:: Free agency 3 is don

http://www.thecfl.us/forum/

Free agency 3 is don http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3604	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Taco [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:08 am ]
Post subject:	Free agency 3 is don
New league file: http://www.thecfl.net/cfl.zip Upcoming schedule (all sims at 7am EDT): Wed, 6/27 - Free agency 4 Thu, 6/28 - Free agency 5 Fri, 6/29 - Free agency 6 Sat, 6/30 - Free agency 7 Sun, 7/1 - Free agency 8 Mon, 7/2 - Free agency 9 Tue, 7/3 - Free agency 10

Author:	Taco [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:23 am ]
Post subject:
Ok, I'm kinda pissed now because it happened to me. Grady Barlow signed a 1 year contract with Tucson: $1,510,000 salary + $14,000,000 bonus My offer to Barlow (which I didn't bother changing between FA2 and FA3) was: Bonus = $10,000,000 2014 = $12,000,000 2015 = $14,000,000 2016 = $16,000,000 Total = $52M over 3 years I need to think about this one some more after I am no longer angry, but I would at least consider a rule about these 1 year contracts where the bonus amount can only be a certain percentage of the overall deal. That said, Fonzie did nothing wrong here since we don't have a rule against it and other people have done the same thing before (perhaps even myself, but not in extreme cases like this).

Author:	TurfToe [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:23 am ]
Post subject:
sigh

Author:	Shooter [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 4:27 am ]
Post subject:
[quote71c65fd="Taco"]Ok, I'm kinda pissed now because it happened to me. Grady Barlow signed a 1 year contract with Tucson: $1,510,000 salary + $14,000,000 bonus My offer to Barlow (which I didn't bother changing between FA2 and FA3) was: Bonus = $10,000,000 2014 = $12,000,000 2015 = $14,000,000 2016 = $16,000,000 Total = $52M over 3 years I need to think about this one some more after I am no longer angry, but I would at least consider a rule about these 1 year contracts where the bonus amount can only be a certain percentage of the overall deal. That said, Fonzie did nothing wrong here since we don't have a rule against it and other people have done the same thing before (perhaps even myself, but not in extreme cases like this).[/quote71c65fd] I just posted what I think to be a viable option in a different thread. Simply put, no 1 year deal can be offered that includes a signing bonus more than 2x the amount of salary offered. This goes on every year and you would never see this type of contract in the NFL. It's unrealistic and IMO it does manipulate the game. Let's figure something out and put it to a vote.

Author:	Cheesehead Craig [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:44 am ]
Post subject:
[quote4286848="TurfToe"]sigh[/quote4286848] +1 It was nice dreaming that I could get a quality player in FA. I offered the guy a huge deal with a ton of signing bonus. Fucking one year contracts.

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:53 am ]
Post subject:
For what it's worth, I didn't want to offer Barlow a 1-year deal. My initial offer to him was for 2 years, but another team offered him a 1-year deal during Stage 2. Given the known tendency for players to opt for huge bonus, 1-year deals I knew that I'd have to top that other 1-year deal if I wanted to land him. So that's what I did. I'd be perfectly fine with a rule along the lines of what Shooter is proposing. I'm not real fond of these 1-year deals myself, but without a rule in place their use appears to be a necessity.

Author:	timmynausea [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:55 am ]
Post subject:
I decided to move this over from the trade forum: I think there should be a rule, too. In the NAFL we have a rule that if a guy is asking for a 3 or greater year deal, you can't offer him less years than that until the very last stages of free agency. It forces teams to make multi-year, massive financial commitments instead of the no risk, huge reward of a one year bonus inflated deal. I think it makes things a lot more realistic, and it really doesn't effect free agency as much as you'd think. In fairness to Fonzie, I was going to offer $15 mill in bonus, but forgot to submit my export yesterday.

Author:	wademoore [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:56 am ]
Post subject:
I'd love to see a reasonable, easily policed rule that cuts into these 1 year contracts.

Author:	timmynausea [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:02 am ]
Post subject:
Here's the precise language of the NAFL rule: For competitive purposes, any free agent asking for 3 or more years MUST be offered a contract for at least 3 years until Week 8 of Free Agency. From Week 8 on, any contract may be offered. Any GM violating this rule will have the player immediately cut (thus penalizing with bonus payment) and will also lose a draft pick at the Commissioner's discretion.

Author:	eckman [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:03 am ]
Post subject:
a one year deal like that the player shouldn't be able to be franchised the following year.

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:08 am ]
Post subject:
I'd be more in favor of a rule like timmy posted from the NAFL than what eckman is proposing. The NAFL rule will prevent the worst of these situations from happening in the future, and precludes the possibility of the player being franchised right away. I also like the NAFL rule because it gets around the tricky decision-making process of establishing cutoffs and whatnot.

Author:	Cheesehead Craig [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:10 am ]
Post subject:
For the record, I have nothing against Fonzie as what he did there is no rule against it. Besides, Mathias and Co are going to shred his secondary anyway this season, with or without that safety. Here is the rule that I would propose, this is from the UFL: [ic259088][bc259088]Any measures taken by a general manager that may be considered an exploit of the software (as determined by the Acting Commissioner or Board of Directors) is prohibited.[/bc259088][/ic259088] I feel that these 1 year deals with the large bonuses are an exploit of the software. Plus the rule doesn't get into the micro-managing of % of bonuses in contracts.

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:20 am ]
Post subject:
[quotee72ff9e="Cheesehead Craig"]For the record, I have nothing against Fonzie as what he did there is no rule against it. Besides, Mathias and Co are going to shred his secondary anyway this season, with or without that safety. Here is the rule that I would propose, this is from the UFL: [ie72ff9e][be72ff9e]Any measures taken by a general manager that may be considered an exploit of the software (as determined by the Acting Commissioner or Board of Directors) is prohibited.[/be72ff9e][/ie72ff9e] I feel that these 1 year deals with the large bonuses are an exploit of the software. Plus the rule doesn't get into the micro-managing of % of bonuses in contracts.[/quotee72ff9e] I like the intent of that rule, but it requires a judgment call. Unless there is a clearly defined list of software "exploits" you'll have 32 owners all making their own judgments about what is/is not an exploit. That will very likely lead to further disagreement. In my opinion, any rule we implement needs to be specific so as to avoid any murky gray areas that could lead to judgment calls and the conflict that comes with them. I have complete faith in Taco's judgment, but I think it would be a bit unfair to ask him to enforce such a broad rule that is so open to interpretation. Oh, and Mathias is one of the main reasons I decided to pursue Barlow in the first place. There's nothing like facing a perpetual 4000 yard passer twice per year to motivate a secondary upgrade!

Author:	Taco [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:26 am ]
Post subject:
[quote78a5f56="Fonzie"]I have complete faith in Taco's judgment[/quote78a5f56] You sure about that? Billy Joe Foster

Author:	timmynausea [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:28 am ]
Post subject:
[quoteed59fc6="Taco"] You sure about that? Billy Joe Foster [/quoteed59fc6] I think we're all willing to allow lapses in judgment as long as they are hilarious.

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:33 am ]
Post subject:
[quotef982915="timmynausea"][quotef982915="Taco"] You sure about that? Billy Joe Foster [/quotef982915] I think we're all willing to allow lapses in judgment as long as they are hilarious.[/quotef982915] +1!

Author:	wademoore [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:36 am ]
Post subject:
[quote9b62dbb="Fonzie"]I'd be more in favor of a rule like timmy posted from the NAFL than what eckman is proposing. The NAFL rule will prevent the worst of these situations from happening in the future, and precludes the possibility of the player being franchised right away. I also like the NAFL rule because it gets around the tricky decision-making process of establishing cutoffs and whatnot.[/quote9b62dbb] I have two concerns with the NAFL rule.. 1) What about guys asking for 2 year deals? 2) Policing - this just seems really messy to police imo, especially since the CFL does not archive old league files.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:38 am ]
Post subject:
Another "Butch-ered" contract... I had offered 70 million over 4 years. I'm pretty sure this is how it broke down 24 million Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 12 Million Base + 6 Bonus 18 Million Base + 6 Bonus So while the backend was still a lot- he would have still been making 14 million the first 2 years, and would have probably restructured after that, but would have seen the remaining 12 in bonus. Not saying it was the best offer on the table, but damn taking one year over that just sucks. Also- Brian Ensley frustrates the hell out of me- Taking 2 years 16.8 million over 4 years, 37 million? (Pretty flat contract, would've seen all the money- ah well, frustration only because i can't sign anyone). I guess he is hoping that after the 2 years he will only be in his 9th season and can hit one more pay day? I've lost out on all players besides guys I've resigned so far... --------------------------------------------- Personally, I like the NAFL rule. Most of the really old players only ask for 2 year deals so you can offer them a 1 year deal if you would like. The only problem I see with the NAFL rule is- Wade's contract to Ensley would be considered illegal, while I feel it is a perfectly legal and a pretty fair contract. I also don't think Barlow should be allowed to be franchised much like Butch Fulton- he'll get the tag, and sign a reasonable contract late in FA.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 am ]
Post subject:
[quoteaa5d696="wademoore"][quoteaa5d696="Fonzie"]I'd be more in favor of a rule like timmy posted from the NAFL than what eckman is proposing. The NAFL rule will prevent the worst of these situations from happening in the future, and precludes the possibility of the player being franchised right away. I also like the NAFL rule because it gets around the tricky decision-making process of establishing cutoffs and whatnot.[/quoteaa5d696] I have two concerns with the NAFL rule.. 1) What about guys asking for 2 year deals? 2) Policing - this just seems really messy to police imo, especially since the CFL does not archive old league files.[/quoteaa5d696] 1) I agree that some 2 year deals are fair. 2) Policing wouldn't be that hard- I'm sure someone will notice and bring it up. And I'm pretty sure Taco does archive all the old files, I know when I was running the sims I kept one on my hard drive for every single sim I ran.

Author:	Shooter [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:41 am ]
Post subject:
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.

Author:	TurfToe [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:44 am ]
Post subject:
[quote7d5db8a="Doug5984"]Another "Butch-ered" contract... I had offered 70 million over 4 years. I'm pretty sure this is how it broke down 24 million Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 12 Million Base + 6 Bonus 18 Million Base + 6 Bonus So while the backend was still a lot- he would have still been making 14 million the first 2 years, and would have probably restructured after that, but would have seen the remaining 12 in bonus. Not saying it was the best offer on the table, but damn taking one year over that just sucks. Also- Brian Ensley frustrates the hell out of me- Taking 2 years 16.8 million over 4 years, 37 million? (Pretty flat contract, would've seen all the money- ah well, frustration only because i can't sign anyone). I guess he is hoping that after the 2 years he will only be in his 9th season and can hit one more pay day? I've lost out on all players besides guys I've resigned so far... --------------------------------------------- Personally, I like the NAFL rule. Most of the really old players only ask for 2 year deals so you can offer them a 1 year deal if you would like. The only problem I see with the NAFL rule is- Wade's contract to Ensley would be considered illegal, while I feel it is a perfectly legal and a pretty fair contract. I also don't think Barlow should be allowed to be franchised much like Butch Fulton- he'll get the tag, and sign a reasonable contract late in FA.[/quote7d5db8a] +1. That's us to the letter, except I was able to sign a kicker no one wanted after 2 attempts just so I could mentor my young kicker. Pretty embarassing actually...

Author:	timmynausea [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:44 am ]
Post subject:
[quote3d20314="wademoore"] 1) What about guys asking for 2 year deals? [/quote3d20314] Guys asking for 2 year deals are generally either older players coming up on retirement or young, unproven players. The rule basically exists to prevent people from snatching up star players with huge 1 year deals, so it's a free for all if they're asking for less than 3 years.

Author:	Fonzie [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:45 am ]
Post subject:
[quote556e2db="Doug5984"]Another "Butch-ered" contract... I had offered 70 million over 4 years. I'm pretty sure this is how it broke down 24 million Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 12 Million Base + 6 Bonus 18 Million Base + 6 Bonus So while the backend was still a lot- he would have still been making 14 million the first 2 years, and would have probably restructured after that, but would have seen the remaining 12 in bonus. Not saying it was the best offer on the table, but damn taking one year over that just sucks. Also- Brian Ensley frustrates the hell out of me- Taking 2 years 16.8 million over 4 years, 37 million? (Pretty flat contract, would've seen all the money- ah well, frustration only because i can't sign anyone). I guess he is hoping that after the 2 years he will only be in his 9th season and can hit one more pay day? I've lost out on all players besides guys I've resigned so far... --------------------------------------------- Personally, I like the NAFL rule. Most of the really old players only ask for 2 year deals so you can offer them a 1 year deal if you would like. The only problem I see with the NAFL rule is- Wade's contract to Ensley would be considered illegal, while I feel it is a perfectly legal and a pretty fair contract. I also don't think Barlow should be allowed to be franchised much like Butch Fulton- he'll get the tag, and sign a reasonable contract late in FA.[/quote556e2db] A retroactive rule affecting what I can do with Barlow would be, in my opinion, unfair. If we want to make a rule with that sort of prohibition going forward, fine, but I think it would be a bad precedent to punish someone (by removing my franchise tag availability) for doing something that was completely within the rules.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:46 am ]
Post subject:
[quote08d6204="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.[/quote08d6204] 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.

Author:	eckman [ Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:49 am ]
Post subject:
[quote4bf45c3="Fonzie"][quote4bf45c3="Doug5984"]Another "Butch-ered" contract... I had offered 70 million over 4 years. I'm pretty sure this is how it broke down 24 million Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 8 Million Base + 6 Bonus 12 Million Base + 6 Bonus 18 Million Base + 6 Bonus So while the backend was still a lot- he would have still been making 14 million the first 2 years, and would have probably restructured after that, but would have seen the remaining 12 in bonus. Not saying it was the best offer on the table, but damn taking one year over that just sucks. Also- Brian Ensley frustrates the hell out of me- Taking 2 years 16.8 million over 4 years, 37 million? (Pretty flat contract, would've seen all the money- ah well, frustration only because i can't sign anyone). I guess he is hoping that after the 2 years he will only be in his 9th season and can hit one more pay day? I've lost out on all players besides guys I've resigned so far... --------------------------------------------- Personally, I like the NAFL rule. Most of the really old players only ask for 2 year deals so you can offer them a 1 year deal if you would like. The only problem I see with the NAFL rule is- Wade's contract to Ensley would be considered illegal, while I feel it is a perfectly legal and a pretty fair contract. I also don't think Barlow should be allowed to be franchised much like Butch Fulton- he'll get the tag, and sign a reasonable contract late in FA.[/quote4bf45c3] A retroactive rule affecting what I can do with Barlow would be, in my opinion, unfair. If we want to make a rule with that sort of prohibition going forward, fine, but I think it would be a bad precedent to punish someone (by removing my franchise tag availability) for doing something that was completely within the rules.[/quote4bf45c3] as far as i am concerned since there was no rule in place you should have every right to franchise him next year. Any new rule should start next year.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/