Contracts In Single Player

[Chubby]

Ok, I guess I opened a can of worms in the IHOF, to see it go... ->

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=261


However, this discussion has to do with single player careers. Jim has said that he is reworking the logic on contracts and contract negotiations with players specifically in terms of backloading (your welcome). How do people feel this will impact single player careers? There's a pic of the type of contracts that will go away in the linked thread.

Personally, I use them to keep my team together. A "house rule" I use is to not sign any FA's (unless to fill roster requirements, and then only cheap players) making it imperative that I keep my core players around and use the draft to build and fill in the holes.

Of course, not everyone feels that way :D Discuss.

[QuikSand]

It's one of those things that's just out of mind for me -- FOF has seemingly always allowed players to accept ridiculous contracts, and recognizing this, I just have used house rules and haven't pursued anything of the sort.

I'm not surprised that this becomes an issue in multiplayer (without any particular comment on the instant situation).

[Chubby]

Don't want any MP comments :) This is for single player discussion only, I linked only so I don't have to explain the situation in 18 paragraphs.

[Honolulu Blue]

A "house rule" I use is to not sign any FA's (unless to fill roster requirements, and then only cheap players) making it imperative that I keep my core players around and use the draft to build and fill in the holes.

Of course, not everyone feels that way :D Discuss.

Late in my FOF2004 solo career, I was using the same house rule (i.e. no FAs except roster fillers). I also didn't renegotiate contract terms, so if a player demanded a backloaded contract, that was fine, but I couldn't change the terms to backload the contract for the fun of it. I found I could keep most everyone I wanted to keep and still be competitive - but not a powerhouse by any means.

That said, whatever way you want to play is fine with me, though I look forward to seeing what changes Jim will make in this regard.

[Ben E Lou]

It's one of those things that's just out of mind for me -- FOF has seemingly always allowed players to accept ridiculous contracts, and recognizing this, I just have used house rules and haven't pursued anything of the sort.Same. I mentioned it on the IHOF boards, but even when I play without official written-down "house rules", there are some "internalized house rules" (for lack of a better term) that I probably always play under. The fact that I don't use any severe backloading is so second-nature to me that I really have never even tried to exploit the AI in this way. It will be a tweak that I won't even notice in single player.

[Chubby]

I agree with internalized house rules in SP. I don't sign FA out of desire, only to fill roster requirements. hence I was prob 1 of the few in IHOF to not even offer a single FA a contract.

I don't know how it will affect SP, I want to keep the team I draft together since I don't sign FA's...

[wig]

I think you guys are blowing this out of proportion.

WigFL has completed the first year of FA, and we had an owner that tried to backload almost every contract he offered. Every player turned him down for teams that offered more up-front money.

Backloaded contracts are nice for upping the "look" of a contract, but don't really offer any advantage when it comes to FA.

wig

[Celeval]

Useful in renegotiation, though.

[wig]

You can just use cap out offers in renegotiation anyway, so upping the last year doesn't make a difference

[QuikSand]

You can just use cap out offers in renegotiation anyway, so upping the last year doesn't make a difference

Actually, it does - if you can get the player to sign a deal with a fairly light bonus, like the one linked above.

Get a pretty good guy to play for less than $1m for each of the next three seasons, a modest bonus each year, and then a gigantic balloon payment at the end is a ridiculous offer -- of course the player will just get cut before he earns the big year's salary, or else he'll be renegotiated.

If you sign a reasonable contract, with a reaonsable bonus, and then "cap out" every year to stall the effects - the team will eventually be forced to swallow a big pill at the end, since the last year will have a sizable bonus attached. Under this contract (lined above) the team can cut the player and take only a token bonus hit. That's the difference.

[wig]

Interesting that it doesn't work in FA, but does in renegotiations.

[QuikSand]

Interesting that it doesn't work in FA, but does in renegotiations.

Maybe it's a matter of degree? Perhaps if I put in FA offers that were backloaded to the point of absurdity, the player might accept?

If he's choosing between 4rys/$20m backloaded and 4yrs/$16m evenly spread - it makes sense that he'll look at the latter favorably, But what if I put in an offer something like 4yrs/$35m - but extremely backloaded? If I could get the offer considered... I wonder if it would fly?

[albionmoonlight]

Another issue may be how the offers affect holdouts, if at all. If you have a player who is holding out, and you offer him a contract that does not pay him anymore than he is making now, but gives him a huge final year salary that he will never see, then I would consider the player's acceptance of the contract to be more in the nature of a bug than not.

I tend to backload contracts in SP, but not to this extent. Like many people, I got into the habit of offering more reasonable contracts.

[Franklinnoble]

I think backloaded contracts were a necessary evil in the game before contract holdouts came into the picture.

Most players in the real-life NFL will sign backloaded contracts because they know it means that they're guaranteed a new deal and a fat new signing bonus every 3 years or so. They don't have to go through the trouble (and the lack of pay) that comes with a contract holdout.

Even with the holdout option, I still think backloading is a necessary reality. If the player is worth keeping, I'll sign a long-term backloaded deal, and I don't see it as cheating, because the player's going to get a re-negotiated deal and signing bonus every 3-5 years. If I can't afford him or he's not worth it, he's going to get released or traded if his base salary is too high - so it's really in the best interest of the player to stay employed and affordable, while still enjoying an occasional fat bonus.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

It's one of those things that's just out of mind for me -- FOF has seemingly always allowed players to accept ridiculous contracts, and recognizing this, I just have used house rules and haven't pursued anything of the sort.

I'm not surprised that this becomes an issue in multiplayer (without any particular comment on the instant situation).

What he said. 95% of the time I don't even bother with any negotiations, just see what the player offers, then take it or leave it. It's a blindingly easy and fairly effective house rule. On the downside I have found myself doing the same thing out of habit in MP, and suspect I will end up getting my ass handed to me because of that...

[yabanci]

What he said. 95% of the time I don't even bother with any negotiations, just see what the player offers, then take it or leave it. It's a blindingly easy and fairly effective house rule. On the downside I have found myself doing the same thing out of habit in MP, and suspect I will end up getting my ass handed to me because of that...

At least you won't be alone. I play the same way, both solo and in the eNFL.

[stevew]

I think you guys are blowing this out of proportion.

WigFL has completed the first year of FA, and we had an owner that tried to backload almost every contract he offered. Every player turned him down for teams that offered more up-front money.

Backloaded contracts are nice for upping the "look" of a contract, but don't really offer any advantage when it comes to FA.

wig
That wasnt nice. :(

I signed a few people, and the "backloaded guys" were guys I really only wanted for 1 year anyways.

[John Galt]

Wow, I can't believe I read the whole thread in a forum for a league that I'm not even part of.

First off, the most accurate and astute observation was by HA - Chubby had to be "that guy."

Second, As long as you have "that guy" in your league, you will be continually screwed by his imagination and creativity. A constitution can never cover all possible exploits. A constitution in fantasy baseball is hard enough and that is in a situation where AI doesn't apply. "That guy" will always find a way to find new exploits and non-common sense approach toward doing things. Even if option 1 is implemented, the renegotiation option will be exploited with low bonus, doubling every year 7 year contracts. The player will then be cut whenever he exceeds his value along the doubling path. Yes, the abuse will be lessened, but "that guy" will always push in the envelope. And there are probably dozens of other exploits that "that guy" will find and abuse until he is caught and a new rule has to be implemented.

You can't stop "that guy" - you can't even hope to contain him.

In leagues I've seen, shaming and abuse usually works (or the player leaves), but not in IHOF - "that guy" gets more entrenched and angry because it is a league where everyone knows everyone, but not in a league setting.

I don't think there is a solution, but when you look at the totally ridiculous Jennings contract, it is just no fun to play with "that guy" anymore.

I have no personal interest in IHOF, but I think it would be nice to see people here have a fun, active, successful league. Right now, I'm not so optimistic.

[Chubby]

Wow, I can't believe I read the whole thread in a forum for a league that I'm not even part of.

First off, the most accurate and astute observation was by HA - Chubby had to be "that guy."

Second, As long as you have "that guy" in your league, you will be continually screwed by his imagination and creativity. A constitution can never cover all possible exploits. A constitution in fantasy baseball is hard enough and that is in a situation where AI doesn't apply. "That guy" will always find a way to find new exploits and non-common sense approach toward doing things. Even if option 1 is implemented, the renegotiation option will be exploited with low bonus, doubling every year 7 year contracts. The player will then be cut whenever he exceeds his value along the doubling path. Yes, the abuse will be lessened, but "that guy" will always push in the envelope. And there are probably dozens of other exploits that "that guy" will find and abuse until he is caught and a new rule has to be implemented.

You can't stop "that guy" - you can't even hope to contain him.

In leagues I've seen, shaming and abuse usually works (or the player leaves), but not in IHOF - "that guy" gets more entrenched and angry because it is a league where everyone knows everyone, but not in a league setting.

I don't think there is a solution, but when you look at the totally ridiculous Jennings contract, it is just no fun to play with "that guy" anymore.

I have no personal interest in IHOF, but I think it would be nice to see people here have a fun, active, successful league. Right now, I'm not so optimistic.


I see by the bolded section you have experience being "that guy". I didn't even think of that, tho it doesn't sound very feasible. I've never been able to sign any of my players to 7-year deals.

I'm sorry I have different house rules than you John. I like to keep my team together, I don't sign FA's. I'll add you to my list of people to clear everything with before I act :rolleyes:

[John Galt]

I see by the bolded section you have experience being "that guy". I didn't even think of that, tho it doesn't sound very feasible. I've never been able to sign any of my players to 7-year deals.

I'm sorry I have different house rules than you John. I like to keep my team together, I don't sign FA's. I'll add you to my list of people to clear everything with before I act :rolleyes:

Chubby, I have no interest in any of this, but I just think you don't get "it." When you join a league, you are part of an organization/community to have fun with a game together. When one guy continues to think he is the only one in that universe/community/organization, he is going to piss people off and ruin everyone's fun. Just try to recognize that everyone has different goals in the game and you should try to respect theirs. Right now, you just seem blind to everyone else and are being a dick about it. That's anti-fun.

[Chubby]

Chubby, I have no interest in any of this, but I just think you don't get "it." When you join a league, you are part of an organization/community to have fun with a game together. When one guy continues to think he is the only one in that universe/community/organization, he is going to piss people off and ruin everyone's fun. Just try to recognize that everyone has different goals in the game and you should try to respect theirs. Right now, you just seem blind to everyone else and are being a dick about it. That's anti-fun.

Really, how so? You're right, everyone has different goals and different ways of acheiving those goals. As I've explained probably 20 times, I have no problem with how I went about my roster. Others do. You tell me to respect their point of view yet you seem blind to their not respecting my point of view (their = a small minority, not close to all). I don't care if people think I was malacious or not, I wasn't and I know that. And do tell how I'm being a dick? For standing up for MY point of view? Of course, other people seem to agree with that point of view (see the poll). I don't blame them for wanting to not take the abuse I have gotten over this.

[NoMyths]

lol...people really ought to follow the FOBL more to see how a Constitution can evolve to deal with brilliant folks spending way too much time on a computer game. :)

[Chubby]

lol...people really ought to follow the FOBL more to see how a Constitution can evolve to deal with brilliant folks spending way too much time on a computer game. :)

very impressed in everything, the site is outstanding.. everything. DAMN :D We'll get there, I'm not worried.

[Dutch]

NoMyths,

First of all, VPI97 is a volunteer (read: No team, no money) that has gotten the IHOF off the ground and is doing a damned fine job of it.

I like to consider this initial year (or years) as the "beta years" and we are going to feel it out and explore how things go since it is new to us. The thought of this somehow being allowed to be the "exploit/loophole" years because we haven't gotten everything concrete right now just doesn't seem like the way certain owners should handle it. We should probably all save the questionable, "I'm a jerk, haha" stuff for later.

Just my .02

[Chubby]

NoMyths,

First of all, VPI97 is a volunteer (read: No team, no money) that has gotten the IHOF off the ground and is doing a damned fine job of it.

I like to consider this initial year (or years) as the "beta years" and we are going to feel it out and explore how things go since it is new to us. The thought of this somehow being allowed to be the "exploit/loophole" years because we haven't gotten everything concrete right now just doesn't seem like the way certain owners should handle it. We should probably all save the questionable, "I'm a jerk, haha" stuff for later.

Just my .02


Dutch - I didn't to it to try and one up anyone, I did it cause that's how I play SP and don't see anything wrong with it but noone wants to see that. I say "I did it cause that's my house rules in SP" noone cares. I say "How am I supposed to know this is a 'gentleman's rule' " people twist it around trying to say I did it just cause there was no rule against it. As far as I was concerned, everyone did this. The issue has never been brought up in the USFL that I am a member of.

You want to knock on me for supposedly putting down other peoples "house rules" yet fail to see that other people might have different house rules they follow.

[Dutch]

You want to knock on me for supposedly putting down other peoples "house rules" yet fail to see that other people might have different house rules they follow.

First of all, I honestly believe it's not a big deal and a big "good on ya" is deserved. But it was also immediately evident to me that it was a questionable move, and to many people at that. So, if we have learned anything from this lesson, it should be that we are now playing MP, not SP, and every action has a reaction now.

Anyway, the bottom line for me is that we are just having fun and we are (whether we like it or not) doing a little beta testing at the time as well. I already resigned my guys to long-term "realistic" contracts, and then see you do that is kind of like...."Damn...that sucks." And we haven't played a game yet and you have an advantage 4 seasons from now that most of us FOF4 owners wouldn't have ever known about in the pre-season of the first couple of days of a league that should last a long time.

However, I'm not objecting to the fact that you out-played me/us more than I am to the constant bickering it's created.

[NoMyths]

NoMyths,

First of all, VPI97 is a volunteer (read: No team, no money) that has gotten the IHOF off the ground and is doing a damned fine job of it.

I like to consider this initial year (or years) as the "beta years" and we are going to feel it out and explore how things go since it is new to us. The thought of this somehow being allowed to be the "exploit/loophole" years because we haven't gotten everything concrete right now just doesn't seem like the way certain owners should handle it. We should probably all save the questionable, "I'm a jerk, haha" stuff for later.

Just my .02Dutch,
Hey, I was a volunteer when I cobbled together the FOBL's first constitution (with help from other online leagues and kurtism), although I had a team.* But the thing that got us going was an insistence that we have a constitution before we got the league going (and not by everyone, but by enough motivated folks). I'm not trying to take your league to task for this issue, exactly--lord knows we had to close enough loopholes in later years ourselves--but I do think it's instructive that a set of rules that everyone can agree to follow is important to the health of an online league.

Note: The current FOBL constitution is a brilliant monstrosity of lawyerly goodness, much revised from the initial incarnation by a handful of some of our resident mad fake baseball owners. They deserve a heck of a lot of credit for tightening up the language and plugging a lot of holes.

[Dutch]

I kind of figured you weren't calling VPI out.

I think it was important to get the league going so we could "test" FOF2004 MP and see how things go since it's so new. CFL and some other used that strategy and everything seems to go pretty smoothly. The small learning curve that we are exploring as we proceed through the first season is adding to what we want in the constitution.

The USA made it okay by beta testing without a constitution for the first couple of seasons in career mode. :D

[Chubby]

First of all, I honestly believe it's not a big deal and a big "good on ya" is deserved. But it was also immediately evident to me that it was a questionable move, and to many people at that. So, if we have learned anything from this lesson, it should be that we are now playing MP, not SP, and every action has a reaction now.

Anyway, the bottom line for me is that we are just having fun and we are (whether we like it or not) doing a little beta testing at the time as well. I already resigned my guys to long-term "realistic" contracts, and then see you do that is kind of like...."Damn...that sucks." And we haven't played a game yet and you have an advantage 4 seasons from now that most of us FOF4 owners wouldn't have ever known about in the pre-season of the first couple of days of a league that should last a long time.

However, I'm not objecting to the fact that you out-played me/us more than I am to the constant bickering it's created.

I read your posts wrong, I apologize. I also agree 100% with everything you said above. I DO feel bad that people have taken things the wrong way, and the more I try and show that I didn't have any ill intent the more mad they get...

I agree with the bickering as well, I've tried very hard not to spread it into every thread and feel I've done a good job. It's hard to not respond when you're getting slammed from 5 different angles.

I only want what's fair for the league hence my support for option 2.

[Dutch]

I read your posts wrong, I apologize. I also agree 100% with everything you said above. I DO feel bad that people have taken things the wrong way, and the more I try and show that I didn't have any ill intent the more mad they get...

I agree with the bickering as well, I've tried very hard not to spread it into every thread and feel I've done a good job. It's hard to not respond when you're getting slammed from 5 different angles.

I only want what's fair for the league hence my support for option 2.

Chubby, I'm reading your response and thinking, "Cool.....okay.....cool.....DOH!"

I don't agree with that last sentence because it's not fair to me, since I signed all my players to "house rules" styled contracts before this tactic (unrealistic ballon payments) was revealed to be in operation again.

But one way or the other, we will all survive.

[Chubby]

Chubby, I'm reading your response and thinking, "Cool.....okay.....cool.....DOH!"

I don't agree with that last sentence because it's not fair to me, since I signed all my players to "house rules" styled contracts before this tactic (unrealistic ballon payments) was revealed to be in operation again.

But one way or the other, we will all survive.



I know, and I know you aren't the only one that is in that situation. It was the best solution I could think of, I didn't feel that I should be penalized for doing something I don't feel is wrong and was done before a rule was made. Yet, I don't want to screw over people. The only thing I can say to that is, I'm sorry you can't do anything about it but at least let other people have the chance that haven't redone contracts yet. Even when 5.0C comes out, there will still be a "breaking point" under which similar deals will be able to be done. I guess because I do these in SP I already found that "point" in B and am so used to it that it was simple to just do my MP guys the same way. I think part of it is also that I didn't play FOF4, as evidentally these were impossible to make in there?

I agree, we'll get through it. I don't think it's a "major" problem, and it certainly won't be the last "issue" we face (wait til coaches contracts start to get hammered out, i'm predicting it won't be pretty). I totally agree with the beta testing comment from eariler, once we get everyone on the same page I still feel the league will rock.

[Anthony]

i agree with everything John Galt posted. very observative and on point.

on another note, not sure what point NoMyths was trying to make by comparing his league of many years to a new league in it's inaugural season...that's very nice that you're proud of your constitution (a set of laws you yourself have admitted has gone through many revisions and such to close loopholes). basically rules are needed to curb weasles and cheats and provide a guideline for how to act in the league - i think to a man everyone will agree with me when i say when the IHOF was started we thought we had practically all of the same type of owner (being that the league was comprised of FOFC "legends" or long-time vets) and in sharing the same mind-set we would have been able to police ourselves until something official was drawn up. we were proved wrong, there's always going ot be an element that seeks to buck the system - but you honestly can't fault our optimism.

also, the league was, as much as we try not to admit it, dead. we had got to the point where if we didn't get everyone onto the ship and got the ship sailing it would have sunk before high tide. it was started in haste because to sit on our hands much longer would have ended the league - or at least how it was originally intended. so yes, we jumped the gun, but we had little options.

we also thought we had a "skeleton" constitution, or at least i did. i thought we'd have something simple that would outline only the simplest laws, but i was wrong. in any event i think because of recent issues people who have even the slightest doubt that something they're about to do is shady will seek approval first, in light of the lashing chubby got.

CHubby: yes, i mentioned your name in this post, but don't take this as an opportunity to start up our head-to-head battle again. my involvement in your predicament ended a while ago, i no longer wish to waste time trying to get you to see the light on this matter. i just want to have fun. in closing - you're still banned from trading with my team, i'll still talk to you here, in IHOF or anywhere, but i no longer want to discuss this matter with you. if you respond to this negatively i'll just ignore it, anything we say on this topic will be repetitive because this topic has already reached 7 pages in the IHOF forum. too much drama for something that should be a leisure activity so i'm opting out of this battle and will resume focusing on my team only.

[Chubby]

i agree with everything John Galt posted. very observative and on point.

on another note, not sure what point NoMyths was trying to make by comparing his league of many years to a new league in it's inaugural season...that's very nice that you're proud of your constitution (a set of laws you yourself have admitted has gone through many revisions and such to close loopholes). basically rules are needed to curb weasles and cheats and provide a guideline for how to act in the league - i think to a man everyone will agree with me when i say when the IHOF was started we thought we had practically all of the same type of owner (being that the league was comprised of FOFC "legends" or long-time vets) and in sharing the same mind-set we would have been able to police ourselves until something official was drawn up. we were proved wrong, there's always going ot be an element that seeks to buck the system - but you honestly can't fault our optimism.

also, the league was, as much as we try not to admit it, dead. we had got to the point where if we didn't get everyone onto the ship and got the ship sailing it would have sunk before high tide. it was started in haste because to sit on our hands much longer would have ended the league - or at least how it was originally intended. so yes, we jumped the gun, but we had little options.

we also thought we had a "skeleton" constitution, or at least i did. i thought we'd have something simple that would outline only the simplest laws, but i was wrong. in any event i think because of recent issues people who have even the slightest doubt that something they're about to do is shady will seek approval first, in light of the lashing chubby got.

CHubby: yes, i mentioned your name in this post, but don't take this as an opportunity to start up our head-to-head battle again. my involvement in your predicament ended a while ago, i no longer wish to waste time trying to get you to see the light on this matter. i just want to have fun. in closing - you're still banned from trading with my team, i'll still talk to you here, in IHOF or anywhere, but i no longer want to discuss this matter with you. if you respond to this negatively i'll just ignore it, anything we say on this topic will be repetitive because this topic has already reached 7 pages in the IHOF forum. too much drama for something that should be a leisure activity so i'm opting out of this battle and will resume focusing on my team only.

I love the "I don't want want to discuss it anymore as long as I get the last word in" posts :rolleyes:

The fact is, I don't feel I did anything wrong. Whether you agree or believe that, I don't give two shits. I've tried to push for the fairest solution for everyone but you obviously don't want to see that so w/e.

[Ben E Lou]

The fact is, I don't feel I did anything wrong....which is why it is pointless to continuing discussing this with you. I'm finished too.

Sure, as far as the "letter of the law," you were within your rights. Happy?

[cuervo72]

lol...people really ought to follow the FOBL more to see how a Constitution can evolve to deal with brilliant folks spending way too much time on a computer game. :)

Which is why I was all for ripping off the FOBL (and FOFL) constitution and amending it for our purposes...it just didn't get done in time and wasn't the highest priority for all.

[Chubby]

...which is why it is pointless to continuing discussing this with you. I'm finished too.

Sure, as far as the "letter of the law," you were within your rights. Happy?


You STILL don't get it but that's fine. It's not "I don't feel I did anything wrong because it wasn't in the rules" it's "I don't feel I did anything wrong PERIOD. It ALSO isn't in the rules" Get off your high horse, not everyone follows "your house rules" or plays the same way.

BTW, if this is such a MIND BOGGLING issue, why wasn't it caught in beta?

[NoMyths]

BTW, if this is such a MIND BOGGLING issue, why wasn't it caught in beta?Ouch.

That said, Chubby, you'd probably fare a bit better in this discussion if you didn't reply to every post made in it. ;)

[Chubby]

Ouch.

That said, Chubby, you'd probably fare a bit better in this discussion if you didn't reply to every post made in it. ;)


Yeah, i know :p However, when you're gettin slammed from a couple different sides it's hard not to.

And that wasn't meant as a slam against beta testers. I just would have thought with the people who were on beta, that they prob did their job and put the game through it's paces in beta so I would think that something some people are so upset about now would have been caught then.

[QuikSand]

And that wasn't meant as a slam against beta testers.

Oh, I don't see how anyone could have reached that conclusion.

[Chubby]

Oh, I don't see how anyone could have reached that conclusion.


Well if you take it as a slam, there's only 2 ways of looking at it that i can see...

a) you think I'm saying beta testers didn't do their job, hence missing this
or
b) beta testers did their job and it was reported/not reported etc and was left in cause it wasn't a big deal.


since i wasn't around during beta and have no idea if this was brought up here or anywhere else i really don't know. but it would be a reasonable comclusion that something so "major" would have been caught.

of course, I don't think it's major and maintain it's "B" above but of course people will interpret it as "A".

once again, it's a house rule. feel free to use whatever ones you want, people don't want me to slam theres yet feel fine to slam mine.

[NoMyths]

Quik's wit is as fine and dry as sand in the Sahara. :)

[Ben E Lou]

It's also possible that the answer is more like:

c) it's not exactly a "bug" that the game sometimes allows absurd contracts, it's still very easily overcome by anyone offended to simply use a reasonable house rule, though it remains an avenue for "that guy" to gain an unfortunate advantage in a multiplayer league that hasn't established adequate safeguards<!-- / message -->

[Arnold Horshack Voice]Ooh! Oooh Me! Oooh Please Me!!! Ooh! Can I guess the answer????[/Arnold Horshack Voice]

[Kodos]

Ouch.

That said, Chubby, you'd probably fare a bit better in this discussion if you didn't reply to every post made in it. ;)

I get the distinct feeling that Chubby is one of those guys who just HAS to have the last word in everything.

So here you go, Chubby. Another opportunity. Prove me wrong.

[QuikSand]

Gee, SkyDog... and I only allowed that one to stay up for about 30 seconds, and then thought the better of prolonging this...er..."discussion." You acted quickly there.

[Ben E Lou]

Gee, SkyDog... and I only allowed that one to stay up for about 30 seconds, and then thought the better of prolonging this...er..."discussion." You acted quickly there.Thread Subscription + Slow Morning Waiting For About A Dozen Callbacks = Quick Responses. :)

[QuikSand]

I've never been moved to subscribe to a thread here (or anywhere). Hmmm.

[NoMyths]

If you subscribe to a thread, does it give out your mailing address to all the other threads?

[Daimyo]

Coming into this thread really late (totally missed it before), but I think the problem here is not with the backloading but with the absurdly cheap contracts players accept in the first year of the league.

Before patch b you couldn't extend players during the first year, but now you can extend guys on 1 year deals. For whatever reason the demands for these players are way off (perhaps because they have no stats or history to figure into the process?). As Chubby pointed out in that thread, the contracts signed by other players (like the safety he mentioned) were just as bad, just the backloading makes a much sexier target.

I strongly suspect that this issue will disapear once the league gets beyond the first season. I suspect that explains why wig's experience with FA in the WigFL is different than the FOFL and IHOF's experience with extensions.

[hukarez]

Wow. I hit this thread late myself.

Anyways, I'm curious about Rookie Negotiations. With my 1st round picks, for some reason, I select the highest year and bonus option for my rookie, hoping to have him signed before the start of training camp.

I'm inclined to believe my first and second picks would want to get the largest contract possible, no? When choose to offer my first and second round rookies the highest contract options available, I get the "Hold out for a better offer/contract" message...which, so happens to be the best I can offer. Still, they seem to go for the second highest deal, with a lower bonus!

For example, in my present season, my 1st round pick was a rookie center. (17th pick, 3rd O-Lineman chosen in 1st round) I had an option where I could have locked up my rookie stud for a 5 years, 14 million bonus. Instead of taking that option, my Center held out just before the start of training camp, electing to sign for 4 years, with a 13,200,000 million bonus.
Is that right? :confused: Or was this something discussed in the FOF2K4 5.0d bug thread, and I ended up overlooking it somehow? Just thought I'd get some opinions on this, so I can get my thoughts straight about rookie contracts and negotiations.

On a site note - among the 1st round picks in my league, the 9th player chosen was signed for 6 years. The previous 8 players, signed for 5 years. The 7th and 8th player chosen had total contract values of 45 million each at 5 years a piece, while the 9th player who signed for 6 years totalling 57 million each. 1st 5 picks signed 5 year contracts, the 1st 3 picks with contract values in the high 70 million range, and the 4th and 5th with high 50s range. :eek:

[Honolulu Blue]

Anyways, I'm curious about Rookie Negotiations. With my 1st round picks, for some reason, I select the highest year and bonus option for my rookie, hoping to have him signed before the start of training camp.

I'm inclined to believe my first and second picks would want to get the largest contract possible, no? When choose to offer my first and second round rookies the highest contract options available, I get the "Hold out for a better offer/contract" message...which, so happens to be the best I can offer. Still, they seem to go for the second highest deal, with a lower bonus!

For example, in my present season, my 1st round pick was a rookie center. (17th pick, 3rd O-Lineman chosen in 1st round) I had an option where I could have locked up my rookie stud for a 5 years, 14 million bonus. Instead of taking that option, my Center held out just before the start of training camp, electing to sign for 4 years, with a 13,200,000 million bonus.
Is that right? :confused: Or was this something discussed in the FOF2K4 5.0d bug thread, and I ended up overlooking it somehow? Just thought I'd get some opinions on this, so I can get my thoughts straight about rookie contracts and negotiations.

This has been discussed elsewhere, but I can't be bothered to find the threads.

Rookies, in general, want fewer years because they want to hit free agency as soon as possible and rake in the most cash. Longer contracts are more advantageous to ownership because (1) any bonus can be allocated over more years and (2) the player is likely making a smaller salary than he would if he were a free agent.

So the behavior of your center is not the result of a bug, it is exactly as Jim intends it to be.

[hukarez]

Ahh. Interesting, then. Just wanted to make sure! I can't figure out which page that thread is on.