Franchising a Player Rules

[Ulrich82]

I think I am in favor of taking franchise numbers from the NFL, although I might be able to be persuaded otherwise. I'd point to the Mankins, Harrison, and Eli deals mentioned above. The GMs who offered these contracts have every right to do so, but I don't feel that they are realistic contracts in terms of what you would see in the NFL.

I think very few offensive linemen have the potential to make over $20 mil a year. If we took franchise numbers from sim salaries, these deals would vastly inflate the numbers. If the franchise number for a guard without this deal was 6 million, the Mankins deal would raise the number by almost 3 million. In my opinion, real NFL GMs have considerations that just are not able to be simulated in this game. For example, if NE gave Mankins a deal like that in real life, it sets a precedent. Other agents will look for similar deals for top tier guards. Other players for the Patriots would expect monster deals as well. In this league, one deal like that is an anomaly. Since players don't really have salary demands here, it doesn't shift the market for other players and lead to similar deals occuring. Why should an anomalous contract be included in the franchise number?

[Ulrich82]

I have one last question regarding franchise rules. Has there ever been a discussion about merging some of the franchise player categories?

I am new here, and I haven't been through a simulated game yet, but my understanding is that there is really no difference between a C, G, and T as far as the simulation is concerned. I mean that an offensive line with an A center and C+ G, G, T, and T is the same as a line with an A tackle and C+ C, G, G, and T. Yet the franchise tag for Tackles is usually the highest.

If it is true that linemen are indistinguishable to the simulation, perhaps we should compute a weighted average of the NFL franchise numbers for C, G, and T and use that as the offensive lineman franchise tender.

This is possibly applicable to CB/S and front seven positions as well.

[Jared A]

If you notice... there's lots of funny deals in the NFL... year 2 a player might make 8mil and the next year 1mil. Those are because of salary cap implications.


Players do want to do this, because they understand that injuries happen. And, since salaries are not guaranteed, they want their money ASAP.

Adrian Peterson is a perfect example. His real life contract (you can check DFFL) has him earning 3.9mil this year, 7.7mil next year, and 895k in 2012.


"And even in the case of the NFL there are still disparities in revenues between the teams because some teams are better at generating money on a local level. Those local revenues can give teams advantages in when it comes to paying out those big cash bonuses that teams use to front load contracts."

[John W.]

...
Also, we take our franchising numbers from the REAL NFL... so, I'd also argue that Eli's contract only needs to be 120% of his existing real life contract.

My understanding is we take the NFL's franchising numbers in place of calculating our own for simplicity rather than having each league with their own numbers. The 120% of actual salary though is a number we have readily available and it's purpose is to protect the best interest of the player which can only be simulated here. Also, our contracts have no relation to existing NFL contracts (Eli Manning wasn't even up for a new contract this year in the NFL).

[Jared A]

There's also the issue of the "outlier". The Eli deal alone would raise the franchise numbers by 5mil per QB in AFFL. Most GM's don't want that.

None of this was ever determined, enforced or discussed. So, it needs to be. I just think if we're going to enforce it... it should be done in the correct manner.

Again, maybe the tags won't be included in the next CBA... and all this will be a moot point. But, front loaded deals, and deals with changing year by year salaries will still happen in the NFL. Allowing NFL teams for more salary cap manipulation, that we don't have.

[Ulrich82]

The Adrian Peterson contract isn't really a front loaded contract. That last year is a dummy year. It is voidable. There is no way he players for $895,000 in 2012. It was thrown into the contract to spread out the signing bonus hit per year. His contract will be renegotiated before then.

Yes, players understand the risk of injury, which is why they want money now in the form of gauranteed bonuses, like signing bonus. It is also one of the big reasons they hate the franchise tag. A player can make a ton on a franchise tag, but it gives him no long term job security. Salary isn't gauranteed, but a big star with a hefty signing bonus and large contract is hard to cut. Players don't tend to like 7 year contracts that keep them from the FA market, but they also don't like short deals that don't give them any job security like the franchise tag.

For simplicity sake, we don't have quite the cap tools that NFL teams employ. We don't structure contracts exactly like the NFL. We have constant salary numbers and annual roster bonuses. Peterson's salary goes up every year (except the 2012 dummy year) and his contract has multiple different bonuses in different years. Since we can't simulate the exact cap massaging tricks in the NFL, I don't think we need unrealistic front loaded contracts either.

[Jared A]

Front loaded contracts aren't unrealistic. They're happening in the NFL, and have been happening for a while. A player would rather have a 5 year deal that they made 30mil in year one and 5mil the other four years than he would a 5 year deal that they made 10mil per year. It's common sense. The player understands he's getting paid upfront for potential future years. So, maybe they're not happening to this extent... but they're happening. And, the NFL has many other tools at their disposal to save cap hits in future years.

"Remember way back in 2005, before the new CBA went into effect? Teams would minimize cap space paid in contracts today to be able to squeeze contracts under their cap. Teams in 2008 were doing the opposite. Many deals took bigger cap hits today than they needed to and left more cap space in the future. Deals are relatively more front-loaded from a cap perspective. That doesn’t change their cash values at all, it just changes how they are accounted for."

http://www.igglesblog.com/iggles_blog/2 ... nflpa.html

[RyanM]

I have one last question regarding franchise rules. Has there ever been a discussion about merging some of the franchise player categories?

I am new here, and I haven't been through a simulated game yet, but my understanding is that there is really no difference between a C, G, and T as far as the simulation is concerned. I mean that an offensive line with an A center and C+ G, G, T, and T is the same as a line with an A tackle and C+ C, G, G, and T. Yet the franchise tag for Tackles is usually the highest.

You MUST have at least 2 tackles on your team, so I think they need to be separated. I know we've also discussed grade knocks in the future if someone is just signing highly rated RTs & RGs but doesn't carry a true LT or LG.

The OL, F7, & Secondary positions don't matter when it comes to backups, but you do still need minimums at each of those groups for starters.

[RyanM]

Personal opinion on the franchised player amounts: go with the true NFL amounts but apply the 120% rule to what the sim salary was in the previous year. That will keep teams from spending a ton on a player (like the Eli contract) only to franchise him the following year and get big savings.

What's to keep a team/teams from dumping large salaries, sucking for a year, over spending on players & then franchising/transition tagging them the following year? You have to put some kind of roadblocks in place to prevent this from becoming a recurring issue.

[Ulrich82]

I understand that you still need two tackles, but my point is, it becomes more cost efficient for me to franchise a top tier G than a top tier T. The difference between a guard and a tackle in this game is nonexistent, so why does it cost me less to keep a similarly rated G over a T. The fact that you need two tackles to one center is why I would propose using a weighted average. Offensive line franchise number would equal (1*C+2*G+2*T)/5 where C is the NFL franchise number for centers, G is for guards, etc.