Renegotiation Issues

[Ben E Lou]

Two of my MP leagues are struggling with the fact that it's too easy to renegotiate players down in FOF2K7, and as a result, no decent players are becoming FAs, and teams have TONS of cap room. We're in FA1 in the FOFL, and the median cap space at FA1-1 was nearly 20% of the cap. That's after franchise tags had been assigned, and before anyone had even renegotiated a single player. And there weren't really any decent players available that could help a team out in a meaningful way, either. A side effect of this is that all of that "use it or lose it" cap room is getting spent on ridiculous contracts. A 14th-year DT in IHOF who is (according to my scout) only the 15th-best DT in the league got a 2-year deal worth $70.35M. His $28M cap hit this year is nearly 1/4 of the entire cap, and the team that signed him was able to sign five other FAs.

IHOF has instituted a rule limiting renegotiations to the final year of a player's contract, and FOFL voting on the same idea stands at 13-1 in favor at the moment. Once the hurt from the initial contracts is gone, I suspect that WOOF will follow suit unless something's done in-game to address this.

So, this thread is an attempt to help define for Jim the issues that contribute to the ease of keeping teams together and the abundance of cap room. Just saying "it's too easy to keep our teams together forever" isn't very helpful. I had an informal discussion on this earlier today, and with some help, came up with this starting list. Feel free to comment on it, and make your own observations about this.


<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 661pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="881"> <colgroup> <col style="width: 145pt;" width="193"><col style="width: 231pt;" width="308"> <col style="width: 285pt;" width="380"> </colgroup> <tbody><tr style="height: 39.75pt;" height="53"> <td style="border: 0.5pt solid windowtext; background: navy none repeat scroll 0%; height: 39.75pt; width: 145pt; color: white; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-style: normal; white-space: nowrap; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" height="53" width="193"> ISSUE</td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; background: navy none repeat scroll 0%; width: 231pt; color: white; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-style: normal; white-space: nowrap; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" width="308"> EXPLANATION/EXAMPLE</td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0.5pt 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; background: navy none repeat scroll 0%; width: 285pt; color: white; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: underline; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; font-style: normal; white-space: nowrap; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" width="380"> SUGGESTED CHANGE</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 57pt;" height="76"> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt; background: silver none repeat scroll 0%; height: 57pt; width: 145pt; color: navy; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: 700; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" height="76" width="193"> Salary Requests Tied Too Heavily To Games Played In Most Recent Season</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 231pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" align="left" width="308"> If a top-tier player misses a small handful of games due to injury, his contract renegotiation demands may be heavily reduced. See this post (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1632020&postcount=4) for a prime example.</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 285pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" width="380"> Player salary requests should be tied more closely to the player's talent level, and the "past performance" check should be beyond just the previous season. If, as in the example, a guy threw for 55 TDs one year, performed quite well in 10 games the next year, and clearly hasn't lost any skills due to the minor injury, he should be requesting top-tier money.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 72.75pt;" height="97"> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt; background: silver none repeat scroll 0%; height: 72.75pt; width: 145pt; color: navy; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: 700; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" height="97" width="193"> Too Easy To Sign Veterans To Multi-Year MinSal Deals</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 231pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" x:str="Veteran players will often accept a deal structured with minimum salary and a tiny bonus for two or three seasons. This ensures that they will play for the veteran minimum exception amount throughout the length of the contract. " align="left" width="308"> Veteran players will often accept a deal structured with minimum salary and a tiny bonus for two or three seasons. This ensures that they will play for the veteran minimum exception amount throughout the length of the contract. </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 285pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" align="left" width="380"> No player should accept a multi-year minisal contract without a significant bonus. The per-year amount of this bonus should always be greater than the maximum amount of bonus that would keep the player under the veteran minimum exception. Under this system, teams would still be free to re-sign their veterans in free agency each season to the veteran minimum exception if no one else wants them.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 105pt;" height="140"> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt; background: silver none repeat scroll 0%; height: 105pt; width: 145pt; color: navy; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: 700; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" height="140" width="193"> Underpaid players do not hold out often enough.</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 231pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" width="308"> Referring back to the example of the player in the post referenced in the above item, he was requesting a contract with a $23.5M bonus and $1.7M in salary after playing a full solid season, and has a loyalty rating of only 8. He did not hold out. If this were merely one isolated example, it could be dismissed as luck of the dice. However, this is a common occurrence. It appears that loyalty is being used for free agency decisions, but that it is not a significant factor in holdouts and renegotiation demands.</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 285pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" width="380"> Significantly increase overall chance of underpaid players holding out. Make loyalty a bigger factor in the decision of whether to hold out.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 78.75pt;" height="105"> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt; background: silver none repeat scroll 0%; height: 78.75pt; width: 145pt; color: navy; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: 700; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" height="105" width="193"> RFAs Often Accept Multi-Year MinSal Deals</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 231pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" width="308"> Players in year 3 and especially year 4 who are RFAs often will accept a contract with minimum salary for three seasons, with only the trivial $10K per year bonus. This results in young players, especially those whose ratings are creeping upward, playing their prime years for minimum salary.</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 285pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" width="380"> No young player should accept a multi-year deal without a bonus that's a significant portion of the contract.</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 78.75pt;" height="105"> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt; background: silver none repeat scroll 0%; height: 78.75pt; width: 145pt; color: navy; font-size: 8pt; font-weight: 700; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" height="105" width="193"> Generally Too Easy for Humans To Keep A Team Together By Renegotiation</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 231pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" width="308"> Sure, I said I would get specific, but it's probably worth a line item here. An experienced human player in SP and in MP can usually keep 45-50 players from one season to the next by smart use of renegotiations. Without severe cap rules, I'm never forced to make a trade or cut a player for cap reasons. If I cut someone, it's always because I have a better option, or easily can get a better option in free agency.</td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt medium; width: 285pt; font-size: 8pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; text-align: left; vertical-align: middle; white-space: normal; color: windowtext; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px;" width="380"> Humans will always be smarter than the AI teams. So, at Wall Street Level and in MP, raise the demands in renegotiations for human players, forcing more turnover.</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

[stevew]

A functioning RFA system that mirrors real life would do a lot to address the RFA minsal process.

I generally agree with the concept that more players should hold out. And I think the "past injustices" message in regards to players significantly underpaid might help as well.

[JetsIn06]

This might belong in the WOOF forum...but for the record, I'm heavily in favor of instituting a rule to battle this.

[miked]

A functioning RFA system that mirrors real life would do a lot to address the RFA minsal process.

I generally agree with the concept that more players should hold out. And I think the "past injustices" message in regards to players significantly underpaid might help as well.

+1...without any compensation for lost FAs, what's the point of letting above average guys go? It's better to just sign and trade. If an out-of-game comp system could be generated, it would increase FAs most likely.

[ddrrbb]

The real life RFA system allows other teams to bid on RFAs (and drive up their price). Then, teams would have no choice in some cases but to let that player go for draft picks (predetermined in the CBA, i think), or spend a lot more than they had planned on that player to match.

I'm not a contract expert, but I think this would force many of the good RFAs to sign for significantly higher salaries than they are asking for. I would be willing to give up draft picks for good, developed RFAs.

[Ben E Lou]

The one problem I have with a more realistic RFA system is that it can create a real bog-down in SP. It's a lot of work for signing mostly marginal players. It's fine in MP, where the pace is much slower, but the clickfest of tendering 40 or so crappy RFAs in the same year in an Empty Cupboard career? That just doesn't sound like much fun.

[JetsIn06]

+1...without any compensation for lost FAs, what's the point of letting above average guys go? It's better to just sign and trade. If an out-of-game comp system could be generated, it would increase FAs most likely.

Damn...I wonder if anyone's thought of that before? If we could come up with an out of game RFA system, I think it would really add a lot to the game.

[stevew]

If the game had the edit-ability of OOTP, it would be a lot easier to institute more changes. As it stands now, there is almost no way to do an RFA process. And a realistic franchise tag as well. For instance, if it were OOTP type, we could easily handle all franchise issues outside of the game.

[claystone]

Skydog:

You would know this better then me, but what if you set the setting to "Wall Street". Wouldn't this make the game harder, also making signing contracts more realistic?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I, and others, mentioned a realistic RFA and Franchise process a couple years ago I think, but to no avail. I think it would add a ton to the MP experience. It would be awesome.

As for SD's comment about it being good for MP, but not SP, then you could simply make it one of the game options. Click yes if you want it.

I think it would also help if players paid better attention to the cap itself in deciding on contracts. The higher the cap, the more money they want. This would solve some of the problems for sure. But the biggest change, as already mentioned is to tie contract demands to rating and performance over several seasons, to avoid the superstar who gets hurt for 8 games demanding very little. One quick solution would be not to count games missed by injury. That wouldn't solve all of it, but would solve a lot of it.

[QuikSand]

Skydog:

You would know this better then me, but what if you set the setting to "Wall Street". Wouldn't this make the game harder, also making signing contracts more realistic?

I think you'll find that most everyone here plays on Wall Street level all the time. These "too easy" problems are still prevalent even on that highest skill level.

[claystone]

Here is a thought. Can someone make a salary chart base upon players ratings inwhich leagues will follow. That way when an owner signs a 3rd yr player, as an example, he must meet the min required salary from the salary chart. Now the owner can sign him for more money, but you know he can't sign that player for less.

This just a thought to expand on.

[Narcizo]

On a side note I was pretty surprised to learn that the commish in an MP league is unable to introduce an immediate change in cap increase, having his hands tied by the length of a TV contract (as the NAFL considered freezing the cap increase, only to find that we would have to wait 4 years to do so). It just seems bizarre that the commish shouldn't be able to do something so basic in their own league.

[JetsIn06]

On a side note I was pretty surprised to learn that the commish in an MP league is unable to introduce an immediate change in cap increase, having his hands tied by the length of a TV contract (as the NAFL considered freezing the cap increase, only to find that we would have to wait 4 years to do so). It just seems bizarre that the commish shouldn't be able to do something so basic in their own league.

Along the same lines, last night I was thinking that maybe if a league changed their cap settings to "0-10" or so, it would help this problem.

[Narcizo]

That's what we thought but then it turned out that it would take 4 years to come into effect as the league had just signed a 5-year TV deal.

[twothree]

I think having player's salary demands being more dependant upon the current and future salary cap would also help.

[stevew]

What if you just trimmed the active cap of a team by 10% in MP. For instance, if the cap is 100m, each team must have 10m of cap space available before the start of the regular season. Failure to do so would result in a draft pick penalty. If what we're seeing are just way too low of demands in regards to the cap, it might make some sense to have the demands based on one cap, and then our "active" cap being a lesser amount. Just a thought, anyways.

[wishbone]

The one problem I have with a more realistic RFA system is that it can create a real bog-down in SP. It's a lot of work for signing mostly marginal players. It's fine in MP, where the pace is much slower, but the clickfest of tendering 40 or so crappy RFAs in the same year in an Empty Cupboard career? That just doesn't sound like much fun.

If the contract page was treated just like the player card and stats page, it would be easier to click through a lot of guys. If there was a an RFA tender offer on the contract page similar to the cap-out offer, it would go even quicker.

[Sgran]

What if you just trimmed the active cap of a team by 10% in MP. For instance, if the cap is 100m, each team must have 10m of cap space available before the start of the regular season. Failure to do so would result in a draft pick penalty. If what we're seeing are just way too low of demands in regards to the cap, it might make some sense to have the demands based on one cap, and then our "active" cap being a lesser amount. Just a thought, anyways.

Right on. That's exactly how I feel. A tighter ceiling would let the market work its magic without a lot of bureaucracy.

[Synovia]

If what we're seeing are just way too low of demands in regards to the cap, it might make some sense to have the demands based on one cap, and then our "active" cap being a lesser amount. Just a thought, anyways.
Are we really seeing that though?


My entire defensive line are asking for 10M+ a year, with a 100M cap. How many d-lineman make $10m a year?

yeah, you can sign 45/45 guys for vet minimum, but those guys DO sign for vet minimum in real life, and sometimes for multiyear deals. The nfl had to put in the veteran exemptions (450K cap hit for vet mins instead of 1M+) because teams didn't want to sign vets in favor of $400K rookies. If you've got 6+ years in the league, and you're not GOOD, you're wasting a team's time, and that team would rather have a young guy who might get better. The fact that mediocre vets are signing for vet minimum is not an issue.


If you've got 65/65 guys signing for vet minimum, we've got an issue, but I've never seen that.

[Ben E Lou]

Are we really seeing that though?


My entire defensive line are asking for 10M+ a year, with a 100M cap. How many d-lineman make $10m a year?

yeah, you can sign 45/45 guys for vet minimum, but those guys DO sign for vet minimum in real life, and sometimes for multiyear deals. The nfl had to put in the veteran exemptions (450K cap hit for vet mins instead of 1M+) because teams didn't want to sign vets in favor of $400K rookies. If you've got 6+ years in the league, and you're not GOOD, you're wasting a team's time, and that team would rather have a young guy who might get better. The fact that mediocre vets are signing for vet minimum is not an issue.


If you've got 65/65 guys signing for vet minimum, we've got an issue, but I've never seen that.The vets are just one piece of the puzzle. Between masking, and some wise usage of these vets, it's not terribly difficult to get a good bit of value out of them for three years at the minimum exception. And my point in that particular thing is not that they sign for the minimum. It's that they sign multi-year deals for the minimum. Teams should have to sign them to one-year deals each year, or pay them a decent bonus. In real life, a mediocre veteran isn't going to commit to the minimum salary in a three-year deal with a trivial 30K bonus. There is virtually no benefit to him. He'd be better off signing for one year, and then testing the FA market. Someone else might be willing to pay him a little more next year. Or, if he performs well, someone might be willing to pay him a *lot* more.

[Synovia]

TIt's that they sign multi-year deals for the minimum. Teams should have to sign them to one-year deals each year, or pay them a decent bonus. In real life, a mediocre veteran isn't going to commit to the minimum salary in a three-year deal with a trivial 30K bonus..

No, but I see a LOT of mediocre vets signing for minimum salary for 3 years with $100-200K total bonus. (in real life)

If we're talking extensions, you're making sense, if its FA, these guys SHOULD be taking the highest offer they get, and if the only offer they get is 3 years at min, they're going to take that instead of saying no, because they have no leverage.

[Ben E Lou]

No, but I see a LOT of mediocre vets signing for minimum salary for 3 years with $100-200K total bonus. (in real life)

If we're talking extensions, you're making sense, if its FA, these guys SHOULD be taking the highest offer they get, and if the only offer they get is 3 years at min, they're going to take that instead of saying no, because they have no leverage.Yes, I'm talking extensions here. Guy requesting one-year no-bonus minisal deal. You can sign him to an extension for three years and a 30K bonus. This is even true for a fourth-year RFA who isn't finished creeping. This is a non-issue in SP, where we exercise restraint on this sort of thing without a care. But in MP, it's take no prisoners, so lots of people do stuff like this.

I agree that a guy should accept his best offer as a FA. Absolutely.

[Northwood_DK]

I also hate to see the few big players that make it to FA sign way to fast. I see no reason for a player to sign in the first rounds of FA as long as several teams is offering him contracts and compete for his signature.

[Synovia]

Looking through PatsCap, I don't see any extensions with $30K bonuses, but there are a couple minsal 3 year extensions with $60K-$100K and a whole lot between $100K and $200K, so I don't think we're that far off here.


I'm of the oppinion that guys in their last year of a contract really shouldn't be accepting extensions at all (unless the money is huge), as they (in the real world) generally dont.

[Synovia]

I also hate to see the few big players that make it to FA sign way to fast. I see no reason for a player to sign in the first rounds of FA as long as several teams is offering him contracts and compete for his signature.



That doesnt (at least as of 6.1a) seem to be as big of a deal as previously, in the Shiba FA (last week or so) we had a guard (Brock Alcala, 65/65) who was looking to sign in FA stage 3 and was looking for like $18M/4yr, and ended up not signing till stage 11. I think he signed for like $40M/6 years, and almost everyone had retracted their offers.


it seems like the guys who sign real quick, one offer blows the others out of the water, and in those cases, thats pretty realistic. The first offer sets the tone, and does matter IRL.

[adubroff]

I'm sure part of the MP problem is that most MP leagues play with an inaccurate injury frequency. That doesn't explain everything, but it's definitely part of the puzzle.

I think the other part of the puzzle is that players/agents in the game make no adjustment to how much cap space is available in the league. If I'm an agent of an NFL player and I know that there are going to be 25 teams with 20% of their salary cap available, my demands are going to be very aggressive. I don't think the game adjusts on this level, or if it does it doesn't do so well.

[CU Tiger]

If requests were tied to other players it would solve this problem.


Im sure it would be tough to implement, but Id love to see a change where if you signed thee oddball 50 rated DT to a 2 year 40 mill contract your starterss hold out for matching deals, and every DT around the league starts asking for more money.

[claystone]

Here is another idea. In our madden league we have 2 catagories, one for FA signings and one for restructure contracts. This is located in our league forum. Everytime we sign a FA or restructure we have to post it first with what we are offering. By doing it this way it allows the commish to input the request in the file. Which allows the commish to control and to monitor teams are meeting the requirements for signing contracts.

So, if MP leagues commish would have their forum with these 2 catagories they will make sure teams are signing players to reasonable contracts stoping this cap mishap.

Food for thought

[JetsIn06]

I'm sure part of the MP problem is that most MP leagues play with an inaccurate injury frequency. That doesn't explain everything, but it's definitely part of the puzzle.


Very interesting thought. I hadn't thought of this, but it does make sense. In the WOOF, a team has a QB eating up $15mil in cap space, and hasn't played a down this year due to injury. If that happened more often to more teams, like I guess it techincally should if we're trying to play realistically, then it could help us make tougher decisions.

The problem: I don't think it would be fun. In SP, it doesn't really matter. You go through a season in, let's say a week. In MP, while it would add a big challenge to the game, I don't think it would be fun to see the core of the team I spent the last two real-time years building all go down with repetitive concussion syndriome.

[JetsIn06]

dola:

I still think that there could possibly be a way to implement a true RFA system/Franchise Tag system that leagues could use. However, I'm not an expert on the subject. :confused:

[ace1914]

If requests were tied to other players it would solve this problem.


Im sure it would be tough to implement, but Id love to see a change where if you signed thee oddball 50 rated DT to a 2 year 40 mill contract your starterss hold out for matching deals, and every DT around the league starts asking for more money.

That sounds like the simpliest solution. There isn't enough market adjustment by the agents.

[zbuckley]

I'm still not sure enough of the players demands are tied to his on field performance. too often it seems a player rated below 50 will be name to the all league team and then ask for a one year deal with a low signing bonus. I also would love to see a RFA system that mirrors the NFL for MP leagues. I think this would also help the salary cap situation, you could no longer wait to sign players after there rookie contract expired. If you did you would have to tender him a deal much higher than he would sign under the current system.

[bmerryman]

Two of my MP leagues are struggling with the fact that it's too easy to renegotiate players down in FOF2K7, and as a result, no decent players are becoming FAs, and teams have TONS of cap room. We're in FA1 in the FOFL, and the median cap space at FA1-1 was nearly 20% of the cap. That's after franchise tags had been assigned, and before anyone had even renegotiated a single player. And there weren't really any decent players available that could help a team out in a meaningful way, either. A side effect of this is that all of that "use it or lose it" cap room is getting spent on ridiculous contracts. A 14th-year DT in IHOF who is (according to my scout) only the 15th-best DT in the league got a 2-year deal worth $70.35M. His $28M cap hit this year is nearly 1/4 of the entire cap, and the team that signed him was able to sign five other FAs.


A couple comments:

The median cap figure in the real NFL is roughly 15-20% below the cap. So, your MP league is actually remarkably close to reality. The behavior of the MP GMs who then spend huge dollars on old washed up talent is a byproduct of the fact that there are no ramifications for wasting money. A real NFL GM would lose his job if he spent $38mm/year on a 14th year DT. As the former GM is getting in his cab headed out of town, the owner would carefully explain to him that he would have rather put that $38mm of real money to work in a more reasonable manner. Therefore, a piece of the "use it or lose it" solution may be to reward FOF GMs for being profitable; and/or, punish them for being unprofitable.

As far as decent players not being available in FA and the overall discussion going on here. How you define decent players is one thing but I am guessing you probably mean less talent than you *think* is generally available in the real NFL free agency period. I agree with you. As someone mentioned earlier, this is certainly tied to the low injury factor that MP leagues use. Owners would be much more reluctant to sign good and great players to long term deals if they had experienced/witnessed the pain of losing $25mm in guaranteed money the year after a star DE is lost to a career ending injury. For example, I bet the Colts are little worried about the $20mm in guaranteed money they promised Bob Sanders - who averages one surgery for every 10 games he plays. It's a risk they're apparantley willing to take but if he blows his knee or shoulder out again -- that's a lot of bonus money they have to ammortize over the next two years...In FOF, we rarely have this worry, so we don't hesitate to lock in every player we deem to be greater than or equal to decent.

[Surtt]

If requests were tied to other players it would solve this problem.


Im sure it would be tough to implement, but Id love to see a change where if you signed thee oddball 50 rated DT to a 2 year 40 mill contract your starterss hold out for matching deals, and every DT around the league starts asking for more money.

I don't think giving one player the ability to screw everyone one in the league this way would be the best way to go. One disgruntle player, who is going to quit, could devastate the league for years.

[Ben E Lou]

I don't think giving one player the ability to screw everyone one in the league this way would be the best way to go. One disgruntle player, who is going to quit, could devastate the league for years.
...not to mention that it's a *great* way to screw a division rival who has, say, two good DEs about to come into contract years.

[Narcizo]

I don't think giving one player the ability to screw everyone one in the league this way would be the best way to go. One disgruntle player, who is going to quit, could devastate the league for years.

I think he meant that the players on the team who made that signing would start looking for more money.

I'm not sure that this would really solve the problem though as it would just mean that people are more frugal with their contract offers, meaning that even less money is spent.

[Flasch186]

how does this article effect this talk:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AkFe8oA1QXU5ff9DwRwR2RBDubYF?slug=jc-freeagencypreview022708&prov=yhoo&t

[QuikSand]

the drop in top-flight free agents has a lot more to do with the explosion in the salary cap over the past three years. Now at $123 million per team, the league is so flush with cash that the hard decisions of years ago are gone.

Not much. The NFL is in a weird transition spot now, as there was an unforeseen hiccup in the salary cap, and even recklessly-spending teams have found themselves relatively comfortable these last couple years. But they are obviously making a transition -- look at the fat contracts given to the top FAs last year, and some of the generous renegotiations we have been seeing. The current NFL is in a temporary and unusual situation, but will soon be back to normal where managing the cap year to year is a challenge once again.

The number and ease of team-friendly renegotitations in FOF right now is clearly too high, whether one's goal is to mirror the normal circumstance of the NFL or just to promote an enjoyable game.

[Anthony]

I don't think giving one player the ability to screw everyone one in the league this way would be the best way to go. One disgruntle player, who is going to quit, could devastate the league for years.

that already happens, with franchise salaries.


all you need is one or two doofus (doofi) to give unnecessarily huge contracts to their guys and that starts to affect the average top 5 salary which in turn affects how much it'll cost for you to keep your franchised player on your team.

[Flasch186]

what would happen if a league boosted the injury numbers? Would that eat up cap space and tighten things up without necessarily needing a reneg rule?

I know it was brought up above but perhaps not fleshed out enough.

[Synovia]

what would happen if a league boosted the injury numbers? Would that eat up cap space and tighten things up without necessarily needing a reneg rule?

I know it was brought up above but perhaps not fleshed out enough.

Thats probably a decent idea. If you crank up injuries, average talent goes down, total available players, etc. It'd probably take a couple seasons to take effect.

I don't see the problem though, in general. I'd say theres an average of 4 or 5 players a year in the NFL I'd rank above 50/50 that hit FA each year. Last year it was Clements, A. Thomas, and a couple of Guards. This year we've got a couple more with Moss, and Samuel from the Patriots, etc but in general, in the NFL, real talent never makes it to FA.

[zbuckley]

Thats probably a decent idea. If you crank up injuries, average talent goes down, total available players, etc. It'd probably take a couple seasons to take effect.

I don't see the problem though, in general. I'd say theres an average of 4 or 5 players a year in the NFL I'd rank above 50/50 that hit FA each year. Last year it was Clements, A. Thomas, and a couple of Guards. This year we've got a couple more with Moss, and Samuel from the Patriots, etc but in general, in the NFL, real talent never makes it to FA.


Moss and Samuels are way above 50 IMO. There's always been difference makers in FA and doesn't seem like that's the case with FOF.

[Flasch186]

Thats probably a decent idea. If you crank up injuries, average talent goes down, total available players, etc. It'd probably take a couple seasons to take effect.

I don't see the problem though, in general. I'd say theres an average of 4 or 5 players a year in the NFL I'd rank above 50/50 that hit FA each year. Last year it was Clements, A. Thomas, and a couple of Guards. This year we've got a couple more with Moss, and Samuel from the Patriots, etc but in general, in the NFL, real talent never makes it to FA.

...and it is also skewed by the amount of room under the cap each team has and thusly how much these "50/50" (and we can argue that) command. So it's a sandwich problem, you cant look at simply one side of it in that hardly any good players hit FA but also have to look at the fact that now, 8 seasons in, and more as we move forward, teams have a ton of cap space.

to talk more about the injury raising, I think you end up lowering the fun factor to save FA and cap ceiling management and Im not sure that that is a great tradeoff. I believe in the USFL we'll be following other leagues lead in making renegotiations occur only in the final year of a player's contract. We can then brooch the injury subject or even the reneg issue after a determined amount of time.

[Ben E Lou]

There aren't many MP players out there who really want to play in a league with injuries higher, in my experience. I'd love it, but it creates too many issues and complaints for a lot of people.

[Shooter]

Just an FYI here, but over at the CFL we are taking a different direction on this. After having the commish, TLK, run some detailed sims in multiplayer mode we have found that the resolution to the salary cap space may be worked out in the game by properly setting up the TV contract and the salary cap increase. For those of you struggling, this thread may be worth a look. There were quite a few of us that struggled with the renegotiation rule and felt that while it did address some of the problems it had the potential to create others as well.

http://www.thecfl.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4515&start=200

[wade moore]

I'll go on record as saying that I think the CFL is short-sighted in this solution and I still believe the renegotiation rule is the far more effective rule.

Disclaimer: I was in the CFL until very recently. The debate over the salary cap issues is part of the reason (although not the only reason) that I left.

[Shooter]

I'll go on record as saying that I think the CFL is short-sighted in this solution and I still believe the renegotiation rule is the far more effective rule.

Disclaimer: I was in the CFL until very recently. The debate over the salary cap issues is part of the reason (although not the only reason) that I left.

Yes there have been some debates on this and the "X" factor in this rule is how the GMs will work their contracts as opposed to the AI in the tests. With the AI running the show it appears to fix the problem at the root cause even though it may take a few seasons. I've always just felt that limiting the renegotiating of contracts takes a tool that a GM may want to use for legitimate reasons. While it may fix one problem it may also cause more which is why some of us were looking for an alternate solution.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the course of a few seasosns, which is why I wanted to share this on the forum.