Pricey multi-year offers for undrafted rookies during FA2:1-5.

[Ben E Lou]

I see it almost every season in nearly every league, and I can't for the life of me figure out what purpose it serves. Why do people do this? Is it just a case of just something dumb that people do, or am I missing some strategy here?

[Alf]

Because they have unused cap space at that time ? So they use it on signing guys in the hope of seeing them evolve positively into starter material

[Julio Riddols]

I don't get multi-year deals either, but one year deals make plenty of sense.

[Ben E Lou]

Because they have unused cap space at that time ? So they use it on signing guys in the hope of seeing them evolve positively into starter materialBut why sign to multiple years? Why not sign to a one-year deal and then get him cheap the second year?

[gstelmack]

They are forgetting or don't know about the difference between Restricted Free Agents and Unrestricted Free Agents.

[Ben E Lou]

They are forgetting or don't know about the difference between Restricted Free Agents and Unrestricted Free Agents.This is what I was referencing in the first post with "something dumb that people do." It just happens so frequently that it seems a bit much to be this same error all the time.

[Julio Riddols]

Its time for a new thing - Instead of "note to self", a "note to y'all" seems appropriate.

[aston217]

They are forgetting or don't know about the difference between Restricted Free Agents and Unrestricted Free Agents.

This is it.

1 year deals give you a better shot at signing vs multi-year deals (at the same money level). Although there may be something to "total bonus" impressing to an extent (i.e, $15M bonus over 3 years vs $5M bonus in 1 year? I dunno though...)

You will have exclusive rights the next offseason via Restricted Free Agency.

You will be able to cut the player if he gets injured.

You won't be on the hook for future bonus if he crashes in camp.

There is no reason whatsoever to offer a pricey multi-year deal to a rookie free agent. The only reason to offer multiple years period, is if you want to lock him down at a low price and don't anticipate being able to do so at his RFA contract (i.e, if he starts a lot of games, he'll want money).

[gstelmack]

Or players forget that the 3 year rule does not apply during Late FA in most leagues? Trying to keep track of house rules that change can be difficult.

[Ben E Lou]

Or players forget that the 3 year rule does not apply during Late FA in most leagues? Trying to keep track of house rules that change can be difficult.
While I agree that keeping up with house rules can be difficult, that's not the problem here. The overwhelming majority of the offers are 2 years, not 3. IHOF, for example, had 40 multi-year offers to rookies in FA2 this year. 39 of those were two-year deals.

[Ben E Lou]

Just checked FOOL: 19 multi-year offers last year. All 19 were two years. (And of course that's a league with no house rules.) Only 7 of those 19 were for the minimum amount. I could understand a minimum-salary two-year deal, of course. That makes sense. (and for the record, only 8 of IHOF's 40 were for the minimum.)

[QuikSand]

teh dum

[Ben E Lou]

teh dum
Yeah, so that was my guess, but after seeing so many of them so consistently, I was starting to wonder...

[gstelmack]

I am now out of excuses for these deals.

[Ben E Lou]

I am now out of excuses for these deals.:D

[gstelmack]

Maybe spread the bonus hit out to get more under the cap within a year? You can get a $10mil bonus / $4mil / $4mil with a $9mil cap hit in year 1 and beat out a $8mil bonus / $4mil deal? Something like that maybe?

[QuikSand]

Let's try to recap.

Here is your optimum strategy with undrafted rookies:
-minsal/minbonus for two years
-if you have to spend real money, do it for one year

That's it. That's the list.

[Ben E Lou]

Let's try to recap.

Here is your optimum strategy with undrafted rookies:
-minsal/minbonus for two years
-if you have to spend real money, do it for one year

That's it. That's the list.If I ever revive the "hundred little things" thread, this will be highlighted.

[stevew]

thought of one loophole reason for 2 years, just dunno if anyone would factor it in. Probably reaching here

-sometimes guys get really angry with no playing time and then refuse to sign an RFA deal(which as an ERFA a guy basically has to take a tender but is not reflected in the game)

[corbes]

-sometimes guys get really angry with no playing time and then refuse to sign an RFA deal

I was onto something with this guy (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/fool/ben/playercard.php?playerid=8145) as an undrafted FA but he got pissed off about playing time his rookie year and refused to sign his year 2 deal.



EDIT: In hindsight i was NOT onto something with that guy. Carry on, nothing to see here.

[Ben E Lou]

Bump. Really this applies to any player in year 1-3. We just had a set of senseless multi-year offers in the CCFL on this guy:

RG Gus Cunningham Player Details (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ccfl/ben/playercard.php?playerid=34555)

teh dum

[WilleB]

I can't believe anyone has the cap room to throw around that kind of contract on potential.

[garion333]

I could throw that down on someone about half the time in mp leagues, but I tend to let my aging vets go.

That said, that's quite a chunk of change and thankfully it was minsal instead of minbonus.

Also, throwing down that much kills your opportunities to go after useful vets.

[aston217]

It's late FA. Teams only need a handful of millions to get them through a season, and barring surprise releases there are no useful vets anymore. I'm not sure why teams go through early FA and leave themselves with $40M in cap space, but sometimes it happens.

[stevew]

If the league has the franchise tag, it would have been a slick move to make that all salary in order to super boost the tag at that position.

[aston217]

It's a 1-year deal, so it wouldn't affect franchise tag values for the next offseason.

[garion333]

It's late FA. Teams only need a handful of millions to get them through a season, and barring surprise releases there are no useful vets anymore. I'm not sure why teams go through early FA and leave themselves with $40M in cap space, but sometimes it happens.

Sometimes you just lose out on all the worthwhile players.

I like to have a cushion because I usually wait until after TC and pre2 to extend my vets.

But, really, best reason not to spend every penny is that you generally set yourself up for a better pick in the staff draft.

I went 2-14 in the GML last season and because I spent so little I ended up near the top of the staff draft.

That said, when I spent more money and fielded a good team I was already usually close to the top of the staff draft so YMMV.

[Ben E Lou]

But, really, best reason not to spend every penny is that you generally set yourself up for a better pick in the staff draft.

I went 2-14 in the GML last season and because I spent so little I ended up near the top of the staff draft.

That said, when I spent more money and fielded a good team I was already usually close to the top of the staff draft so YMMV.I think most people have completely overlooked how much expenses can actually matter now. Yes, when you're very good, you'll be near the top as well. Packed stadiums and two home playoffs came can boost revenue a lot, but the major difference in this version is that cutting costs can push you up several spots.

[aston217]

Hm, that's interesting. Pitting "getting the most competitive team possible this year" vs "a shot at better coaches in the future". That's an odd decision to have to make! Usually they go in the same direction.

[stevew]

It's a 1-year deal, so it wouldn't affect franchise tag values for the next offseason.

Oh yeah. forgot about that annoying quirk on how the game does the tags.

[Wasabiak]

It's the 7 times rule. You've only said it twice. Actually I think I was guilty of this until I read your first post on it. Then I felt like a jackass, because, well, you're right.

[Sgran]

Bump. Really this applies to any player in year 1-3. We just had a set of senseless multi-year offers in the CCFL on this guy:

RG Gus Cunningham Player Details (http://www.younglifenorthdekalb.com/ccfl/ben/playercard.php?playerid=34555)

That's hilarious

[Shoveler]

Maybe it would help keep contracts a bit more realistic if this player, after signing a one year 31 million deal, would require that same team to continue paying him at that level in future contracts, with modifications based on player decline?

Fairly certain if we knew that a player was going to request the same relative amount of money going forward based on the initial contract they signed, this guy would never have received the bogus 31 million payday he got in the first place.

[MIJB#19]

Maybe it would help keep contracts a bit more realistic if this player, after signing a one year 31 million deal, would require that same team to continue paying him at that level in future contracts, with modifications based on player decline?

Fairly certain if we knew that a player was going to request the same relative amount of money going forward based on the initial contract they signed, this guy would never have received the bogus 31 million payday he got in the first place.That's how FOF used to work with multiple-year contracts, but I'm not sure that's how it works in FOF7.

[garion333]

That's how FOF used to work with multiple-year contracts, but I'm not sure that's how it works in FOF7.

I'm sure it plays a role, but clearly it's not a huge role. You can sign for $30 mil and pay out $5 mil on resign.

[aston217]

That's a good suggestion, Shoveler. As it stands right now, it definitely does not make sense to keep offers to some sort of lower "realistic" level if it means risking losing the bid when you could have easily afforded a guy.