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

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Goodell »

Ben C. wrote: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.
I think we might have to have a part 2 of this poll with more specifics as the initial thoughts are fleshed out, and adding more no-trade limitations to LTC expansion discussion makes sense.

There are much fewer trades in the NFL, and you don't usually see an NFL team sign a player and then trade them -- however, it has happened before so difficult to outright outlaw it if it can technically happen in reality and has before. If we took actions to limit trades here more toward NFL light trading levels, would that be good for league participation? But since we already do have some no-trade conditions as part of some LTC choices, it's definitely something to discuss whether or not that should be expanded as LTCs are expanded.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
robroach
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:51 am

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by robroach »

I will vote no for now. I think when you look at 2 LTCs and then being able to franchise tag a player and sign him later - this would be 3 players a year that you could keep off the market. I think more players need to get to free agency. I wouldn't be opposed to utilizing a second LTC if you do not use your franchise tag that particular year. I also would be in favor of some type of incentive based program for LTC. If you make the playoffs or have a 2 game improvement - then you would get the second LTC for that particular year. Or something similar. I am not opposed to all the other tweaks to LTCs. In my opinion - I think we should stop allowing franchise tags and then trades. It just doesn't happen very often at all in the NFL and it does here because players are valued way more than picks and it keeps good players off the market here. Making this a little less realistic where franchise tags are concerned.
Ben C.
Posts: 1037
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:27 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Ben C. »

Goodell wrote:
Ben C. wrote: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.
I think we might have to have a part 2 of this poll with more specifics as the initial thoughts are fleshed out, and adding more no-trade limitations to LTC expansion discussion makes sense.

There are much fewer trades in the NFL, and you don't usually see an NFL team sign a player and then trade them -- however, it has happened before so difficult to outright outlaw it if it can technically happen in reality and has before. If we took actions to limit trades here more toward NFL light trading levels, would that be good for league participation? But since we already do have some no-trade conditions as part of some LTC choices, it's definitely something to discuss whether or not that should be expanded as LTCs are expanded.
Just adding a note here that if you do another poll, I'd like to have the option to vote on adding a no-trade clause to standard free agency as well. My thought is that it could be something a team can add to the bid that boosts the bid score (assuming that players wouldn't want to move within X years of signing a new contract).
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
Onyxgem
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:32 pm

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Onyxgem »

Problem I see voting for 1 or 2 LTC agian right now is that it was voted on last off-season and was the highest vote. So alot of teams thought since it was the high vote on the pole the 2nd LTC would be here for this upcoming season and they made trades to setup their team for 2 LTC"s now we are voting for it again?
Goodell
Posts: 3780
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:44 am

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Goodell »

Yeah, tagging/trading is possibly something to think more about. On one hand, if the Patriots in reality can do that with Matt Cassel tagging him and then trading him for value (as well as a couple other cases in reality), when why can't our teams here? But it does happen a lot more here than reality (like a lot of things).

I don't know how 2 LTCs will play out for sure, but I'm kind of hoping people might pick an extra LTC option INSTEAD of tagging a player because of it's certainty and 0% risk of free agency losing the player or bidding wars. LTC is certain and fixed amount and keeps player out of markets. I'm hoping you'd see more LTCs with realistic prices, and less tagging with it's uncertainties.

If we don't, though, and still lots of tagging & trading, with LTC expansion having no impact on that, I could see re-visiting how we do tags.
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 »

Nothing is an official rule until the league says it is a rule. But as it was summarized in the first post here, though, this is something that has been supported by most in the past and was mentioned as a definite possibility for people to keep in mind for future seasons. I think I mentioned at the time we'll plan on moving in that supported direction, but planning in pencil (not for certain in pen) and would have to revisit the details of that (as we are now).

If you're worried that there won't be 2 LTCs in 2016, though, I'd say it's not really something to worry about. I was always expecting it to continue to be supported, but did want to verify that support remained before we made official change, as well as giving members a chance to voice that opposition prior to making official change to see how many opposed it.

It has been supported in the past and is more highly supported again so far now (28 to 4 so far). We're very likely to have 2 LTCs in 2016. But again, nothing is a rule until the league announces a new rule. We'll have to have LTC options up before free agency this month, so I'd expect it to most likely be announced as an official rule here soon once details are more determined.
Official Statement from the Commissioner's Office
Nathan S.
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: 2016 RULES: Additional LTC

Post by Nathan S. »

Goodell wrote: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.
I think this is important. Even today in the NFL the Jets are offering Fitzpatrick $9 million and he is holding out for $16 million. While I don't see him as a QB worth that much, he clearly does and would not accept a lower figure. As a result he is team less currently.

I don't think many QBs in the NFL are willing to play for less than ~$13 million if they know they are the starter. Another example is Kaep to the Broncos. They want to pay around $8 million and his contract is for around $11 million which is why no deal has been made.
GM Tampa Bay Buccaneers - AFFL
Post Reply