Problem with current check-in system....

[JesterBlaze]

This is the problem as I see it with our current system:

Owner starts neglecting his team around mid-season or whenever he's out of the playoffs. The last few weeks of the season go by with NO attempts to re-sign/restructure players for the next season. Team gets new owner in off-season. New owner is stuck watching players leave with no chance (other than open FA) to keep them.

Now they aren't always stars but they are 40's and 50's rated players that can provide major production during the season.

The only solution that comes to mind is having check-in and new owners at some time during the playoffs so that the new owner has at least a couple of exports for contractual reasons. Assuming we're the motivated bunch that we always are this will also give all new owners an invite to the IFL playoff party so that they may become even more focused on their team as they see how much fun this thing o' ours can be.

BTW - The focus of this thread is the current problem so I didn't give the solution much thought yet as I'm not sure if anyone else even agrees that this is a league balance problem.

[Chris Rex]

I was JUST about to write about this. I have one... count 'em ONE cb on my roster... with about 4 others sitting there as free agents.

I'm gonna have to play 'steady QB' myself to get a practice game going...

That being said... It makes the challenge that much greater!
My victorious turn around shall be that much sweeter!!!!

When I'm 2-14, THEN we'll see who's laughing.




Oh crap.

Wait...

[Matt]

it's tough. whenever you have turnover, which is low in this league BTW, the new guy often ends up in a shitty situation. I think Jester offers a good alternative, but usually the roll call's end at the beginning of a new season.
The other issue with new owners trying to resign guys after the regular season is cap space. the game now pays players via game cheques, and unless you have the cap room lying around not being used, you won't be able to resign your guys. It happened to me when I neglected to sign Shaeffer. when i remembered, it was too late because I had already paid his base salary in 17 installments.

[sovstar]

It's not like Cydney has been MIA for months. He visited the board just a few days before check-in commenced. He just didn't put very much effort in this season for whatever reason (maybe real life got in the way - it doesn't matter really). Had check-in been pushed up, he likely would've signed on for another season and we wouldn't have had an opening in the first place.

Would it be better if Montreal had 45 guys signed to contracts or 29? If I'm taking over a squad like Montreal I like the flexibility I've got.

[tarcone]

AND who says those guys reup with Montreal? Ive got 2 c*cksucking CBs who wouldnt sign with me. ALL postseason.
Luckily one is a RFA and the other will be Franchised.

Anyway, If I know Im rebuilding I like 29 better then 45.

[Jave]

These are both excellent points. Would it matter if we did the yearly check in during the playoffs? I don't think it would hurt anything.

[JesterBlaze]

The other issue with new owners trying to resign guys after the regular season is cap space. the game now pays players via game cheques, and unless you have the cap room lying around not being used, you won't be able to resign your guys. It happened to me when I neglected to sign Shaeffer. when i remembered, it was too late because I had already paid his base salary in 17 installments.

Can you expand on this? I use the last coupe weeks of every season to start looking at next season's contracts so I don't need any surprises when the time comes. I don't understand why paying Shaeffer up until that point stopped you from resigning him to a restructured deal.

It's not like Cydney has been MIA for months. He visited the board just a few days before check-in commenced. He just didn't put very much effort in this season for whatever reason (maybe real life got in the way - it doesn't matter really). Had check-in been pushed up, he likely would've signed on for another season and we wouldn't have had an opening in the first place.

Would it be better if Montreal had 45 guys signed to contracts or 29? If I'm taking over a squad like Montreal I like the flexibility I've got.

My observation has been many seasons in the making and was not spurred on by Montreal. However in this case I'm pushing for flexibility. Inheriting the 29 guys before the season officially ends means the new owner chooses whether he goes into the next season with 29, 45 or anywhere in between and up to 53.

And now that I think of it new owners bring a freshness and excitement during playoff time when some playoff nopefuls hibernate until the offseason.

[dberner30]

I was JUST about to write about this. I have one... count 'em ONE cb on my roster... with about 4 others sitting there as free agents.

I'm gonna have to play 'steady QB' myself to get a practice game going...

That being said... It makes the challenge that much greater!
My victorious turn around shall be that much sweeter!!!!

When I'm 2-14, THEN we'll see who's laughing.




Oh crap.

Wait...

i thought i already told you that you were going to suck and keep on sucking...stop getting these bold ideas and just do your job as our divisional doormat...pig farmer usually has dirty nasty feet and needs a good one to use...

[roadrash]

i thought i already told you that you were going to suck and keep on sucking...stop getting these bold ideas and just do your job as our divisional doormat...pig farmer usually has dirty nasty feet and needs a good one to use...

What? Tired of being my dormat db?

As for the OP: I only have 33 players on my roster to start the season. I have a couple players that are RFAs that I plan to resign. I don't think 29 is horrible at all.

I do see that a few too many good players are in the FA market for Montreal, but they have 33 million in cap room. . they can afford to go after them, most teams can't push too hard in FA.

[JesterBlaze]

As for the OP: I only have 33 players on my roster to start the season. I have a couple players that are RFAs that I plan to resign. I don't think 29 is horrible at all.

Yeah, well what has your team done lately?

My point has nothing to do with X many players or any other specifics for Montreal or any other team. My point is that stage one for any season is restructuring the players the season before and by taking this out of the hands of the new owners they are even more handicapped than necessary.

A big part of it is FOF's strange reasoning of showing you people no longer on your team during the off-season. It must surely suck taking over a team in a slow paced league like ours and staring over and over again at players you *should* have on your team if only someone had resigned them the season before (as 30 or so teams get the benefit of doing).

[Coder]

I see where you're coming from Jester, but I also see Jeff's point. Maybe having a roll call before the championship game would be the best though. I know that I was very fortunate to be able to jump in just as the regular season was over, and got a chance to go over the roster and extend a few contracts.

[sovstar]

My observation has been many seasons in the making and was not spurred on by Montreal.

What other teams were affected by this in the past? Why has it taken eight seasons for this discussion to take place?

[Matt]

Can you expand on this? I use the last coupe weeks of every season to start looking at next season's contracts so I don't need any surprises when the time comes. I don't understand why paying Shaeffer up until that point stopped you from resigning him to a restructured deal.

i had already paid him $5mil in base salary in 17 installments. this was money already paid out against the cap, even though he would've restructured for less. With the addition of bonus money, i did not have the cap room available. had i restructured the contract when he came to my team, this would've been a moot point. if you go back to a playoff file from last year, and look under the contract tab, then save if release, you'll notice that the values would've been all negative at that point in time. in the old model game, you could get rid of guys after the season and save the cap hit money

[JesterBlaze]

What other teams were affected by this in the past?

Ummm... every single team that got a new GM after the Imperial Bowl.

Why has it taken eight seasons for this discussion to take place?

I can't speak for anyone else but I, in particular, didn't bring it up because I don't bring up every single thing I think of.

It's pretty simple to see. The newest GM not only agreed, but was moments from posting himself. You don't see it; fine.

[JesterBlaze]

i had already paid him $5mil in base salary in 17 installments. this was money already paid out against the cap, even though he would've restructured for less. With the addition of bonus money, i did not have the cap room available. had i restructured the contract when he came to my team, this would've been a moot point. if you go back to a playoff file from last year, and look under the contract tab, then save if release, you'll notice that the values would've been all negative at that point in time. in the old model game, you could get rid of guys after the season and save the cap hit money

Ahh. I assumed that it always worked as it currently does.

I try restructure for less money at the start of the season. Towards the end I'm just looking to add a season or two to otherwise departing players.