[quoteda11289="Shooter"]
Second, I was thinking about this a bit. How about a rule stating that the bonus of any deal could not be any more than 50% of the total contract. This way it doesn't limit the years, but it does prevent a contract from being entirely bonus money. This may work well for larger long term deals and keep the bonus money in check.[/quoteda11289]

I don't think offering a bunch of bonus money should be frowned upon at all. It is the biggest financial commitment an owner can make to a player.

The issue, to me, is that for some reason players favor a single year of big bonus money over a huge, long term financial commitment, and it's just not realistic. Limiting the years fixes the problem without dictating any financial details to anyone.

To me, there just needs to be a rule limiting 1 year contracts as that is a game exploit. We don't really need to start policing multi-year contracts.

_________________

[quote589d0bf="timmynausea"][quote589d0bf="Shooter"]
Second, I was thinking about this a bit. How about a rule stating that the bonus of any deal could not be any more than 50% of the total contract. This way it doesn't limit the years, but it does prevent a contract from being entirely bonus money. This may work well for larger long term deals and keep the bonus money in check.[/quote589d0bf]

I don't think offering a bunch of bonus money should be frowned upon at all. It is the biggest financial commitment an owner can make to a player.

The issue, to me, is that for some reason players favor a single year of big bonus money over a huge, long term financial commitment, and it's just not realistic. Limiting the years fixes the problem without dictating any financial details to anyone.[/quote589d0bf]

I agree entirely. There's a reason players love bonus money - it's the only guaranteed cash they can get. I'd rather try to target the years of the contract side of the equation.

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025

[quote344eee6="Doug5984"][quote344eee6="Shooter"]Two things. I was one of the owners offering a 1 year deal. the deal was comprised of about the equivalent bonus and salary. I pulled the offer knowing I wouldn't be able to sign him.

Second, I was thinking about this a bit. How about a rule stating that the bonus of any deal could not be any more than 50% of the total contract. This way it doesn't limit the years, but it does prevent a contract from being entirely bonus money. This may work well for larger long term deals and keep the bonus money in check.[/quote344eee6]

My only problem with this is- say a player wants a 4 year deal, worth about 35 million... Now you want to get him a nice flat deal for a little less (and it's a player that stays healthy most of the time).

I'd consider an offer like this:
Bonus 20 million
1st year: 2 million base + 5 million bonus
2nd year: 3 million base + 5 million bonus
3rd year: 3 million base + 5 million bonus
4th year: 4 million base + 5 million bonus

Now this contract would fail that test- but I could see myself making this offer, and feeling it was a good offer.[/quote344eee6]

And I would have no problem with this deal. You'd be taking a 10 million hit each of the next 4 years and if you renegotiate then the bonus doesn't go away. It's almost like your stuck with the player. This is not a contract that favors the owner for cap relief or player retention. You wouldn't be able to franchise him at a discount and not have to pay the bonus money which has a greater impact on other aspects of the game.

In addition, there wouldn't be as high of a likelyhood of him signing and then being able to hit the market for another big bonus payday.

Overall, my issue isn't with the amount of money the 1 year deals are worth, it's with the bonus money included which I believe triggers the player to sign since it is gauranteed dollars.

I still think you do what the game allows and this practice is allowed. It needs to be fixed. Either by changing the AI for accepting contracts or by guaranteeing that deals like this end as they would in real life - a holdout by the player when franchised until he gets similar compensation on the renegotiated deal. This is something for Jim to fix and not our constitution to fix.

Does this salary practice affect franchise tag salaries? Meaning, do franchise salaries get based off of the average salary or average total compensation (reads: bonus included)? If it is based on salaries only, these 1 year deals are keeping top salaries artificially low and is impacting the integrity of the league, which I do have a problem with.

More importantly, I don't like that it alters the behavior of those playing the game. Now everyone will have to alter their behavior to be competitive in free agency. However, I'm a bigger fan of realism and will continue to offer realistic contracts just as I practiced realistic preseason roster management in FOF2004. That's what I enjoy about the game and will continue to play it that way. If I can't get a guy without offering Butch contracts I guess I will live in mediocrity forever, at least I will be having fun playing it my way.

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quote0302c63="TurfToe"]I still think you do what the game allows and this practice is allowed. It needs to be fixed. Either by changing the AI for accepting contracts or by guaranteeing that deals like this end as they would in real life - a holdout by the player when franchised until he gets similar compensation on the renegotiated deal. This is something for Jim to fix and not our constitution to fix.

Does this salary practice affect franchise tag salaries? Meaning, do franchise salaries get based off of the average salary or average total compensation (reads: bonus included)? If it is based on salaries only, these 1 year deals are keeping top salaries artificially low and is impacting the integrity of the league, which I do have a problem with.

More importantly, I don't like that it alters the behavior of those playing the game. Now everyone will have to alter their behavior to be competitive in free agency. However, I'm a bigger fan of realism and will continue to offer realistic contracts just as I practiced realistic preseason roster management in FOF2004. That's what I enjoy about the game and will continue to play it that way. If I can't get a guy without offering Butch contracts I guess I will live in mediocrity forever, at least I will be having fun playing it my way.[/quote0302c63]

+1

But at the same time- I do think we need some sort of rule in place until (if) this issue gets fixed with a patch.

Also- the franchise salary is only calculating the salary portion, not the bonus- so it is keeping the average artificially low.

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

[quote098c7eb="Doug5984"][quote098c7eb="TurfToe"]I still think you do what the game allows and this practice is allowed. It needs to be fixed. Either by changing the AI for accepting contracts or by guaranteeing that deals like this end as they would in real life - a holdout by the player when franchised until he gets similar compensation on the renegotiated deal. This is something for Jim to fix and not our constitution to fix.

Does this salary practice affect franchise tag salaries? Meaning, do franchise salaries get based off of the average salary or average total compensation (reads: bonus included)? If it is based on salaries only, these 1 year deals are keeping top salaries artificially low and is impacting the integrity of the league, which I do have a problem with.

More importantly, I don't like that it alters the behavior of those playing the game. Now everyone will have to alter their behavior to be competitive in free agency. However, I'm a bigger fan of realism and will continue to offer realistic contracts just as I practiced realistic preseason roster management in FOF2004. That's what I enjoy about the game and will continue to play it that way. If I can't get a guy without offering Butch contracts I guess I will live in mediocrity forever, at least I will be having fun playing it my way.[/quote098c7eb]

+1

But at the same time- I do think we need some sort of rule in place until (if) this issue gets fixed with a patch.

Also- the franchise salary is only calculating the salary portion, not the bonus- so it is keeping the average artificially low.[/quote098c7eb]

I agree 100% with Doug...

_________________
omaha arrowheads

JJ Smitty's Record
Atlantic Division Champions - 2007, 2008, 2010, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2028, 2035, 2037, 2039, 2044, 2046, 2047
Eastern Conference Champions - 2008, 2039, 2047
CFL Champions - 2008, 2039, 2047

I'm with TT on this one. I didn't even offer a contract to Barlow because I knew to get him, I would have had to offer him a 1-year deal and feel crappy about doing it.

Ping Jim: Fix this.

_________________

Deep South Division Champions
2006, 2009-10, 2019, 2023-24, 2027, 2031-32, 2034-35, 2040, 2044, 2046-47, 2051-53, 2055-56, 2058-62
Eastern Conference Champions
2009, 2031, 2055
CFL Champions
2031, 2055
Hall of Fame
Joshua Mask, Douglas Hartman, Carl Bradford, Leland Wellins, Wally Wooden (#80), Brantley Gilmore (#9), Mo Kirwan, Josh Stanton, Efrain Tate

This thread has reached public outcry status. Jim has been pinged!

*closes shutters*

*locks doors*

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quoted614e11="Shooter"]Second, I was thinking about this a bit. How about a rule stating that the bonus of any deal could not be any more than 50% of the total contract. This way it doesn't limit the years, but it does prevent a contract from being entirely bonus money. This may work well for larger long term deals and keep the bonus money in check.[/quoted614e11]

I don't like this because of the potential issues with restructures. How do you move a lot of this year's salary to bonus in order to spread out the hit without having the ability to offer more than 50% of the deal as a bonus? I typically don't add years to restructures, so if I'm doing this for a guy with two years left on his contract, wouldn't I be violating this new rule?

_________________

[quotef10f89b="TurfToe"]This thread has reached public outcry status. Jim has been pinged!

*closes shutters*

*locks doors*[/quotef10f89b]

Here's the thing, and why I think we need a rule...

From postings I've seen of Jim's in the past, I'm pretty confidant that he doesn't think this is "broken".

So.. I can understand the point that folks asking for under 2 years are not young, star players - so I'm good with that.

I still worry about policing though.. I tend to like a rule like "in a 1 year contract, the bonus can be no more than 2x the salary" or something like that as it can easily be policed at the time it happens without having to catch that it might be a guy that was asking for 3 years, etc, etc...

_________________

I think most everyone agrees we need some sort of rule in place (until / if this gets fixed in a patch)- And we have 2 schools of thought:

1) The NAFL type rule- a player asking for 3 or more years must be offered 3 or more years.

OR

2) Players who sign 1 year contracts can't have a huge bonus (either 50% of the total contact, or 2x more than the salary).


I think we might need a poll

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

[quote9f1faa5="wademoore"]
I still worry about policing though.. I tend to like a rule like "in a 1 year contract, the bonus can be no more than 2x the salary" or something like that as it can easily be policed at the time it happens without having to catch that it might be a guy that was asking for 3 years, etc, etc...[/quote9f1faa5]

First, I think that Barlow would've still gone for an $11 mil bonus + $5.5 salary over the $52 million dollar deal that Taco offered. The calculation largely seems to come down to the bonus per year.

More importantly, the purpose of this rule is to prevent situations like the Barlow one, where multiple people are bidding on the same player. I don't think anyone is absolutely against a 1 year deal in principle alone. In real life if the only offer a player got was a 1 year deal he'd take it. In fact, it's totally plausible that it could happen to a guy like T.O. or maybe someone coming off a major injury.

(And with the way the 3 year rule works, this is still possible. If a guy is unsigned by week 8 of free agency, you can offer him whatever you like.)

What we are against is the notion that a player would take one of these one year deals over a multi-year deal worth considerably more money. Naturally, in all such cases, all the players bidding would be well aware of getting burned by a 1 year bid, so I really don't think policing would be an issue at all.

I think we need less government.

This falls in line with Wade's policing concerns.

I will only vote for a rule with the least intrusive parameters, which may mean verbiage that makes the rule only apply to free agency. If you have a guy you are restructuring and a huge bonus is part of that strategy, then fine, that's a risk a GM should be able to take since it's his guaranteed money he's playing with.

However, I think there has been ample discussion around the fact that we are unhappy with younger star players opting for the short contract when they are being offered more realistic, longer-term, high dollar deals, so we should do something about it. Again, I think we should aim for the least intrusive rule possible.

I hate to put hard limits on any contracts and would favor a rule like what timmy offered. It's self-policing, as any violations will be painfully obvious (i.e. Fulton and Barlow). If someone does pull off a 1-year, high bonus deal and no one notices then it isn't really an issue, is it? It's like the sound of a one-armed tree clapping in the forest with no one around to hear it...

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

I agree with both timmy and TT.

The 3-year rule during the first 8 FA stages seems quite reasonable to me. I suspect that timmy's right - we're concerned with the young star players who take these stupid deals, and because of that this should be easy to police. On the rare occasion that such a player hits FA there will be lots of interest in that guy, with many eyes watching the bidding process. Policing will happen naturally.

And as TT said, those cases that escape our policing efforts probably involve such marginal players that a penalty would be unwarranted anyway.

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025

[quote0767979="Fonzie"]I agree with both timmy and TT.

The 3-year rule during the first 8 FA stages seems quite reasonable to me. I suspect that timmy's right - we're concerned with the young star players who take these stupid deals, and because of that this should be easy to police. On the rare occasion that such a player hits FA there will be lots of interest in that guy, with many eyes watching the bidding process. Policing will happen naturally.

And as TT said, those cases that escape our policing efforts probably involve such marginal players that a penalty would be unwarranted anyway.[/quote0767979]

What he said- about what they said.

Well put.

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

When TT starts making sense, I think I need to either start drinking more or increasing my meds...

_________________

[quotea9d1b04="Cheesehead Craig"]When TT starts making sense, I think I need to either start drinking more or increasing my meds...[/quotea9d1b04]

+1

Got any extra opiates, by chance?

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025

[quote4ed0d5f="timmynausea"][quote4ed0d5f="Taco"]
You sure about that? Billy Joe Foster

[/quote4ed0d5f]

I think we're all willing to allow lapses in judgment as long as they are hilarious.[/quote4ed0d5f]

I'm still waiting on compensation for that pick...

_________________

i would also be inclined to not allow the franchise tag on barlow. this creates an ability to essentially get him for a lot less on a multiyr deal because he will get paid 4 million or so (no game access) next year and even the following year. so now what did he sign. 3 yr 52M or 3 yr 24M. Its a huge problem.....

while im at it i think i will blame this issue for my lack of success in FA since i dont use 1 yr fat bonus offers.

_________________

[quotecbf9adc="dberner30"]i would also be inclined to not allow the franchise tag on barlow. this creates an ability to essentially get him for a lot less on a multiyr deal because he will get paid 4 million or so (no game access) next year and even the following year. so now what did he sign. 3 yr 52M or 3 yr 24M. Its a huge problem.....

while im at it i think i will blame this issue for my lack of success in FA since i dont use 1 yr fat bonus offers. [/quotecbf9adc]

So you think it would be fair to penalize somebody for doing something that was not only legal, but had been done before in this league with no consequences?

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025

[quote2c280ab="Fonzie"][quote2c280ab="dberner30"]i would also be inclined to not allow the franchise tag on barlow. this creates an ability to essentially get him for a lot less on a multiyr deal because he will get paid 4 million or so (no game access) next year and even the following year. so now what did he sign. 3 yr 52M or 3 yr 24M. Its a huge problem.....

while im at it i think i will blame this issue for my lack of success in FA since i dont use 1 yr fat bonus offers. [/quote2c280ab]

So you think it would be fair to penalize somebody for doing something that was not only legal, but had been done before in this league with no consequences?[/quote2c280ab]

No, you should be penalized just for the hell of it. We've got a witch-hunt on and we're not going to be satisfied until we find us a witch!



How can you tell she's a witch?

Burn her!

What else burns like a witch?

More witches!

_________________

Deep South Division Champions
2006, 2009-10, 2019, 2023-24, 2027, 2031-32, 2034-35, 2040, 2044, 2046-47, 2051-53, 2055-56, 2058-62
Eastern Conference Champions
2009, 2031, 2055
CFL Champions
2031, 2055
Hall of Fame
Joshua Mask, Douglas Hartman, Carl Bradford, Leland Wellins, Wally Wooden (#80), Brantley Gilmore (#9), Mo Kirwan, Josh Stanton, Efrain Tate

So, why do witches burn?

_________________

[quotedb77a54="Fonzie"][quotedb77a54="dberner30"]i would also be inclined to not allow the franchise tag on barlow. this creates an ability to essentially get him for a lot less on a multiyr deal because he will get paid 4 million or so (no game access) next year and even the following year. so now what did he sign. 3 yr 52M or 3 yr 24M. Its a huge problem.....

while im at it i think i will blame this issue for my lack of success in FA since i dont use 1 yr fat bonus offers. [/quotedb77a54]

So you think it would be fair to penalize somebody for doing something that was not only legal, but had been done before in this league with no consequences?[/quotedb77a54]

I don't think you should be penalized- but at the same time you could basically have him the rest of his career with no risk for pretty cheap... I don't think we'd come up with something fair from all sides. And from my stand point I'd like to see him at least get a new offer with the tag, but that is essentially up to you.

I'm assuming you're talking about the [player]Butch Fulton[/player] deal- he did resign for a fair amount after the franchise tag so it became a moot point...
[codedb77a54]
2010 Texas Signed as an unrestricted free agent from Tulsa, $6 mil., 1 yr.
2010 Long Beach Turned down a contract offer, $25 mil., 5 yrs.
2010 Tulsa Turned down a contract offer, $34 mil., 5 yrs.
2010 San Antonio Turned down a contract offer, $43.62 mil., 5 yrs.
2011 Texas Designated franchise player
2011 Texas Signed a renegotiated contract, $17.09 mil., 5 yrs.[/codedb77a54]

I guess it is up to you if you franchise and resign or continually franchise him- i don't know how the new hold out logic works with doing this.

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

[quote1cc77e8="Aylmar"]So, why do witches burn?[/quote1cc77e8]

I would like to point out that I weigh considerably more than a duck.

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025