2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

larry linke · Post by **larry linke** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 4:42 pm

I have always been in favor of a minimum win rule. To many teams tear teams apart and would have been fired in real life. I also feel that the commish should have the final say on who stays and who goes. He has the knowlege if someone is really putting in the time necessary to compete or going through the motions. I also feel that a GM should be given an appeal process to the commish explaining why he should be kept in the AFFL. There are teams in the AFFL who fail to complete a 53 man roster.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

Onyxgem · Post by **Onyxgem** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 5:05 pm

larry linke wrote:I have always been in favor of a minimum win rule. To many teams tear teams apart and would have been fired in real life. I also feel that the commish should have the final say on who stays and who goes. He has the knowlege if someone is really putting in the time necessary to compete or going through the motions. I also feel that a GM should be given an appeal process to the commish explaining why he should be kept in the AFFL. There are teams in the AFFL who fail to complete a 53 man roster.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

Yeah but this is not real life, this is a game that we all have fun with.

vikingfan · Post by **vikingfan** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:23 am

Jared A wrote:Adding another LTC will hurt the turnover. It will help good teams, and drastically slow down the rebuilding process.

I AGREE. THE NUMBER OF QUALITY FREE AGENTS WILL BE ALMOST 0. NOT A FAN.

kevinl · Post by **kevinl** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:21 am

I agree so we could compromise and do 3 LTC in 2 years.

JonC · Post by **JonC** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:54 pm

I know I've already said it, but I just don't see the need for this. You get unlimited bids on your players. Yeah, an extra LTC is an easy, cost effective way to sign them. That's not how it should work. The best players should want to test the market, and not all of them should want to sign at an average of the top X players at their position.

The bottom line is this, if you have the cash, you can re-sign all of your own players if you want. You already have the final say.

Onyxgem · Post by **Onyxgem** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:41 pm

JonC wrote:I know I've already said it, but I just don't see the need for this. You get unlimited bids on your players. Yeah, an extra LTC is an easy, cost effective way to sign them. That's not how it should work. The best players should want to test the market, and not all of them should want to sign at an average of the top X players at their position.

The bottom line is this, if you have the cash, you can re-sign all of your own players if you want. You already have the final say.

Wrong even if you have a ton of cash the chances of even signing you best players to hit FA is ZERO!

whteshark · Post by **whteshark** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:46 pm

Onyxgem wrote:
JonC wrote:I know I've already said it, but I just don't see the need for this. You get unlimited bids on your players. Yeah, an extra LTC is an easy, cost effective way to sign them. That's not how it should work. The best players should want to test the market, and not all of them should want to sign at an average of the top X players at their position.

The bottom line is this, if you have the cash, you can re-sign all of your own players if you want. You already have the final say.
Wrong even if you have a ton of cash the chances of even signing you best players to hit FA is ZERO!

Oynx is absolutely right.

There's an unfair advantage when the rebuilds have a 100 million in cash every year to blow in free agency without any real consequences. They won't lose their teams if they suck every year and there are no salary cap implications because they have so much cap room they can take a hit if they want to move a player for draft picks.

Free agency is supposed to be about an even playing field. It's not supposed to be a resource for crappy teams to raid good teams of their top players so they can trade them for more draft picks.

robroach · Post by **robroach** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:01 pm

One could argue that real NFL teams do the same thing. The past couple years the Tampa Bay Buccanners have been throwing big money at free agents. Just to cut them a year or two later - see Dashon Gholston and Anthony Collins.

Also this year the Jaguars and the Raiders in particular have overpaid free agents to procure them.

This is all part of a free market system that the NFL has set up. It is unrealistic to expect to keep every player that you want to keep. I'm sure the Broncos would love to have kept Julius Thomas, and I'm quite sure the Cowboys wanted to keep DeMarco Murray if Philly hadn't been willing to pay 2 more million dollars a year to keep him.

whteshark · Post by **whteshark** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:23 pm

robroach wrote:One could argue that real NFL teams do the same thing. The past couple years the Tampa Bay Buccanners have been throwing big money at free agents. Just to cut them a year or two later - see Dashon Gholston and Anthony Collins.

Also this year the Jaguars and the Raiders in particular have overpaid free agents to procure them.

This is all part of a free market system that the NFL has set up. It is unrealistic to expect to keep every player that you want to keep. I'm sure the Broncos would love to have kept Julius Thomas, and I'm quite sure the Cowboys wanted to keep DeMarco Murray if Philly hadn't been willing to pay 2 more million dollars a year to keep him.

Those teams are bound to the free market with real consequences for bad decisions. GM's lose their jobs when they put a bad product on the field; owners lose money when fans don't show up for games or buy merchandise; and the teams have a harder time signing quality free agents without over paying.

There are no consequences here for these teams that are gaming the system. An extra LTC doesn't mean I get to keep every player. I have between 4-6 free agents a year that I would like to keep. I never resign them all.

A second LTC evens the playing field in my opinion.

Jared A · Post by **Jared A** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:09 pm

Evens what playing field?

What is the point of an LTC? The answer is... to sign a player so you don't have to pay top dollar.

Not paying top dollar just creates more money in the open market. So, now we're going to have "B" rated players getting paid more and more. A team with 80 mil to spend is going to spend it... since we don't carry over very much, there's no incentive to not use it.

An open market IS a level playing field. Poor teams have a shot at landing the best players. Good teams have a chance at losing the best players... THAT is a level playing field. The best players staying on the best teams is not level. That would be the opposite of level.

2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Should we add another LTC and/or contract restructuring option?

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure

Re: 2015 RULES: Add another LTC, Restructure