2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Should teams have an additional Long Term Contract option?

No - Keep it at one LTC per team per year.
4
9%
Yes 2 LTCs - but add a salary floor to all LTC calculations to prevent unrealistically low deals.
9
19%
Yes - but add a salary floor for QBs and B starter-grade or higher players only.
4
9%
Yes - but add a salary floor for QBs and elite A-grade players only.
22
47%
Yes - but make LTC calculation top 5 similar players instead of top 10 for all.
4
9%
Yes - but make LTC calculation top 5 for QBs and A-grade elite players only.
3
6%
Yes - but include sim contract signing bonuses into the calculations.
0
No votes
Yes - but figures based upon NFL franchise tag price percentages.
1
2%
 
Total votes: 47

Goodell
Posts: 3780
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am

2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Goodell »

Previous off-season rules discussions about adding an additional long-term contract (LTC) option for teams (to extend an additional player a contract without hitting free agency) were mixed but the majority expressing interest in adding another LTC in future seasons. I believe I expressed in the past that we may go that way and for teams to keep that in mind, but that if we did I'd like to tweak the LTC calculations to ensure fewer unrealistic steals prior to expanding LTCs and possibly multiplying that issue.

If the league is going to provide a contract number, without any free market bidding, then I want to ensure that those figures are as fair and realistic as they can be. While you do sometimes see hometown discount deals in reality, for the most part I do believe if we're allowing a sim team to avoid all risk of losing a player on the free agent market that there should be some bonus paid for keeping that player from finding his best bidding war price in free agency (sim agents agree with that). So league management especially doesn't want a lot of new deals signed at under-market prices while also avoiding any free agency risk and keeping players off the market.

So the options above include either staying the same or adding a second LTC but with some LTC tweaks.

--------------

SALARY FLOOR: A salary floor requirement might be that any LTC figure was at least some percentage of a franchise tag price. For example, if a floor for all players it might be something like at least 25% of the franchise tag price as a minimum LTC value (ex. at least $5M for a QB, $3.5M min for LB, etc.). If floor was only applied to only higher grade players it might be something like 75% of tag value as bare minimum.

TOP 5 INSTEAD OF TOP 10: QBs and elite A-grade players probably are the cases we could get the most under-valued LTC cases. Instead of using top 10 of similar graded players at positions, for those two important areas (QB and elite players) we could have it use a top 5 instead of dragging down figures with top 10. QBs and elite players are also in less quantity than LBs or lineman for comparison sake. Say Aaron Rogers, for example, was up for LTC and his figure as a top QB was being dropped because of what the 9th and 10th QB in the league made much less. Don't think his sim agent cares what the 10th best QB makes when he's seeking a deal amongst the top QBs in the league. We could apply top 5 instead of top 10 for everybody, or perhaps just a couple key positions like QB and anyone with an A-grade to not drag their top player salary down too far.

CAP COST INSTEAD OF SALARY: Over the years some teams have developed a bidding strategy with massive signing bonuses and smaller salaries. Although it's more complicated, we could try to incorporate the full cap value of a deal (salary + sb/yr) instead of just salary in the LTC figures provided.

TAG PERCENTAGES: Instead of sim contracts and their wild variation and different structures, we could just use NFL franchise tag values. For example, we could assume that a top 10 franchise tag value was for the very highest rated players, and use percentages so that an 80-rated player got a LTC that was 80% of the NFL's tag value price for that position. That would keep all LTC salaries grounded in NFL realities and not have odd sim contracts or restructurings mess with LTC calculations at all.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
tino38
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:39 pm

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by tino38 »

Is this going to be just for this upcoming season or all future seasons as well?
BRFL Saints (31-20) (3-0)
- NFCS Champ: 23’
- NFC Champ: 23’
- SB Champ 23’
AFFL Patriots (97-82) (8-4)
-AFCE Champ: 16', 22’, 23’
-AFC Champ: 22’
-SB Champ: 22’
DFFL Jets - SB Champ 21’ & 22’
FFFL Jets - SB Champ 17’ & 18’
stevebarrett24
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:16 pm
Location: Paw Paw, MI

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by stevebarrett24 »

I sure I will be in the minority but I would like to keep it at 1, with an option to carry it over to the next season if you don't use it.
DFFL-TITANS 111-17 15-6 126-23
13 10-6 WC (0-1)
14 14-2 DIV CHAMPS 2-1 R-UP OT
15 13-3 DIV CHAMPS 3-0 CHAMPS
16 14-2 DIV CHAMPS 2-1 R-UP
17 15-1 DIV CHAMPS 2-1 R-UP
18 13-3 DIV CHAMPS 1-1
19 16-0 DIV CHAMPS 3-0 CHAMPS
20 16-0 DIV CHAMPS 2-1 R-UP
Goodell
Posts: 3780
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Goodell »

Brock Osweiler is an interesting case study for this. I've been long pushing to tweak the system to avoid situations where an LTC is generated that is unrealistically much lower than a player would get in reality, but this off-season Osweiler is on my AFFL ATL team and I'd be set to get a much lower LTC than his NFL market value price. A lot of our LTCs are fine, but cases like this are ones I'd like to not fall through the cracks quite as far from reality as our system generated in the past.

I haven't changed finances for the new year yet, but using LTC figures available this season Osweiler (77 grade) would get this as things were last season:
Top 10 salaries in 2014 for |QB| between grades 0 to 79:

• Schaub, Matt |QB| (74): Salary $ 7,250,000 RB $ 0 = $ 7,250,000
• Sanchez, Mark |QB| (75): Salary $ 6,340,000 RB $ 500,000 = $ 6,840,000
• Griffin III, Robert |QB| (74): Salary $ 2,300,000 RB $ 0 = $ 2,300,000
• Flynn, Matt |QB| (73): Salary $ 1,150,000 RB $ 0 = $ 1,150,000
• Manuel, E.J. |QB| (74): Salary $ 1,097,600 RB $ 0 = $ 1,097,600
• Kaepernick, Colin |QB| (76): Salary $ 645,000 RB $ 385,000 = $ 1,030,000
• Clemens, Kellen |QB| (73): Salary $ 950,000 RB $ 0 = $ 950,000
• Cassel, Matt |QB| (75): Salary $ 935,000 RB $ 0 = $ 935,000
• Hasselbeck, Matt |QB| (76): Salary $ 890,000 RB $ 0 = $ 890,000
• Smith, Geno |QB| (76): Salary $ 812,600 RB $ 0 = $ 812,600

Average Salary of Top 10 Peers (including roster bonus): $ 2,325,520
Player's Annual Salary (including roster bonus): 570,000

LTC SALARY VALUE: $ 2,325,520
So as things were, a sim team could sign him to a 5-year 2.3M salary with 4.6M SB making him count 3.22M against the cap each year for the next 5 years versus his 18M/yr deal in reality with 12M signing bonus. Maybe he should be making 2.3M/yr based upon limited experience, but it's very different from NFL reality.

How would it be under the proposals above?

SALARY FLOOR: If we used a 25% of franchise tag minimum for all across the board, his salary would be at that 5M minimum for QBs. If we said all QBs and elite A-graders had to be at 75% of franchise tag minimums, that's a 15M salary.

TOP 5 INSTEAD OF TOP 10: Using the top 5 of similarly graded QBs above (instead of the top 10) that makes his LTC 3.7 instead of 2.3.

CAP COST INSTEAD OF SALARY: Only a couple of the players above have SBs, but including those (I didn't see if anyone else would jump to top 5) made the top 5 LTC go up to 4.4. Keeping it to the top 10 players but including SB makes it it 2.7. Not a lot of difference in these cases, but would make a bid difference for situations that had some guys with huge SBs. It also creates the complication of the LTC generated adds additional SB to the generated salary when it already includes SBs in the compared deals.

TAG PERCENTAGES: For a 77 grade player, if you take 77% of the franchise tag for QB that makes his LTC 15.3M from a 19.95 franchise tag value for QBs in NFL.

If we really wanted to make sure QBs like this case or elite graded players don't get steals of a deal, it looks like placing minimums based upon franchise tag values in some way is the way to ensure key positions or elite players do not get unrealistically undervalued deals.
Last edited by Goodell on Sun Apr 03, 2016 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
Goodell
Posts: 3780
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Goodell »

Is this going to be just for this upcoming season or all future seasons as well?
Rules are subject to change from year to year, but usually rule changes are intended to be permanent but could always be tweaked later based upon changing opinions and future season rule discussions to change it again. If it worked, though, in the opinion of most it would stay in place.
I sure I will be in the minority but I would like to keep it at 1, with an option to carry it over to the next season if you don't use it.
Carrying things over from one season to the next is a possibility, but we don't really keep track of those things that way because it's a little more complicated to track from season to season to season as part of an automated system. Not impossible, but a little more involved to track. When I do the cash carry over from one season to the next that is also a little more involved, I could in theory also look at all team LTCs and if carried over also possibly.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
JonC
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:10 pm

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by JonC »

Thanks for the detail in all of this, Commish. The Osweiler example is a great one.

In real life, those QB with a small sample size are going to be paid for what they COULD provide, not what they have already provided. Because of that, it seems that's the position that will see the highest perception of steals from our community. Look at the LTC Kap signed with Rebel last year in DFFL. He's was a total flop in 2015, but it was very low risk for Rebel, to the point that keeping him doesn't hurt the franchise. That isn't going to happen in real life.

That said, I voted for making figures based upon a percentage of franchise tags.

Is there an easy way to code in discounts for the length of time that player has been on your team? Meaning, if Aaron Rodgers was up for LTC in DFFL, he could get x% discount on that 96% of the Franchise Tag value because he's been on the team for two+ years.

The big thing I think this direction would help is keeping crappy teams from signing good, young players to solid LTC's of 4 and 5 year lengths and then immediately flipping them to contenders and eating the signing bonus because they have so much excess cap space. Keeping your Osweiler example, I have a hard time seeing anyone eating $22.95 MM or $30.6 MM in cap space to flip him without getting a really substantial return.
DFFL Steelers GM: '13-'22
Regular Season Record: 77-85 (.475)
Division Championships: ’13, ’14, ’19
AFC WC Team: ’20

AFFL Bills GM: '20-?
Regular Season Record: 20-30 (.400)

BRFL Chargers GM: '21-?
Regular Season Record: 17-17 (.500)
AFC WC Team: '22
Ben C.
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Ben C. »

Honestly I'm not convinced there is a problem with the existing LTC figures. I've actually found it important to strategize how to best use the LTC option in conjunction with the franchise tag. Right now those two options allow me to keep 2 players off the FA market. Sometimes the franchise tag figure is actually less than what the player would expect to earn if I let him hit the FA market, and sometimes it is the LTC figure that is less. But all of the time it seems that between the two options, the average amount "saved" is negligible.

In fact, usually I end up using the LTC on lower graded players, which often means I'm overpaying. For example, last year I used the LTC on Davon House because I thought his grade would go up. Instead, I'm stuck paying about $2 million a year for a CB rated just 2 points higher than a guy I signed off the street for the league minimum.

Regarding the % of franchise tag figure, I think serious consideration needs to be made regarding the % used. The grades do not range from 0-100 but rather 60-100. As a result, a player with a 70 grade shouldn't get paid 70% of the franchise tag in any situation.

I'd suggest scaling any LTC figure change to the range of grades we actually see.
AFFL Arizona - General Manager
Regular Season Record - 174-66-1
Playoff Record - 13-12
AFFL Bowl Record - 0-2

2x NFC Champions - 2010, 2016
11x NFC West Champions - 2007-12, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2021
AFFL History
Nathan S.
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Nathan S. »

Ben C. wrote:Honestly I'm not convinced there is a problem with the existing LTC figures. I've actually found it important to strategize how to best use the LTC option in conjunction with the franchise tag. Right now those two options allow me to keep 2 players off the FA market. Sometimes the franchise tag figure is actually less than what the player would expect to earn if I let him hit the FA market, and sometimes it is the LTC figure that is less. But all of the time it seems that between the two options, the average amount "saved" is negligible.

In fact, usually I end up using the LTC on lower graded players, which often means I'm overpaying. For example, last year I used the LTC on Davon House because I thought his grade would go up. Instead, I'm stuck paying about $2 million a year for a CB rated just 2 points higher than a guy I signed off the street for the league minimum.

Regarding the % of franchise tag figure, I think serious consideration needs to be made regarding the % used. The grades do not range from 0-100 but rather 60-100. As a result, a player with a 70 grade shouldn't get paid 70% of the franchise tag in any situation.

I'd suggest scaling any LTC figure change to the range of grades we actually see.
I would agree but I think QBs need to be treated differently then everyone else.
GM Tampa Bay Buccaneers - AFFL
Ben C.
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Ben C. »

Two other thoughts:

1. I sure wouldn't pay Osweiler $18 mil/ year... or any other unproven QB for that matter. He's worth more like $10 mil at this point.

2. Perhaps we should look at extending the no-trade clause part of it as well. Too often we see teams use the LTC just to turn around and trade the player as a way of using current year cap space to gain a draft pick for next year.
AFFL Arizona - General Manager
Regular Season Record - 174-66-1
Playoff Record - 13-12
AFFL Bowl Record - 0-2

2x NFC Champions - 2010, 2016
11x NFC West Champions - 2007-12, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2021
AFFL History
Goodell
Posts: 3780
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Goodell »

One thing about LTCs... nobody is forced to use them. The Broncos in reality weren't forced to do whatever the market or Brock's agent demanded, just like our sim team's aren't forced to accept the LTC figure. However, if the league is going to be generating numbers I want them to be realistic numbers and realistic situations that NFL GMs also face.

Even if most here understandably don't think some young starting QBs should make a lot of money, the NFL reality is that you aren't going to be able to sign a STARTING QB for years and years for $3M. $10M is likely the minimum that any agent in reality would start the conversation and it would likely end where all of the recent starting QBs end up signing. That's the NFL reality regarding starting QBs and what it would likely take to sign them.

So I don't really want to setup an environment where the league endorses and creates contracts for people (without any free agent bidding and avoiding all risk of losing the player and keeping him off the markets) to sign that are wildly unrealistic from NFL realities.

So ideally, the league will give out realistic numbers that you could see happening in the NFL which we're trying to replicate. However, the sim teams have choices. They don't have to automatically accept more realistic higher numbers. They can just use all their home team advantages in signing the player on the market, or go in other directions if they think the player's agent or market or league-generated LTC are too high for them, as the NFL team did in Brock's case.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
Post Reply