It Was Inevitable (Renegotiation Issues)

[sovstar]

will the rule be dropped if there ia a patch?

If it was determined that the renegotiation logic is fixed, then yes.

[sovstar]

I should also mention that if a rule were passed it would be "walked" in. I was thinking that we could allow any guys that were signed during free agency last season to renegotiate next season. Anything would go for the rest of this current season.

[JesterBlaze]

...a new television contract was signed not too long ago. I don't think the cap increase has that big of an effect on the end result anyways.

Is that because you think it's a percentage calculation that takes the cap into account? Or because the difference between the min and max setting isn't that great?

And it's all about making sure that free agency remains relevant. I don't recall ever having to cut a guy for cap reasons. I also don't recall ever having to let a guy I liked walk away. That says something to me.

Same here. But I've also kept watch on the cap, which I think rises too fast with or without contract restructures, and traded away draft picks at times to delay paying a salary while FA has hit other teams who chose to "go for it all" in a given short period.

I think FA will always be relevant since everything's relative. You can always squeeze a little extra on your team if you're good with the cap.


I don't feel strongly on the subject atm though and figure the league will come to something reasonable so I have a not-very-firm "leave it be" vote.

[Kozure]

Jester, if the cap increases is lowered, then the players will start asking for less money. It's built into the game like that somehow. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but changing the cap increases is only a short term fix.

[Kobeck]

Murfreesboro has extended numerous players, and usually for exactly what they asked for. Mules seem to constantly need to renegotiate FA1 to get under the CAP using CAP Out and such.

I would say any rule would be acceptable to me, but I will say at this time I don't think it would be favorable for the Mules to not be able to deal with my own players in FA1 anyways.

[Matt]

that's the point Kobeck. Jeff is pointing out that your own players will renegotiate with you for dirt cheap, thus allowing you to keep your players.

[sovstar]

Murfreesboro has extended numerous players, and usually for exactly what they asked for. Mules seem to constantly need to renegotiate FA1 to get under the CAP using CAP Out and such.

You might have just made the best argument for passing a rule unintentionally.

[Matt]

but he earned all of those #1 overall players

[JesterBlaze]

Jester, if the cap increases is lowered, then the players will start asking for less money. It's built into the game like that somehow. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but changing the cap increases is only a short term fix.

Thanks. That was my question in that regard.

[Kobeck]

Murfreesboro has had to let lots of players go in FA. Just last year I had to choose between keeping Monroe or Hernandez in FA1. They both retired at the end of the season, but still seems like Vermont got quite the rent a player in Hernandez.

Lots of other X-Mules lost to FA currently starring in the IFL. So extending players pre-contract end season is no guarantee of keeping them long term.


I of course would follow any rule IFL implemented.

And Karl Hinson has not gotten the memo about renegotiating for dirt cheap - lol

[Hell Atlantic]

i agree with jeff that i haven't had to make any tough choices GM-wise in a loooong time in FOF. it seems the latest rage is trying to figure out gameplans. i think the "tough choices" aspect of the game gave way to "let's try to figure out how to run x style of offense/defense". also, figuring out the draft has taken more of a priority than renogotiating your players.

i don't mind these rule changes, i would prefer we didn't have to do them, but i'm just weary of implementing all these do's and dont's and then the commishes have more stuff to police. to me, the draw of MP is i don't have to worry about the AI not being as competitive as i am, thus, i don't need to use any houserules. i kinda don't like having a lot of rules in dealing with humans, cuz like suicane mentioned we can all do the same thing so no one team has any special advantages over the other.

but i'm all for whatever is best for the league and whatever results in a more challenging/entertaining experience. let's just not get too rule-happy.

[sovstar]

Murfreesboro has had to let lots of players go in FA. Just last year I had to choose between keeping Monroe or Hernandez in FA1. They both retired at the end of the season, but still seems like Vermont got quite the rent a player in Hernandez.

Two old farts. 'Nuff said.

Lots of other X-Mules lost to FA currently starring in the IFL. So extending players pre-contract end season is no guarantee of keeping them long term.

Hmmm, X-Mules starring in the IFL? Like who?

[sovstar]

i kinda don't like having a lot of rules in dealing with humans, cuz like suicane mentioned we can all do the same thing so no one team has any special advantages over the other.

Yeah, but like I mentioned before you have to consider the trade-off. Every single year guys bitch about the free agent pool. All signs point to the free agent pool getting thinner and thinner in the future. What will be the point of spending 3 weeks running free agency when there is going to be 1 or 2 quality players in the pool?

The fact of the matter is that this league has gotten by with very few rules. Part of the reason is that we haven't had many guys that will go to the maximum lengths to win. We don't have Ralph trying to bring 120 guys to training camp and we don't have Tubby giving guys backloaded contracts (we have Heaven Pacific doing that instead ).

But now is the time to step up and be a big-boy league. FOF as it is cannot be trusted to provide the best experience without extra rules such as the one being proposed in this thread. We're going to be behind the proverbial eight ball if we don't do something to hinder this issue.

[dberner30]

http://www.fof-usfl.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2566

is the link to the USFL discussions. I dont like it much because identifying a guy you want to lock up long-term early on is a viable GM approach. I have said before that there are a lot of problems with FA and contract negotiation logic. While we are at it why dont we address 1 yr deals as well. They lead to sign and tag when the player ignores better long-term offers in favor of an artificially attractive one year deal that is bait and switch. The logic says i will go cash in next year to the player but the reality is they dont see the franchise tag coming. So if we really need to attack this thing lets talk about covering all the negotiation loopholes. I think CFL is using a one year deal ban for free agency pre-draft and then allowing them for Late free agency.

[dberner30]

http://www.fof-usfl.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2566

is the link to the USFL discussions. I dont like it much because identifying a guy you want to lock up long-term early on is a viable GM approach. I have said before that there are a lot of problems with FA and contract negotiation logic. While we are at it why dont we address 1 yr deals as well. They lead to sign and tag when the player ignores better long-term offers in favor of an artificially attractive one year deal that is bait and switch. The logic says i will go cash in next year to the player but the reality is they dont see the franchise tag coming. So if we really need to attack this thing lets talk about covering all the negotiation loopholes. I think CFL is using a one year deal ban for free agency pre-draft and then allowing them for Late free agency.

and lets expand this same concept to rookies and 1 yr deals since that traps then into RFA status with the team which gets exclusive rights. this is another borderline shady tactic used to pick up good young players on 1 yr deals that arent as good as the 2 and 3 yr deals being offered.