2012 RULES: LTC Suggestions

[Goodell]

Before we get into some polls, wanted to collect ideas and get some feedback going for long-term contract options.

Currently we give teams several advantages to retaining their free agents:

- Unlimited Bidding for your own UFAs (while other teams have limit of 5 per day total bids) so you can be assured of keeping a player if willing to pay the most for him on the market and have space to do so.

- Franchise and Transition tagging options if paying for a top 10 guy at the position.

Some sim leagues I have been in give teams options to re-sign their own players to league-determined fair prices for long-term agreements.

There are also other options such as allowing us to recognize real contract signings and give our sim teams options to re-sign their own sim players to the same deal the player got in reality, or possibly any team to sign their same position player to that same real deal if they have the same grade or lower.

I generally liked the free-market system with bid advantages to keeping your own players, but also some gamesmanship has come along with that and I think possibly more working the system with tagged players and pre-arranged collusion than intended where perhaps giving teams options to re-sign their own outside of the market forces might be beneficial overall.

We also don't want to completely rid the league of free agency, though, as it is one of the most entertaining parts of league play. But it could be argued that in reality NFL free agency is more about role players than elite starters on the market.

Before we get into taking a close look at options, let's open it up for new ideas on signing your own players to long-term contracts before they hit free agency. The best of the ideas will be part of a poll on potential rules changes upcoming.

[soonertf]

I wouldn't oppose to having the ability to re-sign one player a year, under set parameters.

a) I think the player should be ending their first original contract (So no vets)
b) I think the player should have to be an original draft pick of the team signing them
c) I thiink the price should be determined by real market situations. I don't think it should necessarily be the same player in real life, but similar situation.

This will help in several areas 1) encourage teams to use the draft as intended, 2) allow teams to build their teams up and keep their home-grown players, 3) put a slight curb on teams stacking draft picks and endless trading while preventing their team to grow.

[Ben C.]

While I'd be willing to go with Sooner's suggestion, I'd put forth an alternative approach:

1. At some point before FA we have the league sign generic players to determine a contract level for each position and grade. For example, put "Quarterback A" with a grade of A, "Quarterback B" with a grade of B, "Wide Receiver C" with a grade of C etc. on the market for bidding to determine a fair contract for each grade of player. Theoretically GMs would have an interest in keeping bids low so they can re-sign their own players low while also having an interest to get the bids higher so other GMs have to pay a fair price too. Also, this could give new GMs an orientation in the free agency system before it actually begins.

2. Each team would be allowed to re-sign a limited number of players each year. We could start this at 1 for the first year to see how it goes.

3. Re-signing contracts through this manner could also be limited in length. For example, players re-signed like this could only be signed to contracts of 4 years or less.

[Adam K]

While I'd be willing to go with Sooner's suggestion, I'd put forth an alternative approach:

1. At some point before FA we have the league sign generic players to determine a contract level for each position and grade. For example, put "Quarterback A" with a grade of A, "Quarterback B" with a grade of B, "Wide Receiver C" with a grade of C etc. on the market for bidding to determine a fair contract for each grade of player. Theoretically GMs would have an interest in keeping bids low so they can re-sign their own players low while also having an interest to get the bids higher so other GMs have to pay a fair price too. Also, this could give new GMs an orientation in the free agency system before it actually begins.

2. Each team would be allowed to re-sign a limited number of players each year. We could start this at 1 for the first year to see how it goes.

3. Re-signing contracts through this manner could also be limited in length. For example, players re-signed like this could only be signed to contracts of 4 years or less.

Sounds good to me.

I think we may want to consider teams performance.

Every team that finishes 6-11 or below cannot re-sign somebody, since that player would probably test the free agent market.

I know in the past, we have looked for ways to penalize teams that tank it - this could be another way to do so.

I vote, each team gets the rights to sign two FAs - expect for the teams that were big-time losers last season.

[Onyxgem]

While I'd be willing to go with Sooner's suggestion, I'd put forth an alternative approach:

1. At some point before FA we have the league sign generic players to determine a contract level for each position and grade. For example, put "Quarterback A" with a grade of A, "Quarterback B" with a grade of B, "Wide Receiver C" with a grade of C etc. on the market for bidding to determine a fair contract for each grade of player. Theoretically GMs would have an interest in keeping bids low so they can re-sign their own players low while also having an interest to get the bids higher so other GMs have to pay a fair price too. Also, this could give new GMs an orientation in the free agency system before it actually begins.

2. Each team would be allowed to re-sign a limited number of players each year. We could start this at 1 for the first year to see how it goes.

3. Re-signing contracts through this manner could also be limited in length. For example, players re-signed like this could only be signed to contracts of 4 years or less.

Sounds good to me.

I think we may want to consider teams performance.

Every team that finishes 6-11 or below cannot re-sign somebody, since that player would probably test the free agent market.

I know in the past, we have looked for ways to penalize teams that tank it - this could be another way to do so.

I vote, each team gets the rights to sign two FAs - expect for the teams that were big-time losers last season.

I would be 100% against this as there is zero reason to be giving teams with winning records more advantages to stay winning teams and rebuilding teams having less chances of becoming winning teams.

[soonertf]

I agree that it's a bit of a slippery slope to limit this to winning teams. While I am a full supporter of having guidelines that a GM must meet over a 4-5 year period, I don't think limiting them on LTCs is going to help them get better all of a sudden. I want to keep this fun, and I think there is a way to make it fun, especially if you use the different leagues as steps. If a GM fails to turn a team around into play-off contention over a 5-yr stretch, then I think its very reasonable to demote them to another league and then promote a quality GM to take their teams place.

However, that is a totally different subject, so keeping it back on track...I agree with Onyx that limiting the LTC's to the better teams is probably not the best option.

[Royce R]

We need a way to better "compare" contracts from a players point of veiw.

If team A offers a 1 year contract at 5 mil per year salary and no signing bonus.

Now Team B would like to counter with a 3 year contract, 2 mil per year salary and 10 mil signing bonus. Most players would prolly look at the instant 10 mil in there pocket and say the hell with the 5 mil salary. 16 mil over 3 years or 5 mil over 1 year. But we cant bid that way.

I haven't figured out how to redo the bidding yet. Maybe total per year with % gauranteed??

[Strategist]

In my opinion like you stated in your OP teams have unlimited bids on their own FAs so they always have the chance to resign there own players as long as they are willing to pay market value. We have 3 contracts that we can attach every season to ensure that you keep your stars. Which there aren't many teams that have 3 big stars in FA in any one year. Role players in the NFL constantly get overpaid when they are playing good for a winning team. I could name several examples so well our system isn't excactly realistic I think it is pretty close to the best system.

If we were to do something though I definitely agree with sooner that it should be a player that was drafted by your team and only after the original contract. However I think at absolute most it should be for 3 years. I like 2 years better though.

I like how we do it in WLSB where you can do it the last 2 years of a contract but gets more expensive if you wait until the last year.

Also something that should be thought about is how much extra work would it cause for you?

[Adam K]

I agree that it's a bit of a slippery slope to limit this to winning teams. While I am a full supporter of having guidelines that a GM must meet over a 4-5 year period, I don't think limiting them on LTCs is going to help them get better all of a sudden. I want to keep this fun, and I think there is a way to make it fun, especially if you use the different leagues as steps. If a GM fails to turn a team around into play-off contention over a 5-yr stretch, then I think its very reasonable to demote them to another league and then promote a quality GM to take their teams place.

However, that is a totally different subject, so keeping it back on track...I agree with Onyx that limiting the LTC's to the better teams is probably not the best option.

Maybe you guys are right - maybe it should just be universal - 1 per team, per year?

[Strategist]

I agree that it should be limited to 1 per year or have a total number of LTC's you can have on your team at anyone time.