2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

[Ulrich82]

I'm really against adding more LTC's. I like the option, but it's already really diluting the FA market.

[whteshark]

I gotta disagree. The free agent market is always robust and all the top players are taken off the market anyway (that's if the GM's are active).

The home field advantage for above average players is a joke in many ways. You have to throw franchise money at them to keep them. Unlimited bids doesn't stop that.

On top of that you have teams that every year are in full rebuild and have the money to throw around because they cut their teams to the bone and don't even try to put a team on the field.

I don't think an extra LTC hurts. In the NFL teams offer contract extensions to more than one player all the time.

[Nathan S.]

I gotta disagree. The free agent market is always robust and all the top players are taken off the market anyway (that's if the GM's are active).

The home field advantage for above average players is a joke in many ways. You have to throw franchise money at them to keep them. Unlimited bids doesn't stop that.

On top of that you have teams that every year are in full rebuild and have the money to throw around because they cut their teams to the bone and don't even try to put a team on the field.

I don't think an extra LTC hurts. In the NFL teams offer contract extensions to more than one player all the time.

I 100% agree with this. There are teams who cut their salary number to 30-40 million, don't really attempt to win at all, then throw insane amounts of cash at FAs. The unlimited bids is nice for your own player but it doesn't help all that much. Every year we have 80 rated OL getting 8 million a year, where if you're a good team, with other good players, you have no chance at keeping them.

Look at Cobb and Bulaga IRL taking less money to stay with the Packers, here we don't have the ability for players to decide that. Two LTCs makes that more realistic.

[RebelFan]

I gotta disagree. The free agent market is always robust and all the top players are taken off the market anyway (that's if the GM's are active).

The home field advantage for above average players is a joke in many ways. You have to throw franchise money at them to keep them. Unlimited bids doesn't stop that.

On top of that you have teams that every year are in full rebuild and have the money to throw around because they cut their teams to the bone and don't even try to put a team on the field.

I don't think an extra LTC hurts. In the NFL teams offer contract extensions to more than one player all the time.

I 100% agree with this. There are teams who cut their salary number to 30-40 million, don't really attempt to win at all, then throw insane amounts of cash at FAs. The unlimited bids is nice for your own player but it doesn't help all that much. Every year we have 80 rated OL getting 8 million a year, where if you're a good team, with other good players, you have no chance at keeping them.

Look at Cobb and Bulaga IRL taking less money to stay with the Packers, here we don't have the ability for players to decide that. Two LTCs makes that more realistic.

I third this.

[RyanM]

If we're going to do more LTCs (which I disagree with) then we need to cut back on the transition/franchise tagging options.

[Leb]

I am against another LTC, I think it greatly depletes the market. And while the contracts that are resulting from LTC are for the most part fair now, I think the lower number of FA reaching the market is only going to ramp up spending on mid level free agents which would damage the LTC contract calculation in the future.

One compromise that I like could be adding an LTC for guys 80 and under so as to not deplete the core free agents but providing an opportunity to secure a low level starter or depth guy at a good price

[Ben C.]

I am against another LTC, I think it greatly depletes the market. And while the contracts that are resulting from LTC are for the most part fair now, I think the lower number of FA reaching the market is only going to ramp up spending on mid level free agents which would damage the LTC contract calculation in the future.

One compromise that I like could be adding an LTC for guys 80 and under so as to not deplete the core free agents but providing an opportunity to secure a low level starter or depth guy at a good price

On the other hand, if the spending on mid level free agents goes up due to fewer being on the market, consequently raising the price of the LTC calculation would likely result in fewer GMs choosing the LTC route. In other words it should balance itself out:

More LTCs ---> Fewer FAs ---> Higher Contracts for FAs ---> Higher price for LTCs ---> Fewer LTCs ---> More FAs ---> Lower contracts for FAs ---> Lower price for LTCs ---> More LTCs

[tino38]

More LTCs ---> Fewer FAs ---> Higher Contracts for FAs ---> Higher price for LTCs ---> Fewer LTCs ---> More FAs ---> Lower contracts for FAs ---> Lower price for LTCs ---> More LTCs

It keeps going and going and going...

This made me laugh, I had to do it I agree here

[Jared A]

Right now, we have a decent balance. Fewer guys on the open market is a bad thing. We already can keep two per year. Very few teams sign more than 2 players per year to extensions before they hit the open market.

[Strategist]

I think adding an LTC in the AFFL isn't that bad of an option because people don't get fleeced on trades but in the other 2 leagues you have it happen often therefore these teams that are taking advantage of new gms would have a way to keep more of their players from hitting the open market and I don't like that idea.