It Was Inevitable (Renegotiation Issues)

[Suicane]

No sir I don't. If Kozure can do it, Me, you and Mr. Magoo can do it too. To me the fact that everyone can do it makes it a wash.

[Suicane]

Yeah, but i was born in 1975. No free agency and sucky free agency are things I like.

[Matt]

In comparison, if I wanted to sign stud RG Amos Bailey I'd be looking at a $36,440,000, 5 yrs extension

[sovstar]

tarcone knows what's up. 8)

[sovstar]

Has your first round pick busted? No, problem. He's an idiot!

[sovstar]

Here's a post by SkyDog that shares his thoughts after experimenting with a reneg-only-in-last-year rule:

I messed around with last-year-only renegotiations a good bit in SP last night, and some this morning as well. I'm pretty comfortable that it will improve things quite a bit, while still allowing teams to keep their core players around for the duration of their careers. I offered "sane" free agent contracts at positions of need, and did extensions in the final year of contracts only. I usually went into FA1-2 (after renegs/cuts in FA1-1) with 5-10% of the cap available to sign free agents (roughly $6M to $12M in IHOF terms), 35-45 players signed, and needing a small number of starters. That created good decisions: do I cut or trade a decent player to free up a little more money to pursue FAs? Do I abstain from free agency this year to better position myself for next season's FA? Do I spend nearly all of that money on that one guy who might put my team over the top, knowing that his big contract may mean I can't afford to pursue free agents next year? Do I extend that one veteran who is asking for a big cap raise now, or franchise him next year? I suspect that making these kinds of decisions would be more fun to most people than the current situation. And let me stress that key players were around for a decade, and if I'd wanted to, I could have kept a good bit more around, but there were times when it made sense to cut the 40/40 guy who had been around for seven years to pursue a 55/55 FA.

Obviously, this doesn't take into account 32 humans doing the same thing, and I wouldn't be surprised if some people make some bad cap decisions that cause them to make a salary cap purge. The good news, though, is that with this system in place, there aren't a bunch of stacked bonuses running around, so my guess is that recovery from a cap-induced purge could be done relatively quickly.

[BuddaKINGII]

I'm in favor of the last year rule. I always negotiate in the last year due to the threat of career ending injuries so I would of never known the difference. Im still waiting till the end of season to decide what I wanna do with Shelton, who by the way is asking for a 5yr/34mil contract extension.

[eckman]

The last year rule makes the most sense/easiest and gets my vote.

[JesterBlaze]

Ultimately my vote will be determined by how extreme the problem is, which I have yet to see, but for now I think it's part of being a GM to re-sign your guys early and too extreme a step to only allow contracts in the final year.

I'm with Suicane in that it's the same for all of us. But I also believe in building through the draft so I'm biased here in that I don't like the idea of teams getting other teams originally drafted players via a potentially over-compensated league-enforced rule.


Are we at minimum in-game salary cap setting? That would help if not.


Nitchske and the others are definitely good examples to bring to the attention of the league.

If this is now a public issue can't we expect a patch soon?

[Cringer]

I guess I am fine with a last year rule. I can't think if I have done it before then that much anyways.

If it comes down to a debate, I think those against it need to at least settle for a last year rule for guys on rookie contracts. Those seem to stand out to me from what Jeff is showing.

[tarcone]

But look at Sanfords intelligence. Its Darwinism.

[tarcone]

will the rule be dropped if there ia a patch?

[tarcone]

But look at Sanfords intelligence. Its Darwinism.

For those of you who dont want to look. Its 0.

[JesterBlaze]

If it comes down to a debate, I think those against it need to at least settle for a last year rule for guys on rookie contracts. Those seem to stand out to me from what Jeff is showing.

If the evidence only proves to be the rookie contracts then I agree with singling them out but not with a last year rule as that can possibly hurt teams who sign rookies to the longer contracts as the players are a season more developed and have a season's more worth of stats to backup their reneg argument. Is their any evidence of players in year 3+ signing these contracts? Would a 3 years in the league minimum rule work?

[sovstar]

But I also believe in building through the draft so I'm biased here in that I don't like the idea of teams getting other teams originally drafted players via a potentially over-compensated league-enforced rule.

As it usually goes, the key is finding the middle ground. Being able to keep a good core, but not 90% of your starters.

Are we at minimum in-game salary cap setting? That would help if not.

The cap will be going up around 6 million I think for a fair amount of years as 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.

If this is now a public issue can't we expect a patch soon?

One would hope so. One would also think that Jim would've fixed the aggressive run/run switcharoo bug in the defensive personnel screen too already. Is it a case of him waiting for X amount of months before a most welcomed update (6.2?)? Would he consider a renegotiation logic rewrite too big for a patch? If that's the case, then you have to consider if his next game is going to be FOF. Most likely this issue won't be fixed until a new version of FOF is released. And then it's a matter of do we upgrade and when.

The most glaring contracts are indeed some of the younger guys, hence my posting them. The issue is more widespread than that though. Other extensions don't necessarily stand out as much, but as a whole they add up. It's clear that players as a whole do not ask for a whole lot in extensions. Their agents are not looking out for them (especially considering our low injury setting ). That doesn't mean that no one is asking for the world. Trust me, I've got a few guys that are giving me hell. They are out there, but they aren't as abundant as they probably should be.

This isn't an "end-of-the-world" issue. It's all about adding more strategy to a game that just doesn't seem as challenging as it used to be. 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.