Potential rule discussion for the coming off season

[vikingfan]

Not enough players hitting free agency as it is. Like the efforts. Just not a fan of it. Then again what do I know, I only sign mostly Vikings.

[Adam K]

Yes, I am very much anti a 2nd LTC... but the rule passed, and people made decisions based on it. We could potentially discuss removing it for NEXT year, but this year it is a done deal.

I think it is clear that it should be something voted upon again (keep two LTCs or go back to one) for 2017.

I actually kind of like the idea of Ben C. (Arizona) sharing a few years from now, the little historical nugget that 2016 was the only offseason in AFFL history where teams were permitted two LTCs.

[robroach]

On the restructure - I would be against it. Restructures should be uncomfortable, not convenient - especially here.


On the two LTCs:


I think it would be cool to have some type of incentive here. For example, all teams making the playoffs or improving the previous year's win total by 4 or more would get the 2nd LTC that year. This would keep GMs from sandbagging - which really disrupts the overall competition of the league.


On incentives: I would also be up for a discussion on having the same teams mentioned above (palyoff teams or teams that improve 4 or more wins) to receive an extra bid during peak free agency. Just a thought. I would also be in favor of teams with cap space over a certain amount to receive an extra bid during peak free agency as well. What good is all that money if you can't bid on anybody?

[whteshark]

On the restructure - I would be against it. Restructures should be uncomfortable, not convenient - especially here.


On the two LTCs:


I think it would be cool to have some type of incentive here. For example, all teams making the playoffs or improving the previous year's win total by 4 or more would get the 2nd LTC that year. This would keep GMs from sandbagging - which really disrupts the overall competition of the league.


On incentives: I would also be up for a discussion on having the same teams mentioned above (palyoff teams or teams that improve 4 or more wins) to receive an extra bid during peak free agency. Just a thought. I would also be in favor of teams with cap space over a certain amount to receive an extra bid during peak free agency as well. What good is all that money if you can't bid on anybody?

I love the idea of 2 LTC's because I'm trying to win every year and locking up talent is a good way to stay competitive. It seems more and more teams are "sandbagging" it as Roach mentioned. They gut their team for draft picks while creating massive amounts of cap room. And then they raid good teams and usually send those free agents packing that they have signed for more draft picks before the trade dead line.

I think 2 LTC's brings some balance to the league between those that want to win and those that abuse the system.

[Ben C.]

I love the idea of 2 LTC's because I'm trying to win every year and locking up talent is a good way to stay competitive. It seems more and more teams are "sandbagging" it as Roach mentioned. They gut their team for draft picks while creating massive amounts of cap room. And then they raid good teams and usually send those free agents packing that they have signed for more draft picks before the trade dead line.

I think 2 LTC's brings some balance to the league between those that want to win and those that abuse the system.

I totally agree with this. You want realism? Then encourage building perennial winners.