FanGM

That's fine if that's the NFL's rule.


However, that isn't what we have done. It's also not what we do for LTC's.

Since our SB's often disappear due to trades, LTC's and Franchise extensions have always been done without factoring signing bonuses into their valuation.

It's another reason we use the real life NFL's franchise numbers (instead of creating our own)

I've been doing some thinking on this, and I think there's one way I would be on board.

What if instead of adding an LTC, we were able to offer an extension to one player during the season each year? It would have to be used during the regular season or you'd lose it, and it would NOT supersede the current or any remaining year's financial commitment.

For example:

Let's say the DFFL Steelers LTC DeMarco Murray and Franchise Bryan Bulaga this off-season. Both are pending FA. During the season, any player on the roster NOT on an expiring contract would be eligible for an extension using the same formula as LTC. The difference is, this player's new contract wouldn't start until the current one expires. The signing bonus paid to that player would go up, so teams would have to account for added SB required through the season. The only reason I like this better than the added LTC is because it allows teams to lock up players, but doesn't thin the pending FA crowd.

No, it still thins the FA market, just years down the road. You already have the option to use the LTC on a player expiring this year or next. Adding a second resigning and putting no limits on it's use just messes things up more. I would have signed Russell Wilson to as long of an extension as allowed after his rookie year, and I would have locked him in long term cheaply before his grade increased too much.

Teams could (and should) use such a resigning on cheap young players. If they hit, you have a guy locked in long term on a steal. If it misses, you cut the player and move on with little cap penalty.

I think we're at the point where we are just going back over the same arguments ad nauseam. It doesn't appear there have been any additional votes lately.

Is anyone out there still on the sidelines?

I have yet to vote on the restructure. Not really seeing any argument on it

How about this exception.

The 2nd LTC can only be for a player you drafted. Still keep the same options for length.

Thoughts?

A little late to the party on this one but just thought of it...

Everyone gets one LTC per year but if they choose not to use it, it can be carried over into the following year but can only have a max of 2. So if they did not use it for two years in a row they would not get a third, they would ultimately lose the one that was carried over the first time.

CONCLUSION: We'll add another contract restructure option to all teams once the regular seasons start, as a tool for teams to solve their own budget messes during the regular season when creating cap space is so much more difficult than the off-season. The alternative in the past was the teams in trouble having to come to commish for manual help, so giving an emergency restucture for teams with financial issues during the season with injuries and less cap savings options will help us and is still realistic as teams in such trouble in reality could approach their own players for restructuring. That's not limited in reality. We limit it here so teams won't restructure 53 players in a minute with mouse clicks unrealistically, but not unreasonable that an NFL team might restructure 3 contracts a year total. It's still not advised, though, for teams that want to keep those potentially restructured players longer as adding a balloon payment last year probably means cutting them a year early in many cases and shortening their stay on your team.

As for another LTC, there's mixed results but overall support. That was never for his year, but for future year considerations. I think we can pencil in perhaps having 2 LTCs next off-season, but probably not until we do a little more to ensure less steals there and that the league-generated contracts make sense and not way under market calculations. They're probably good values for the most part, with some high and some low but mostly decent, but if expanding that we want to root out the worst results and not expand that problem -- especially since those values are at the league's control for a price a player would give up free agency for. My thought would be something that doesn't impact most of the LTCs but just prevents the most surprisingly low ones that pop up every now and then (current examples tend to mostly be QBs so perhaps a tweak there in future seasons).

If we're going to add another LTC... I think we HAVE to add SB into the way they are calculated.


Right now, 90% guaranteed contracts aren't uncommon right now.


Gm's are using guaranteed money to scare off other bidders.


1mil per year for 6 years with a 60mil SB. That'll throw off LTC calculations in a hurry.