus
Chicago has signed restricted free agent Cortland Finnegan (|CB|) to a 5 year offer-sheet @ 3,500,000/yr with 3,000,000 signing bonus and 5,000,000 annual roster bonus
Cincinnati has signed restricted free agent Mathias Kiwanuka (|DE|OLB|) to a 5 year offer-sheet @ 3,000,000/yr with 5,000,000 signing bonus and 100,000 annual roster bonus
Pittsburgh has signed restricted free agent Jahri Evans (|G|) to a 3 year offer-sheet @ 3,000,000/yr with 1,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus
The big thing I could see is that the true UFA's contracts are going to be alot higher if there are any good ones out there because they are not going to be costing draft picks like RFA guys will be. Especially if we almost double or triple the amount og RFa's. The other problem I can see happening is people bidding on alot of RFA's and then not having picks to cover it.
Onyxgem wrote: The other problem I can see happening is people bidding on alot of RFA's and then not having picks to cover it.
That's a procedural thing, though. In the past, we would void any offers like that manually after the fact and put the player back on the market. For next year, hopefully it'll be more automatic and first check compensation before even allowing a bid. But either way, a team would have to have the pick or some other agreed upon compensation in a deal.
There are many more free spenders with monopoly money here, but take Brandon Marshall for example in reality. News today that he'll probably get a big offer soon. The team would have to give up their first rounder, but they make the determination that they'd rather give big money to a proven player than big money to an unproven inexperienced risk. So they spend similar big money but toward the proven all-pro instead.
People say RFAs will cost less, but I don't know that there's any proof that that here. Even lots of less experienced RFAs (as noted above) have gotten big contracts here in the past, and if an all-pro player on the market I don't think he's going to get only cheap bids myself but I guess that would have to be played out to know for sure. If Brandon Marshall is a RFA I don't think he's only going to get tiny bids for him versus massive bids if he was a UFA. We still have teams in high demand for highly regarded players, trying to post a contract that's too high to be matched by his own team that's already said they want to keep him, and within a waged bidding war against many teams interested driving up the market price.
