Patriots/Cowboys trade CFFL

[Jared A]

Troy,

Forgive me for discussing this in public, but I would like everyone to know of our intentions. Then to receive feedback on the matter.



Some of you may have noticed that Dallas and I placed bids on eachother's franchise player. This was in no way "collusion" in that we would each just match the offer, and get our players for less money. This was a trade that we had agreed to.

Vince Wilfork and a 3rd

for

Logan Mankins and Anthony Spencer


The rules currently stand that another team can make an offer of 75% less than the franchise tender. I hate this rule, but it's a rule none the less. I believe the rule needs changed to 110% of the franchise tender. Because a player isn't going to take LESS money to pack up and move his entire family. But, it's something that has been used.

That said, we both wanted the players signed to long term contracts prior to the deal. And, since we're allowed to sign them cheaper... it made sense.

Obviously, it appears as collusion. However, I assure you it's not. If Onyx and I were colluding... we'd be much better at it. In that I would've bid on Mankins weeks ago... he would've matched. Then he'd place a bid on Wilfork... I'd then match. Or... since we're both in all three leagues, we could "help" eachother in seperate leagues.

This didn't happen.

Does this allow contracts to be driven lower? Yes... but, in the same manner that happened in AFFL...

"San Diego has signed Ryan Kalil (|C|) to a 7 year contract @ 535,000/yr with 7,000,000 signing bonus and 0 annual roster bonus - DET will have 1 week (from 2010-03-26) to match the offer and add them to their own 53-man roster (2010-03-26)"

And, in the same manner that deals are struck with every RFA that can be signed long term at dirt cheap... as long as the teams come to agreement on the terms.

Anyhow... I'm just bringing all this to light for discussion. If the league generally feels this is collusion, and should be against the rules. Then that's fine. Let's change the rules immediately. Otherwise... if it remains legal, we're probably just going to do the deal.

[Goodell]

Public is fine. I didn't initially mention any teams because the main points generally are for everybody and not related to one specific situation or select teams only. I didn't want to point any fingers at specific teams either but focus on the main points of trying to clean up the system. As stressed before free agency in generally there's historically been a lot of messy situations involving these free agents who aren't being treated like free agents and their compensation for matching and trying to low-ball a contract with restricting fair market competition. Most GMs agreed that wasn't a good situation from the poll on that and moved to open that process up more to publically known compensation for all players to all teams and avoiding the secret deals and price fixing by keeping the compensation high to restrict bids except to one team who knows more.

As mentioned in the PMs, one of the franchise bids was initially voidable because it didn't meet the requirement for franchise tag bidding. In discussions with that team, they mentioned it's part of a bigger deal involving another franchise player too and request that I didn't remove the bid despite not having enough compensation to meet the requirement. I did remove that bid, though, after further discussion and agreement from the team placing that bid originally without the compensation needed. We certainly can't function well having teams with no first rounders, for example, putting out a bunch of franchise tag bids and cannot meet the compensation requirement, so I would think it is fair that a team must have the compensation required to attempt to sign a player that requires compensation as pointed out on the free agency bidding page before someone puts in a bid requiring compensation possibly.

The teams then rectified that through another deal to ensure that both had the 2 first rounders required and asked about that. I mentioned that to me it still involves price fixing (and actually some agreement from all involved to some extent on that it sounded like at times) that I stressed so hard trying to cut out this year, but that I acknowledge that some of that probably still going on anyway and that I would reluctantly allow so long as the requirements met on both sides... but that since the small steps taken this year didn't stop blatent price fixing that we'd probably institute much stronger rules and restrictions next year and that I would rather things work within the intentions of these processes without those more heavy-handed regulations.

Vince Wilfork and a 3rd
for
Logan Mankins and Anthony Spencer

As mentioned in the PMs, that deal would be just fine. So long as price fixing for two franchise tagged players not associated with it, and also involving bids that didn't meet compensation requirements. I traded for a franchise tagged player's rights, but just couldn't put in a low-ball bid, ensure that nobody else bids by having the other team keep compensation high, and then agree to something much less later for a no-competition bid won.

The ideal situation (and something I did with my own team within the intentions of this setup) would be the two teams trading the RIGHTS to the free agent players instead of trying to get around the system through price fixing maneuvers. The intention of free agency is to get the player the fairest contract, not to extend team's rights to trade players they no longer have under contract for whatever they want or allow low-balling thru limiting competition artificially.

If you acquired the rights to the player, and kept the compensation so high the nobody else bids (as was currently happening) then you'd likely retain the player. And if wanted to invite some bids could lower the compensation slightly to see if somebody else puts in one that you like, or snag their compensation if you didn't.

The 75% isn't there to low-ball a contract, but because some GMs at the time were very vocal in wanting options to give much LARGER GUARANTEED money instead of unguaranteed salary and that was the most efficient way to work that into the system quickly -- as well as in recognition of many undeserving franchise tagged players every year and giving some room that they'd find a market also. Perhaps we shouldn't have allowed flexibility there if it became a temptation to force the lowest deal possible.

That will be discussed and possibly revised before next free agency in an attempt to remove motivation to try to work around the system. Perhaps (as might have been suggested either for this or something else) a more involved bid requirement that looked at both salary and SB/year and that they'd have to equal or be greater than 100% of the annual salary tender set by the NFL at that top 5/10 level. But some concerns there also for the growing number of minimum contract deals with massive SBs and how that'll skew the value of traded franchise players which was why we wanted to preserve a reasonable elite player salary level. But that seems like something that could be modified instead next year if most GMs support that and possibly take away a motivation to go outside the system intentions and get everyone working with the systems.

[Jared A]

Troy...

I understand everything that has been said. However, teams do make trades that are dependant on the player signing a contract. While it usually doesn't happen twice in the same deal... it isnt' off the wall or unrealistic.


I also agree that it's price fixing. I'm not interested in Mankins for close to 13mil per, .... especially when SD is allowed to sign Kalil at 1.5mil per year. I can't compete if I don't take advantage of the rule.


Honestly... which is the bigger problem?

Two rules that I think should be installed immediately (and probably retroactively)... RFA's are not allowed to sign contracts longer than two years... and Franchise players can't sign for less that the home team has to give them...

[TylerW]

Honestly... which is the bigger problem?

You mixing up CFFL with AFFL or DFFL I think is the biggest problem.

[soonertf]

I think GMs need to quit spending so much time figuring out how to beat the system, and just enjoy having a league like this available. In my opinion, it just takes the fun out of the leagues. Troy clearly stated before FA started that he wanted to eliminate these kinds of back door deals, but it seems to me that it hasn't slowed down at all. It's a clear slap in his face, which is a shame after all the hours he has put into this place. That rant wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just my soapbox on the matter!

I do agree with Jared though, if you allow one it's hard not to allow the other. I also think it's a good idea to start all bids on Transition Players, Franchises Players, and RFA's at 110% of what the home team is offering. That would cut a lot of this crap out. Or perhaps it should be stated that if a deal is reached that is different that the original compensation then that deal has to be made public 24 hrs before bidding starts on the FA. Or just don't allow any other compensation for these type players, except the set one by the league.

[Goodell]

I do agree with Jared though, if you allow one it's hard not to allow the other.

Which is why I also mentioned that I wouldn't block the deal if the compensation requirements were met for franchise bids, as even if I've been trying to discourage that haven't been able to as much as hoped just yet and would probably have to have stronger policies for next year. It was initially flagged because a team bidding on franchise tagged player was without the requirement to bid on a him. I've certainly blocked bids before that didn't meet the bid requirements, so that's the one thing I felt I could do as done consistently throughout.

I also agree that it's price fixing. I'm not interested in Mankins for close to 13mil per

Within our setup and within the NFL I'd say, the point would be having the rights to that free agent and placing a tender on him if you want further protections/advantages in keeping him. But if the bidding got too insane, then you could walk away and get your set high compensation consolation prize. Many an NFL team probably wanted badly to keep a tagged player, but eventually had to let them go if the offer-sheet had a poison pill or was just too outrageous. But they didn't go away empty handed because they had compensation set and got 2 first or a first or whatever they set it too. The compensation really being insurance against a crazy marketplace that they just can't justifiably match.

That's how things are supposed to work I think. Right now too many teams (not wanting to point fingers but just generally as mentioned at the start of the off-season) are trying to fix the price they want to pay a free agent when the market is the only thing that should determine that, as well as a focus on trading free agents for exact compenation they want by position or grade and it's really getting away from the point of free agency that I'd like to steer back toward where it's all about a fair market driving the prices.

As for additional changes to RFA bids, that's something that could definitely be discussed again and maybe more momentum building to change for next year. As mentioned at the time when it came up I believe before this off-season, the only thing I really wouldn't want to do there is me deciding what RFAs should be paid. The NFL does that for top 10 (transition) and top 5 (franchise) players by publishing those salaries. The only thing they do for RFAs is the tender amount that we also use directly from them. I wouldn't want myself to make up different salary requirements. Some suggested grades used for that I believe (grade B must be X salary/X SB), but grades also can get outdated very fast and be drastically different the next time a grade update posted for next year.

We've adjusted the bidding requirements generally over the years (bids over 3 years need at least $x signing bonus, etc.) and maybe need to look at those again after seeing current holes to patch.

I don't know if I'd personally be for different bidding requirements for RFAs than all other players (but certainly something we could see if most GMs are for) but at the very least we could look at the bidding requirmements in general and try to adjust the requirements a bit more. Maybe really jacking up the minimum amounts beyond what they are now across the board for any deal over 4 years or whatever. We didn't adjust those this year, so definitely could be time to re-evaluate that.

As a league I would argue that we aren't necessarily in the end game business, but instead trying to create a fair environment for the competition to play out no matter what the end result so long as the process fair. If people don't want to bid on a player (due to not knowing the player or not willing to give up the compensation set), that's not really up to the league but instead his market demand searching out who will pay what price. But we can (and do) update the bid requirements to try to keep things realistic and fair, and can look at updating those further.

What we do want to make sure is that all teams have the same information as to the required compensation. That the market place is fair to all. And then let the best bid win in that fair environment.

[Jared A]

I don't feel like we are trying to cheat the system. We both posted in our trade block that we'd be interested in taking players of similar tallent. We are trading two all star stud players. And, we both want them signed. If 75% is what the league considers fair market value... I can't see what the issue with the trade would be. Other than 75% is not fair market value (even though that's what the league has set as such)

RFA's are a different issue... because we don't have a bar to set minimum standards. That's why I believe they should be 2 years max in length. A real player wouldn't accept a 7 year deal that pays him 1.5mil per. A real player might take 75% plus a solid signing bonus as an extension. As a whole... the league needs to move away from 7 year deals... and towards 3 and 4 year deals.

Also... I think our Franchise extensions are too high. 100% signing bonus on 11mil for a 5 year deal (which is what I'd be looking for for Mankins) comes out to 13mil per year. That's 2mil higher (or 120%) of a franchise player. If I signed him to the 8.1mil per... 3mil sb contract I currently have offered on him... I get him at 8.6. A savings of 4 million dollars.

While I understand the need for hefty signing bonuses. I believe that the annual salary should go down as the signing bonuses go up. And... home town discounts should be available for players who have stayed on the same roster for more than one year, and were tagged.

[Goodell]

I think I called it being creatively competitive during the initial discussions. I don't think anybody in the league is a cheater and as mention above and in the PMs don't blame teams for trying (what's that old addage if you aren't cheating a little you aren't trying), but just that it's in the best interest of the league to have more open systems than people trying to work around the process intentions to get an better deal for themselves. Teams will always probably try to work things to their competitive advantage and try to be creative to find new ways of doing better, but on the league to limit that within the intentions of the rules by modifying the processes and rules as holes are exposed.

Problem noticed last year. Proposed change to the process this year for discussion and majority of GMs support. New procedures put in to adjust things a little this year, and probably discuss again next year to see what worked or what didn't and what new things should be tried to improve.

Fair market VALUE has nothing to do with the new rules for this, though. Just trying to create fair markets PROCESS and preventing secret agreemements designed to keep out competition and keep bidding to a minimum to fix a low price. The league creates the fair marketplace, up to the GMs to get the value and hopefully do if the processes fair to all.

And, we both want them signed.

That's fine but free agency isn't about the team deciding what contract their free agent needs to sign. The other teams decide that by bidding. It's about the player getting the best deal on a fair MARKET. I wanted to keep franchise tagged Maurice Jones-Drew too, but the market says somebody wants to pay more and I can either accept that or take my consolation prize compensation as I did. I can't set the lowest possible price for MJD and then limit the competition from trying to pay more. I can only match the market price or not. He's a free agent.

If teams don't like free agency and losing power over those players when their contracts expire or not being able to dictate the fate of that free agent exactly, they should probably trade those guys away in their last years of their deals before their contracts expire. Once the contract is over, it's over. The power to control the player largely gone except for matching rights and compensation insurance in some cases, but they are free to explore the market and get the best deals for them not for their previous team.

As a whole... the league needs to move away from 7 year deals... and towards 3 and 4 year deals.

I don't disagree. At one point we drastically raised the minimums for bids with longer years after the first season but might need to raise them even more as mentioned above.

Also... I think our Franchise extensions are too high. 100% signing bonus on 11mil for a 5 year deal (which is what I'd be looking for for Mankins)

We can look into them again, and I think fixing that might fix some of the temptation to work the system that we're trying to prevent. Nobody is forcing anybody to take the maximum year extension, though. If that's too much, you just do the option that doesn't cost the most.

It's probably too high for some and way too low for others. Based upon the NFL's top 5, if a guy was at the top of that list the average is probably too low for him. If he's at the bottom of that range, it probably is too high. But nobody is forcing the team to pay that if they think it's too high. They are just bound to the 1-year tender they set. In reality, a lot of tagged players return for that 1-year tender amount if the team unwilling to pay for a big extension. Arguably shouldn't be too different here.

But we can look at the extension figures again. I believe what's set now was the most supported options by the majority of GMs but there's always great disagreement on those that isn't going to satisfy all but hopefully we eventually through years of discussions and practice end up at something reasonable enough even if the two extremes of the arguement want something different.

Some of the other suggestions are probably some good ones can be added to polls also for changes to the requirements for next season also. Some of them have been mentioned before and put through opinion polls before also. Where we are now, for the most part outside of very few exceptions is usually the result of where most GMs voted us to be now. But I still think this is a work in progress that hopefully each off-season gets closer to where it needs to be as issues come up and get addressed.

[Jared A]

I
Fair market VALUE has nothing to do with the new rules for this, though. Just trying to create fair markets PROCESS and preventing secret agreemements designed to keep out competition and keep bidding to a minimum to fix a low price. The league creates the fair marketplace, up to the GMs to get the value and hopefully to if the processes fair to all.

But, the fact is... RFA's limit the interest in a player no matter what the setting. So, when you might have had 20 teams interested in a player... half those teams might not have the needed compensation. 9 others might not have the desire to give up the amount. So, that'd leave one team bidding on one player... the Market can't determine a fair value unless there are multiple bidders no matter what the setting.

Onyx and my deal is not meant to keep out competition. We're getting a fair value trade for each of our players. Also, both players have been on the market for a couple weeks now, and there has been little to no contact from interested teams.

[Goodell]

As mentioned before here and in PM at the time, it's not something that would be blocked now (so long as the bids met the requirement unlike before) due to some grey area and universal enforcement of that not yet as hoped.

But, the fact is... RFA's limit the interest in a player no matter what the setting.

Yeah, but that's a reality of the NFL that we intentionally try to mirror. That's an option available to NFL GMs and us here also. We'd have to vote to separate ourselves from that NFL reality. In most normal cases, we try to replicate the NFL options. NFL GMs certainly have the power (and often do) set a high compensation level with every intention of that helping ensure that a player returns -- even if only for that 1-year tender. Many of them just come back for that 1-year if no big contract extension.

Franchise tags limit competition too with a very high compensation requirement, both in reality and here by design.

By fair competition I mostly mean that no team has a secret advantage over other similar teams with similar rights. We wanted primarily to avoid situations where 30 teams thought the price was 2 first rounders, but 1 team secretly knew the real price was a 3rd rounder so they could put in an unopposed bid.

both players have been on the market for a couple weeks now, and there has been little to no contact from interested teams.

There is an intended free agency process for situations like that, though. It may cost more than the lowest possible bid that could be entered otherwise, but there's an intended process for contract extensions for franchise players without interest at the designated high compensation levels where nobody wants to bid at that price.

75% isn't the league mandated fair market price, though, but just something reluctantly allowed at the time for those who wanted to keep open the possibility of being able to use huge SB's as part of their bid to try to not have the other team match. We didn't want to go as far as saying a team could put in a 535K a year bid for a franchise tagged player and a 50M SB because with all the trades it was felt (and I believe voted at the time) to at the very least have the elite player status reflected in the annual salary that wouldn't all go away with a single trade where Peyton Manning could be at a 535K cap figure for the next 6 years if his initial contract mostly all massive SB and little salary.

That's probably something we haven't gotten quite right yet and still need to find the best way to do it after more discussions and another round of rules debate next off-season.