Free Agency Thoughts

[Dutch]

I've been thinking about the free agency stages a bit. It's a pretty good system in MP but there are some issues. 1-year contracts rule the day for instance, which is fine, but when there are so few free agents to fight over in MP, it gets a bit unrealistic when you see these odd salaries become the norm rather than the exception. It's not what the player wants, it's what wins over the FOF game engine. Again, it's not bad, but it's not always that realistic.

In Single Player, the unrealism is still noticeable, with a human player being able to trump the AI.

What I am suggesting as an alternative is a free agency system based on how the rookie contracts are handled.

Have the player you are interested in signing have a drop down box with all the different salaries you can offer, from high to low, long-term to short-term.

The obvious benefit is that these contract offers could be built in to the game system in such a way as to provide some sort of balance and give the AI a fighting chance in signing free agents.

If two or more teams both offer the "optimal" contract offer to a player, other factors such as "wants winner" and hometown and "loyalty" start to be more pronounced.

Also, the free agency period could have you invite up to (10) players per stage and a player may be only to visit 5 teams in any given stage. So maybe there is some strategy to be played out there as well. Where the player decides to visit could be tied to "wants winner" and hometown and "loyalty" as well. Or teams players that are not disgruntled are free to negotiate at any time.

Maybe I'm rambling now. Would anybody think any of this could be of interest one day?

[QuikSand]

I agree that there are frustrations with the game's evaluation of short-term contracts versus long-term contracts. I'm not persuaded that they are massive, but I do agree that they are present.

I also agree that plsying single player generally allows us (human players) to outsmart the AI. I wish it were tougher to do, but I suspect that statement would remain true even after another major overhaul. The human-vs.-AI battle just has its limits, in just about any setup.


I do not agree, though, that limiting participant's options is the best way to address this. I definitely would not want to see this happen for multi-player leagues.


I would hope there is a better way to improve these game elements, rather than lessening our degrees of freedom.

[QuikSand]

A few thoughts:

-Broaden the circumstances when a player rejects a contract offer outright? A player in his 10th year, for instance, might reasonably claim "I am mostly interested in guaranteed money in this contract" and might simply reject any contract that is backloaded, speculative, and so forth.

-Maybe there could be an indication of the sort of contract a player prefers (a bit like where it tells us he wants to sign in a certain week) -- some players might have a stated preference for "long term security" and others might have other things listed like "quick return to free agency" (the latter might take over after the first stages have gone by, and a player now might be worried that he's looking at an under-market offer... therefore becoming more interested in a short-term deal than long-term one.

-And there's still the potential to open things up substantially by including the concept of a promised role as part of FA offering. A certain wideout might really want to be the #1 WR on his new team, and a team that can offer that to him maybe could get an edge in his decision-making. Whether they live up to that promise, though, would play a role in the player's long term happiness there. A different wideout might be more interested in being part of a winning team, or the like.

[Dutch]

I'm pretty much in agreement that limiting contract offers would ultimately be the death of this.

And I don't think realistically there will ever be enough interest in one particular player to warrant invitations to be limited...

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

A few thoughts:

-Broaden the circumstances when a player rejects a contract offer outright? A player in his 10th year, for instance, might reasonably claim "I am mostly interested in guaranteed money in this contract" and might simply reject any contract that is backloaded, speculative, and so forth.

-Maybe there could be an indication of the sort of contract a player prefers (a bit like where it tells us he wants to sign in a certain week) -- some players might have a stated preference for "long term security" and others might have other things listed like "quick return to free agency" (the latter might take over after the first stages have gone by, and a player now might be worried that he's looking at an under-market offer... therefore becoming more interested in a short-term deal than long-term one.

-And there's still the potential to open things up substantially by including the concept of a promised role as part of FA offering. A certain wideout might really want to be the #1 WR on his new team, and a team that can offer that to him maybe could get an edge in his decision-making. Whether they live up to that promise, though, would play a role in the player's long term happiness there. A different wideout might be more interested in being part of a winning team, or the like.

All of this kind of mirrors what I would like to see in a "next-generation" FA system. I think we've pretty much accepted that the "problems" revolve around a simplistic evaluation of the players situation - something revolving around dollars per year or something similar. The reason it's not "realistic" is the external factors you mention here are not being taken into consideration - position in career, Playing Time, guaranteed money, etc..

My ideal would be as you said for it to be something that at least at times is communicated (like the sign in stage x message) - but at this point I'd be happy if it was at least there behind the scenes.