And another 1 year deal with 3x the bonus money of the salary. Let's get this rule in place.
http://www.thecfl.us/forum/ |
|
| Free agency 5 is don http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3619 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Taco [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Free agency 5 is don |
New league file: http://www.thecfl.net/cfl.zip Upcoming schedule (all sims at 7am EDT): 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 Fri, 7/6 - Free agency 11 |
|
| Author: | Cheesehead Craig [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Gonna be a whole lot of cap going to waste in AZ this year. Just cannot get anyone to sign on the dotted line. Man this is frustrating. |
|
| Author: | Shooter [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
And another 1 year deal with 3x the bonus money of the salary. Let's get this rule in place.
|
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote197e7aa="Shooter"]And another 1 year deal with 3x the bonus money of the salary. Let's get this rule in place. [/quote197e7aa]Which player are you talking about? |
|
| Author: | Shooter [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Marcos Garcia. There were a few other 1 year's but this is the one that stood out. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotee5eae85="wademoore"][quotee5eae85="Shooter"]And another 1 year deal with 3x the bonus money of the salary. Let's get this rule in place. [/quotee5eae85]Which player are you talking about?[/quotee5eae85] Careful now, there are a ton of guys asking for one year deals now and if you have to outbid 7 teams for a guy the bonus money has to keep getting raised. This is why I'm hesitant about the verbiage in the rules. If you need a guy bad and all he wants is one year, you have the right to structure it however you want even if the bonus is 20x the salary. |
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote321d820="TurfToe"][quote321d820="wademoore"][quote321d820="Shooter"]And another 1 year deal with 3x the bonus money of the salary. Let's get this rule in place. [/quote321d820]Which player are you talking about?[/quote321d820] Careful now, there are a ton of guys asking for one year deals now and if you have to outbid 7 teams for a guy the bonus money has to keep getting raised. This is why I'm hesitant about the verbiage in the rules. If you need a guy bad and all he wants is one year, you have the right to structure it however you want even if the bonus is 20x the salary.[/quote321d820] Well, I actually had a different but similar motivation to the question... Marcos Garcia would have gone the same way under the NAFL system. I'm not sure how many years he was asking for, but based on the bidding (no game access at work) i'm guessing he was asking for 2 years. Garcia and several others (including ones I signed to 1 year deals) would not have fit under the NAFL rules but would fit under some sort of limit to the bonus you can offer. I just find it interesting that one of the next complaints about 1 year deals is on a guy that wouldn't fit under the rule that most people seem to be pushing. |
|
| Author: | Weakness [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Free agency 5 is |
Stupid question, but what does RED FLAG mean when you look in the Draft Preview? Is in injury? bad attitude? Thanks! |
|
| Author: | timmynausea [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Free agency 5 is |
[quote66dc040="Weakness"]Stupid question, but what does RED FLAG mean when you look in the Draft Preview? Is in injury? bad attitude? Thanks![/quote66dc040] You were on the right track with bad attitude. It basically means you're looking at a guy with character issues like T.O. or Pacman Jones. How that exactly effects your team and chemistry is hard to say, though. |
|
| Author: | timmynausea [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have no problem with Cleveland signing Marcos Garcia to a one year deal. He's a 15 year vet! Signing him to a two year deal is like buying yourself a little dead cap space as far as I'm concerned as there is a very slim chance he'll be around for the second year of the contract. |
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotec3faf9a="timmynausea"]I have no problem with Cleveland signing Marcos Garcia to a one year deal. He's a 15 year vet! Signing him to a two year deal is like buying yourself a little dead cap space as far as I'm concerned as there is a very slim chance he'll be around for the second year of the contract.[/quotec3faf9a] Yeah, idano - shooter's the one that got upset about that one, not me  ..I think more problematic are some 8ish year vets that are asking for 2 year deals and could easily be snatched (over a lot of competition) with a 1 year deal. |
|
| Author: | Castlerock [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I haven't looked in-game and I don't know the structure of any of the offers but, at first glance, the Garcia deal looks fine to me. I think the key is that he is not a guy who is in danger of getting screwed by the franchise tag. He is an older player and he was only looking for a 2-year deal anyway. Garcia could report to camp and stink up the joint (he is a 15 year vet). Cleveland is still on the hook for the bonus. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Garcia's deal is the reason I like the NAFL rule, however, Wade brings up a good point about an 8-year player who is asking for a 2-year deal. I don't know if the 8-year, 2-year requesting free agent will have the same impact as a younger more franchisable player would with regard to GM outcry, franchise salary effect, or game manipulation perceptions if he were to take the 1-year deal though... With that said, I am still in favor of keeping 3-year requestors getting 3-year deals and leaving contract specifics alone. We need to remember that the Fulton-Barlow contracts are for the types of players available due to botched franchise tags, which aren't all that common (was Fulton a botched tag?). |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote80c7aa6="TurfToe"](was Fulton a botched tag?).[/quote80c7aa6] yes  i had met a new girlfriend, she stayed over the entire weekend and i completely forgot about the franchise tag stage... Seems so long ago. The first "Butch-ered" contract. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote812b71b="Doug5984"][quote812b71b="TurfToe"](was Fulton a botched tag?).[/quote812b71b] yes i had met a new girlfriend, she stayed over the entire weekend and i completely forgot about the franchise tag stage... Seems so long ago. The first "Butch-ered" contract.[/quote812b71b] Sounds like a perfectly good reason to blow off the CFL to me. |
|
| Author: | General Mike [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sick of this free agency bullshit. Fuck FOF. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote83feda8="General Mike"]Sick of this free agency bullshit. Fuck FOF.[/quote83feda8] I'd love to get bullshit in free agency but even bullshit won't sign with Vegas. I shouldn't say that, as I was able to get a backup kicker to mentor my young guy after two tries and my 4th option at TE just signed a deal that's for 4 times what he's worth. I'm rolling now... |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote0eb92b6="TurfToe"][quote0eb92b6="General Mike"]Sick of this free agency bullshit. Fuck FOF.[/quote0eb92b6] I'd love to get bullshit in free agency but even bullshit won't sign with Vegas. I shouldn't say that, as I was able to get a backup kicker to mentor my young guy after two tries and my 4th option at TE just signed a deal that's for 4 times what he's worth. I'm rolling now...[/quote0eb92b6] I've been able to resign my guys- and bring in a backup QB... All my offers have been topped, and guys have taken the best offer on the table, not to mention my team sucks so they are all going to better teams- so I really can't complain about FOF... It's more me not offering enough money + having a bad team. |
|
| Author: | Fastcat [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why dont we just change up the NAFL rule to read "In FA1 you must offer the player a contract with equal to or greater than the years as he is requesting." This way if they ask for a 1 year you can offer a one year, if they ask for 5 years you must offer 5 years. You can structure contract anyway you would like, but years must be the same. Oh and it would still be self policed. |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote8ff3504="Fastcat"]Why dont we just change up the NAFL rule to read "In FA1 you must offer the player a contract with equal to or greater than the years as he is requesting." This way if they ask for a 1 year you can offer a one year, if they ask for 5 years you must offer 5 years. You can structure contract anyway you would like, but years must be the same. Oh and it would still be self policed.[/quote8ff3504] Sometimes players late late in their careers are asking for 2 years, and its almost a guarantee that they will retire after the following season- so you have to offer a deal you know you will be eating half the bonus. That is still way better than what we have, and I'll be happy with whatever the league decides to do. (As long as something gets done) |
|
| Author: | timmynausea [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote729d67d="Fastcat"]Why dont we just change up the NAFL rule to read "In FA1 you must offer the player a contract with equal to or greater than the years as he is requesting." This way if they ask for a 1 year you can offer a one year, if they ask for 5 years you must offer 5 years. You can structure contract anyway you would like, but years must be the same. Oh and it would still be self policed.[/quote729d67d] Here's why I don't like your proposal - I don't want to have to offer a 15+ year vet a 2 year deal just because that's what he is asking for. I don't think that's unreasonable on my part. The beauty of the NAFL rule is that it really only deals with star level players in their prime. All the players being mentioned as not being covered by the rule are either aging vets or unproven players. In both situations good cases can be made that a 1 year contract is realistic. If a younger guy (around 5-8 years or etc.) is only asking for 1 or 2 years he has likely not been a starter and is looking for a short term deal with which to prove himself. It's totally believable he would take a 1 year contract in that scenario. Obviously with a guy in the twilight of his career, it's understandable that a 1 or 2 year deal would be reasonable. |
|
| Author: | Fastcat [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK, put a cap on vets. "Any player with 11 years or less experience, that has played one year in the league must be offered a contract with equal to or greater than the years as he is requesting in the first FA period." |
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote1760c2a="Fastcat"]OK, put a cap on vets. "Any player with 11 years or less experience, that has played one year in the league must be offered a contract with equal to or greater than the years as he is requesting in the first FA period."[/quote1760c2a] Ugh, do we all get complimentary league slide rules to go with that?
|
|
| Author: | Castlerock [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
And I don't want to have to offer a guy a 5 year deal just because that is what he is asking for. A 3 or 4 year deal is perfectly reasonable. I like the NAFL rule as written. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote3de6340="wademoore"][quote3de6340="Fastcat"]OK, put a cap on vets. "Any player with 11 years or less experience, that has played one year in the league must be offered a contract with equal to or greater than the years as he is requesting in the first FA period."[/quote3de6340] Ugh, do we all get complimentary league slide rules to go with that? [/quote3de6340]LOL Least intrusive, K.I.S.S., if it ain't broke don't fix it - that's all I'm looking for although a league issued slide rule would be kick ass! I think there should be a limited edition Wade Abacus, serialized and signed by Wade himself. That would definitely stiffen Fonzie's nipples. Aside from the arbitrary Stage 8 that's in there, the NAFL rule seems to fit our need quite fine. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-07:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|