Version 5.0b - FA signing seem any different?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe it was a lucky fluke, or maybe it was bad scouting overrating players, or some odd combination of factors but ...

I just signed a pair of healthy 50's to 60's rated RB's with $0 bonus and very light salary demands (near league min sal for 3 yrs), in the 2nd & 3rd rounds of FA.

Both were healthy, 5-7 yr vets, both coming off 1,000 seasons with their former teams. Both signed without any competition from other teams and were in the top 5 at their position. The rest of the RB's had more normal (i.e. too rich for my blood) contract demands, except for one other guy who was a mid-30's rtg but similar in other respects. Loyalty rtgs & play for winner ratings were pretty much average to the rest of the top 20 FA backs, neither was from my team's state (hell, one of them hails from Alaska).

Every other position looked normal with regard to salary demands, willingness to sign, etc. Just these really easy to grab RB's.

They were like gifts from heaven to shore up my aging stable of backs, so I'm not complaining but ... anybody else noticed any anamolies like these two? This is in 2014, btw, never saw anything like that in any other season, and this was my first FA round with 5b, so it made me just a tad nervous that something might be a little haywire somewhere.

[Pyser]

I constantly see this in 2004. while there are many superstar-like f/a asking for outrageous contracts, if you just search a little, you can find very good players asking for backup money. i dont know why this is, but i havent signed anyone to more than $20-mil in quite some time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Pyser - I've been looking for those kind of guys but never, not once in the previous seasons, did I find anything like this. (and believe me, I've tried *g*)

Since it happened about 15 minutes after applying the latest patch, it worried me a little.

[Bonegavel]

I'd be curious to see how much they have left in them. You should track them and repost how the rest of their career goes.

Seems that maybe the contract engine may be giving up the ghost on the fact that they either have bad times coming or are on the verge of busting/retiring.

Keep us informed.

[Sidhe]

Well I've definitely seen the opposite..

I had a guy who wanted major league money after he had a couple of 1000 yard seasons for me. He was at the end of his rookie contract and I just flat refused to sign him. He wound up signing for the minimum for another team, and while he did have another 1000 yard season, his next year demands were much lower, and I re-signed him at that point.

The year without a high dollar multiyear contract may have rattled his cage a bit. Did this happen to your guys?

In any case, my RB was asking for way too much at first, and later his demands were more in line with reality. He wasn't a superstar by any means.

[Ben E Lou]

I've found (pre-and-post 5.0b) that guys who have good ratings but didn't play much in the previous season will accept backup-caliber money. I've also seen that RB's who have solid rushing numbers, but not good receiving numbers, cost a good deal less cash than those guys who catch 50+ passes a year.

[cthomer5000]

I've picked up 2 RB's that were "good" and asking for very little cash, I've been using both alternately for 5-6 years now (after re-signing to reasonable deals down the line). They've both had 4.0 YPC 1,200 yard seasons for me. I've been able to find pretty good moderately priced FA's at a few positions. I'd rather keep most my roster intact from year to year rather than sign flashy FA's.

[cthomer5000]

Basically it seems like the computer teams go crazy over "complete" players, leaving us to pick up solid players with a hole in ther game for cheap/reasonable prices. I'd rather have 2 good players at one position thant 1 great one (particularly at QB and RB).

[Tasan]

Wasn't this a feature we were all looking for? The guy thats been backing up for a few years, but has yet to totally prove himself, used to always ask for the big money before making it big. Now, you can find these guys asking for reasonable money to get a chance to start for you. Once they are playing full time and come up for a contract, I bet they ask for the big money. I was seeing this pre 5.0b.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Tasan
Wasn't this a feature we were all looking for? The guy thats been backing up for a few years, but has yet to totally prove himself, used to always ask for the big money before making it big. Now, you can find these guys asking for reasonable money to get a chance to start for you. Once they are playing full time and come up for a contract, I bet they ask for the big money. I was seeing this pre 5.0b.

Yup...holdouts!

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Yup...holdouts!

Yeah. But I told both RB's to stick it (they each held out in 2 different seasons). I simply switched to the other and waited for them to fold. Ungrateful bastards. :)

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
Basically it seems like the computer teams go crazy over "complete" players, leaving us to pick up solid players with a hole in ther game for cheap/reasonable prices. I'd rather have 2 good players at one position thant 1 great one (particularly at QB and RB).

I think this is spot-on. What I've noticed is that it pays to compare the relative prices of free agents to the amount of "drop off" in their abilities. For example, if the top 15 free agent WRs have current abilities that range from 63 to 49, I've found that somewhere in there is the point where the outrageous demands end. The question is, given your needs, the amount of drop off, and the salary demands, are you better off taking the moderately lesser talented guy and saving the money, or splurging on a very talented guy?

I've had situations where the top FA guy at any one position will have current ability of, say, 69, and be asking for a boatload of money, and a guy at 56 will have reasonable demands. You just have to decide if you can afford the step up in talent, or take the lesser talent and spend the money elsewhere.

[JonInMiddleGA]

tasan - just to clarify (in case you were responding to the original post) -- these weren't talented reserves elsewhere, both the guys I signed were starters coming off 1,000+ yd seasons.

That said, after reading the thread, I'm starting to worry less & lean more toward thinking that instead of having one or two guys like this each season, I happened to go a decade without seeing any & then got two in the same year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

cthomer -- I'll have to watch more closely for the "complete player" bias & see if that accounts for what happened with my case. Now that you mention it, I do have a perception that I've seen what you describe happen before.

[Tasan]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
tasan - just to clarify (in case you were responding to the original post) -- these weren't talented reserves elsewhere, both the guys I signed were starters coming off 1,000+ yd seasons.

That said, after reading the thread, I'm starting to worry less & lean more toward thinking that instead of having one or two guys like this each season, I happened to go a decade without seeing any & then got two in the same year.

Yeah, I saw that, but my thoughts just haven't been coming out very clearly lately, gotta get all the vicodin out of the system or something.

The players I'VE been seeing like that are usually guys that have good ratings but have been behind someone, and its their first year to test the market. I'd be interested to see if those guys had their FIRST 1000 yard season prior to hitting FA, and maybe that factors into it. Not being proven to be consistent can hurt the cash sometimes in real life, til you prove you can do it year in and out.