[quote341ee64="wademoore"]Turftoe, you're missing the point imo.

The reason we are in this cap mess in the first place is because things do NOT simulate the NFL. In the NFL you cannot continually reneg all of your players, including your stars down to favorable contracts every year. Sorry, just not realistic to the NFL at all.

If we're going to do this "cut the cap" then we need harsh, strict rules to keep people under the cap. The second that we are allowed to "play" with that extra space we cause ourselves a serious, serious problem.

The reneg rule has caused what I think we're looking for here in other leagues - tough personnel decisions where you actually have to decide who to keep, not to keep, etc. The way it is now there are not tough personnel decisions - you reneg your stars down, rinse, repeat. Every now and then a team that gets totally stacked has to maybe let a 50/50 guy go every few years - oh noes!

Instead we have a league where you can keep whomever the heck you want and there is nothing of value in the FA market. You think it will make more cap space? Look at leagues that have actually done this, try it in SP, etc. You're just plain wrong - that's all there is to it.[/quote341ee64]

So, people finally agree with me that we should never have converted from FOF2004? Glad you guys finally came around. Like usual, my opinions are bashed at first only to be the mainstream consensus years later.

I do miss the cap constraints of FOF2004, I had to cut one of two stud DE's my very first season. That's how it should be. I am not missing that point. However, I hate, wait HATE, out-of-game rules. I am more concerned with kneejerk reaction solutions and their rapid implementation since there are long-term strategies impacted. I favor the cap adjustment in-game mainly for the fact that is in-game. I'm not arguing against cap constraints, I am arguing rapid implementation of any change and any out-of-game rule.

So again, I will bold this for those who think I am missing the point or keep trying to convince me of cap constraint efforts.

[b341ee64]1. I am for cap constraints.
2. I am for a change.
3. I am for a gradual change that allows people to adjust their strategy.
4. I am against (almost) any out-of-game rule.[/b341ee64]

_________________
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

What we're largely saying, though, is that the problem is a renegotiation issue and the cap space is merely one of the symptoms.

I also think it's a bit silly to call anything we do a knee jerk reaction when every other league will have adequately addressed this issue 2 or 3 seasons before we do.

I'm going to try to reply more to this later when I'm not at work...

But Wade- I'm curious how this has played out in the IHOF, I'm assuming it has been in place in that league the longest. The leagues I am in- it is still fairly fresh.

My favorite option was cut the cap by 5 million by signing a punter with that amount of bonus, cutting him the next file and end of hassle, however- that'd mess with the owners shelling out money so its not possible. Cutting the TV contract will probably help solve the problem, but that is a few years away.

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

[quoteabc9782="timmynausea"]What we're largely saying, though, is that the problem is a renegotiation issue and the cap space is merely one of the symptoms.

I also think it's a bit silly to call anything we do a knee jerk reaction when every other league will have adequately addressed this issue 2 or 3 seasons before we do.[/quoteabc9782]

Our time table is not relative to other leagues. It would be if our league was in the discussions with those other leagues but it was not. Also, to assume that every GM in the CFL is aware or cares what other leagues do has been proven to be presumptious even though we probably should care more or be more aware of what goes on in other leagues. We tend to not follow the lead of other leagues, right or wrong, but that's how it is and has been. While it is nice to take the collective experiences of CFL GM's who are in other leagues, it is up to all CFL GM's to decide what is best for the CFL as its own entity.

The value of your post above is that we are behind other leagues in taking action. That is an indictment of how we handle things here. Which means we need to do a better job of discussing the issue, coming to an agreement, and scheduling the implementation of the agreed upon change. This doesn't mean we have to implement something now for the sake of not being behind. The whole process is behind and not just the implementation of the rule. It is a kneejerk reaction to skip the important part of the process and just vote on a rule. We discussed it briefly, went right to a rule change, and then had many (myself included) wish they didn't vote to do it right now or at least consider other options. How is it silly to call what we did kneejerk? I believe it qualifies as a picture to go next to kneejerk in the dictionary.

I think I may just be carrying frustration over from a certain board of directors I'm involved with that operates much like we have been here lately, with voter's regret, caring too much what others are doing, and trying to fix all of the issues with a single change. I think if we do our due diligence by identifying exactly what the issues are, getting the group to agree on the issues, discussing the pros/cons of all of the potential solutions (new or used elsewhere), and without worrying about anything other than the CFL's interests and timetable for resolution, we can get this resolved to the CFL's satisfaction. There are 32 individuals that make-up the CFL. Everyone cannot be satisfied with what we decide but we should try to satisfy the majority. As long as the majority is satisfied, I will be satisfied.

_________________
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

Just for the record, our initial discussions appear to have started in February. There are two threads about it from that time. I don't think that put us very far behind the other leagues as far as when it was brought up. Maybe a month or two. The problem was that talks got nowhere.

It just seems like even now we really don't have anything close to a consensus, aside from the fact that almost no one is satisfied with what we have in place right now.

[quote22fb5e1="timmynausea"]What we're largely saying, though, is that the problem is a renegotiation issue and the cap space is merely one of the symptoms.

I also think it's a bit silly to call anything we do a knee jerk reaction when every other league will have adequately addressed this issue 2 or 3 seasons before we do.[/quote22fb5e1]

It is knee jerk in this league. You can't start a basketball game, then in the middle of the third quarter tell the teams three pointers are now worth five points. You can't go back and make changes in the past. The are some owners (including me) who do not want to try to outbid 8 other owners for a 43/43 top guy in free agency. I have changed how I play to try to get more 1st & 2nd round picks because I know no one of any value is available in free agency. If one happens to pop in, everyone has 20 million to offer in bonuses at least, it would be unholy. I know that I used to get a bunch of draft picks, but I would be willing to get 4th, 5th, and 6th round picks. Now, I will add those picks to trades to move into the first round. I do this for two reasons: One, no talent in the free agent pool. Two, I can afford to pay their contracts. By making a decision and putting it into place too soon, you are penalizing the teams that saw the state of the game and changed to try to get the best team they can on the field in the current system and rules. This is/was not breaking the system like those old back loaded contracts and other bugs that people took advantage of.

The only thing that seems knee jerk to me are the responses that basically scream, "We shouldn't fix the league, it could hurt my team."

[quotea3323a3="timmynausea"]The only thing that seems knee jerk to me are the responses that basically scream, "We shouldn't fix the league, it could hurt my team."[/quotea3323a3]

We should fix the league, but with enough time for the people to prepare for it as there has been plenty of time for the other GM's to adjust to the "Cap Gap". This is my only league, and I do not player SP. Those of you in other leagues who are ahead of us and saw the problem coming, could either have proposed something then and set aside a time frame for the league to change to it, or be ahead of the curve in making use of the open cap space.

The knee jerk reaction is to fix it now, no matter who benefits from a change now or who gets hurt by it.

I'm not sure what everyone's organizational experience is but it is completely irresponsible to expect changes to be made immediately without following a process or allowing time for the process to work.

Despite what everyone's individual interest is in any rule change, there must be a root cause analysis of the issue, a consesnus of the solution, a schedule to implement the fix, and the final execution. We rushed through this once and have a rule that many aren't happy with and doesn't seem to come close to fixing the issue. Let's do this right so we only have to do it once.

Based on the discussions so far, we only know the opinions of a small portion of the league. We need to determine how many GM's agree this is a problem and how significant they think the problem is. Until we walk through this step-by-step we will just sit here and argue over semantics of something we are nowhere close to resolving.

_________________
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

OK, let's put aside the time table argument entirely for the moment, since that seems to be where we're getting hung up. Let's discuss the actual merits of this rule and how it pertains to the problem.

Here's a post from the FOFL that sums my position up:

If you're not quite sure what the "problem" is that this proposal is designed to address, then you're in luck. Right now, teams have applied their franchise tags and taken on fat salaries for the guys they want to protect. Everyone else has been thrown back to the open market. And where are we?

-The median cap space available in the league is $22 million. There are three teams with $40 million or more space, and eight more with at least $30 million. Remember, this is *after* assigning fat contracts to tagged players, this is real money.

-Look at the "free agent class." There are a handful of decent players or older veterans who have a year or two left in the tank at best. But really, there just isn't anyone out there who can really help a team improve. This league simply doesn't have a real "free agent market," period. It's not a viable strategy to clear out cap space to you can bid on the good players in free agency -- there just won't be any/many out there to help you. So, all these teams with huge cap space arent sitting there for good reason, it's that they have no other choice.

-What does a dead FA market mean? The well-stocked teams get to keep all their players as long as they choose, and the teams who would like to rebuild basically have to hand over big draft picks to do so, or else take the long road to building through the draft. I love the draft myself, as most of us do, but making that the only viable building option is just weak, it's bad for the league, it's bad for parity.

-And why do we have this problem? It's because the in-game logic for contract renegotiations is just too damned soft. All sort of players are wiling to negotiate down in all sorts of situations, making it ridiculously easy for most teams to keep all sorts of great players affordable as long as they want. That's why we don't see high quality players becoming free agents -- it's just too easy to keep everyone, and it's the renegotiation logic that's primarily at fault.

-So, does this rule (last year of contract renegging) fix everything? No. But what is does is rein in the availability of renegotiations, making them fewer and farther between. And it does so in an easy-to-enforce manner, something that is simple to spot right on the player card. It's also very easy to remember for us -- when we want to go and renegotiate, we can sort by "contract ends" and look only at our guys whose contracts are in their last year, it's really simple to do that. This rule, I think, passes all the basic tests -- it gets right at the real problem (not treating the symptom), it's easy to remember and stick to, and it's easy to spot or enforce.

Right now, in FOFL, my Chesapeake team has a lot of talent, and so far we have never really been forced to cut or trade anyone to stay under the cap. We've kept basically everyone we ever wanted to, unless we painted ourselves into a corner with a silly contract. We are going to be a **loser** under this new rule, if in a couple of years we still have a load of talent and are by then getting squeezed to try to keep everyone.

I welcome that challenge. I'm happy to vote against my self-interest here, because I think it will make the FOFL a more more realistic, rewarding, and entertaining league to play in. And I will vote for this rule.

[quotefe5d5ee="timmynausea"]OK, let's put aside the time table argument entirely for the moment, since that seems to be where we're getting hung up. Let's discuss the actual merits of this rule and how it pertains to the problem.

Here's a post from the FOFL that sums my position up:

If you're not quite sure what the "problem" is that this proposal is designed to address, then you're in luck. Right now, teams have applied their franchise tags and taken on fat salaries for the guys they want to protect. Everyone else has been thrown back to the open market. And where are we?

-The median cap space available in the league is $22 million. There are three teams with $40 million or more space, and eight more with at least $30 million. Remember, this is *after* assigning fat contracts to tagged players, this is real money.

-Look at the "free agent class." There are a handful of decent players or older veterans who have a year or two left in the tank at best. But really, there just isn't anyone out there who can really help a team improve. This league simply doesn't have a real "free agent market," period. It's not a viable strategy to clear out cap space to you can bid on the good players in free agency -- there just won't be any/many out there to help you. So, all these teams with huge cap space arent sitting there for good reason, it's that they have no other choice.

-What does a dead FA market mean? The well-stocked teams get to keep all their players as long as they choose, and the teams who would like to rebuild basically have to hand over big draft picks to do so, or else take the long road to building through the draft. I love the draft myself, as most of us do, but making that the only viable building option is just weak, it's bad for the league, it's bad for parity.

-And why do we have this problem? It's because the in-game logic for contract renegotiations is just too damned soft. All sort of players are wiling to negotiate down in all sorts of situations, making it ridiculously easy for most teams to keep all sorts of great players affordable as long as they want. That's why we don't see high quality players becoming free agents -- it's just too easy to keep everyone, and it's the renegotiation logic that's primarily at fault.

-So, does this rule (last year of contract renegging) fix everything? No. But what is does is rein in the availability of renegotiations, making them fewer and farther between. And it does so in an easy-to-enforce manner, something that is simple to spot right on the player card. It's also very easy to remember for us -- when we want to go and renegotiate, we can sort by "contract ends" and look only at our guys whose contracts are in their last year, it's really simple to do that. This rule, I think, passes all the basic tests -- it gets right at the real problem (not treating the symptom), it's easy to remember and stick to, and it's easy to spot or enforce.

Right now, in FOFL, my Chesapeake team has a lot of talent, and so far we have never really been forced to cut or trade anyone to stay under the cap. We've kept basically everyone we ever wanted to, unless we painted ourselves into a corner with a silly contract. We are going to be a **loser** under this new rule, if in a couple of years we still have a load of talent and are by then getting squeezed to try to keep everyone.

I welcome that challenge. I'm happy to vote against my self-interest here, because I think it will make the FOFL a more more realistic, rewarding, and entertaining league to play in. And I will vote for this rule.[/quotefe5d5ee]

I think you make excellent points.

Here is where I need to reintroduce the time table and the salary cap. If the cap number is not altered, what does the first few years look like? Meaning, when the first cuts of solid talent occur (hard to know when that will happen exactly due to how much cap space many teams have) will there still be cap space out there to cause crazy contracts? I know the crazy contracts will eventually lead to those players being released again but while the cap space is there the contracts could survive and be renegotiated in their final year. I guess the question is what will happen in those first few years without addressing the cap number at the same time?

I still think the cap number itself needs to be adjusted in-game, either as a stand-alone baby step or in conjunction with the renegotiation rule.

What happened in the first few seasons of the implementation in other leagues?

_________________
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

"Real" teams reneg early quite often when they have multiple "stars" on a team, this way the teams can stagger when their "stars" are up for renewal. Again I think the best course of action is 1.Find the exact year the TV contract comes up. 2. Decide how much we are going to cut the cap. 3. Get rid of the outside rules and manage your team until "Cap Cut day" use any method you need to get your house in order. I am sure we can figure out were the cap will be when it comes up for renewal, and then decide on an agressive cut, then allow the current owners to be able to plan out to that date. Yes, it will not fix our present day situation, but this gives EVERYONE the ability to know what,when,and how and make decisions best for their team, and if we do an agressive cut (thought out before hand) it should help with our FA market that very first year.

_________________


San Andreas Division Champions: 2005,2007,2015,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2028,2032,2035

2032 Western Conference Champions

2032 CFL Champions

[quotee36de6c="TurfToe"]So, people finally agree with me that we should never have converted from FOF2004? Glad you guys finally came around. Like usual, my opinions are bashed at first only to be the mainstream consensus years later.

I do miss the cap constraints of FOF2004, I had to cut one of two stud DE's my very first season. [/quotee36de6c]

This problem existed in FOF2004 as well.

_________________

First, in case it wasn't clear that post from the FOFL was not my own. I believe it was written by Quiksand. Not a huge deal, but I realize in retrospect that I didn't make it very clear that it wasn't my post, just one that I agree with.

Anyway, the league I am in that has implemented the rule has only gone through 1 offseason with it in place, so it's too early to conclude much. As we head in the Super Bowl stage, the average open cap space in the league is currently 11.77, which is already significantly better than the 21.29 we have in the CFL.

I think some of the other leagues have had the rule in place longer, so hopefully others can chime in with more details than what I'm able to give.

I actually do think a temporary cap freeze or cap adjustment could work in conjunction with this to perfect things, but the way I understand it, a cap freeze alone would not solve the problem.

[quotefca9f3d="Doug5984"]I'm going to try to reply more to this later when I'm not at work...

But Wade- I'm curious how this has played out in the IHOF, I'm assuming it has been in place in that league the longest. The leagues I am in- it is still fairly fresh.
[/quotefca9f3d]

I actually think the FOFL and WOOF are better examples because they move at a faster pace (3 games a week vs. the 2 games a week for IHOF) so they have gone through two off-seasons with this rule vs. one for IHOF.

At any rate - I'll try to answer you and TT at the same time. I don't have exact info in front of me because I'm in the process of moving so I'm on my work computer and do not have a lot of the data I would usually refer to.

However...

In both WOOF and FOFL we saw higher quality FA's in the first off-season that the rule was in place. Not 80/80 players or anything, but in both leagues often the highest FA was a 45/45 guy you saw guys getting cut in FA1-1 that were 55/55 or just being let go into FA and not extended because they were asking too much in that final year of their contract. We have not seen a "big one year deal" yet in either league (Have not had a one year deal over about 8mil in either league) and people actually ahve to make decisions on the players they cut.

Loading up WOOF right now (we're partway through the season) and there are two teams with double digit ($10mil +) in cap room. If I look at the CFL right now (where a majority of signing is done) there are 20 teams with double digit in cap room, 16 over $20 mil, and 8 over 30 mil. Hell, there are 3 teams with over $50 mil in cap room.

To those say "they're not managing it well". What the hell were they supposed to sign? Spend $25mil on that flashy 45/45 RG in FA?

It is just far too easy to keep hanging on to your solid players at below market value in our current system. if we shrink the cap by $2 mil a season at the current rate it will be 5 seasons before more than a 1/3 of the league has any impact whatsover. That's somewhere around 2 years real time.

_________________

[quote3e19407="wademoore"][quote3e19407="TurfToe"]So, people finally agree with me that we should never have converted from FOF2004? Glad you guys finally came around. Like usual, my opinions are bashed at first only to be the mainstream consensus years later.

I do miss the cap constraints of FOF2004, I had to cut one of two stud DE's my very first season. [/quote3e19407]

This problem existed in FOF2004 as well.[/quote3e19407]

Maybe my memory escapes me but was it as bad as it is in FOF2007?

I don't remember the extremes in the bidding wars nor do I remember so many people having so much cap space.

_________________
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

[quoteacce608="wademoore"]To those say "they're not managing it well". What the hell were they supposed to sign? Spend $25mil on that flashy 45/45 RG in FA?
[/quoteacce608]

Make trades? Just a thought...

If that flashy 45/45 RG improves that position, why not spend the money to get him?

I'm betting those with a ton of cap space have plenty of positions that can be improved. I'm not saying those who can afford him (because everyone can) should pick him up but he has to improve someone's starter or backup RG.

I can't even get FA's of that calibre to sign with me so I had to revert to the draft. I had to give up good players to make my moves (I believe Cleveland is happy with SE Burt Lang) but I knew I had the cap space to take on high first round selections for a couple of years. If you aren't spending money you aren't getting better. However, you can still spend money and not get better but sitting around with a fat pocket never won a champioship. But neither did anything less than a low-70's QB.

BTW, does anyone know who the worst-rated QB was to win a championship? Or do I need to start a new topic?

_________________
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

[quotef4bdd4d="timmynausea"]
but the way I understand it, a cap freeze alone would not solve the problem.[/quotef4bdd4d]

How if in 4-5 years we say we are going to cut the cap to $120 million (drastic cut we are currently at $159 mil) that not change things up right away, no need to only reneg in last yr because we say up front that $120 mil (again just saying a #) is the cap for the whole next TV contract will definitely have some FA's moving around, but also let teams start now on tying up some of their key players long term?

_________________


San Andreas Division Champions: 2005,2007,2015,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2028,2032,2035

2032 Western Conference Champions

2032 CFL Champions

[quote9384128="Fastcat"]
How if in 4-5 years we say we are going to cut the cap to $120 million (drastic cut we are currently at $159 mil) that not change things up right away, no need to only reneg in last yr because we say up front that $120 mil (again just saying a #) is the cap for the whole next TV contract will definitely have some FA's moving around, but also let teams start now on tying up some of their key players long term?[/quote9384128]

First of all, we can't cut the cap at all. The best we can do is stop it from expanding further.

The cap continues to grow each year for the next several years no matter what we do, and the problem gets worse and worse. We already have teams with over $50 mill in cap space. By the time we can freeze the cap will we have teams in the $75 mill range? A freeze won't mean much to a team with that much space. It'd take several years to have any real effect.

Beyond that, I think the issue is just that freezing the cap doesn't address the real problem, which is that renegotiations are too easy. Freezing the cap would have some effect on the league's situation, but we'd merely be addressing one symptom, the cap, rather than the problem of renegs.

[quote123e470="timmynausea"] renegotiations are too easy.[/quote123e470]

You have not been trying to renegotiate my guys then. And, I do not try anything fancy, so I stick pretty close to what they are asking for.

[quote1188de8="thater"]
You have not been trying to renegotiate my guys then. And, I do not try anything fancy, so I stick pretty close to what they are asking for.[/quote1188de8]

Here's Skydog's post from FOFC breaking down what is happening to make renegotiations too easy.

http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=63633

I was under the wrong assumption that we could cut the cap, not just freeze it. Though I guess we could still do that by the commish doing that punter thing, sign a punter for $20-30 mil signing bonus and cut his ass

_________________


San Andreas Division Champions: 2005,2007,2015,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2028,2032,2035

2032 Western Conference Champions

2032 CFL Champions

[quote83c1bee="timmynausea"]
Here's Skydog's post from FOFC breaking down what is happening to make renegotiations too easy.

http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=63633

[quote83c1bee="SkyDog"]Players in year 3 and especially year 4 who are RFAs often will accept a contract with minimum salary for three seasons, with only the trivial $10K per year bonus. This results in young players, especially those whose ratings are creeping upward, playing their prime years for minimum salary. [/quote83c1bee]
[/quote83c1bee]

I cannot recall ever having experienced this one. My players that hit or about to hit RFA want one of two things. If they are a starter, they want a 3 to 4 year starter's value contract, maybe a touch under starters value, but never close to veteran minimum. Or, if they have been a backup the whole time, they only want a one year deal, no matter if they are a 3rd year player or 4th year player. It is a cheap one year deal, but that is what they want. [player]Curtis Buning[/player] wanted a one year deal from me. I gave it to him, and then could not renegotiate to a longer deal during that season. He was obviously wanting to test free agency. He was mainly a back up for me, so I understand him thinking he can get more playing time elsewhere. Maybe these guys will sign longer cheap deals, if so that is what we need to address. I honestly cannot remember ever having a RFA in 2k7, starter or not, ask for a min contract for more then one year. [player]Chester Germany[/player] has been a solid player for me, heck he started 10 games one season for me when a top 20 pick got injured [player]Ian Barker[/player]. Chester notched 7 sacks in limited playing time that year. He has since signed 2 different one year deals for me becoming a 3rd and 4th year RFA. He will become a free agent next season, and has produced when he has seen the field. I will not be able to afford him as he would still be a backup for me. This happens, and I accept it, and will wish Chester the best of luck on his new team. (Technically, I probably could afford him, but do not want to pay that much for a backup. However, he would hit free agency and others would have the chance to outbid me if I wanted to keep him.)

If someone is getting these RFA's to agree to those kind of deals and they are not asking for them, that is a problem that needs to be fixed.

I will address a different part of Skydog's post in my next post. I want to split up the posts to not confuse and be too long winded. (too late)

The part of Skydog's post that points to a player signing a cheap contract after being injured, then wanting a much bigger contract later is a bit off.

I agree players that get injured will typically resign for cheaper then they would normally. But, I have to look at his evidence for supporting the severity of the claim with doubt.
[imgae42789]http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fofc/duncandeal.png[/imgae42789]
http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/foru ... ostcount=4
Yes, he signed the current contract the year before after having only played in 10 games. However, you can easily see this is a modified contract in dollar amounts per year and bonus. He compares this to the players new contract demands. If he compared the demands on both occasions, or compared the contracts that he figured out they would actually sign to on both occasions, that would be a valid comparison. The data given artificially exaggerates the difference, as well as QB being the highest paid position, which would also add to the amount of the difference.

I am not fighting to keep our current structure without any changes. Nor, am I fighting to keep my current team intact as two straight 5-11 seasons, I could probably benefit from some shuffling around.

What I am saying is this, before we make a rule, we should make sure:

1. The rule will do what we want it to accomplish.

2. It does not open up loopholes that can be exploited, under this wait until last year to renegotiate rule, it appears some people will find a way to get RFA's to sign long cheap deals. However, with the cap really coming into play under this rule, this "exploit" will be much more beneficial for teams to do.

3. It addresses the main problem while being fair to all teams.

4. It is announced with enough time before its enforcement to allow all teams to be fully prepared to deal with it.

I don't disagree with the points you've made, but I'd essentially call them nitpicks. The bottom line is that GMs are always going to push things to the limits of what the game allows. Trying to make rules to address RFA issues specifically becomes harder to police, harder for GMs to remember, etc. Plus it becomes debatable where we even draw the line. The only way I can see for us to regulate any of this is to limit all renegotiations. It solves much of the problem and works toward our goals of restoring FA as a viable building option and making the cap a factor in decision making.

And I'll say that in practice it really isn't as restrictive as it might seem. You just check out what the guys with one year left are asking for rather than going through the whole team. It actually simplifies that aspect of the offseason.

In any case, I think you're coming around, thater. Like I said, I am in a situation along the same lines as yours and Vegas's in the NAFL with a bunch of top picks that'll have contracts coming up for renewal close together. It'll be tough to make it work, but I will come out of it fine. I might have to trade someone away eventually, but that's a small price to pay in the grand scheme. I really don't think either of you will be in a crisis as severe as what you may be fearing.

Just something to think about in terms of the time table - to have this rule not effect recent 1st round picks, we'd have to wait 5 or 6 years to implement the rule. I just don't think that's feasible.