IFL/Phantoms history....

[JesterBlaze]

Back in 2003 the IFL was a young upstart league and no one could foresee the ways in which it would grow to be the beast we feed today.

There was an inaugural draft which saw many trains of thought: Some teams drafted for the "now", some teams drafted for the future, one had a very damn close but ultimately unsuccessful 3 year plan mocked by many whose successes fell to one knee in comparison, and the Phantoms drafted balanced as always with an eye towards today and an eye towards tomorrow.

Off-seasons came and went and the Phantoms noticed teams giving away players at one position to draft the same position, letting very quality players sit on the roster with 1 year deals despite money in the bank and go to FA the next season, and teams trading the future in an extremely imbalanced way for current draft picks. We made a simple strategy for long term success: Sign our own players if possible and if not get value for them during their last season on contract, and add - don't replace current players - during each off-season.

At some point it was brought to the attention of the league that we could control the salary cap increase. Already focusing on the cap the entire Phantoms organization plead with the league to go with the minimum citing a future of drastic unspent money by those who wouldn't adjust. The league chose not to listen and there was even rejoice by those who'd already gotten themselves in trouble cap-wise.

Fast forward many seasons later and a salary cap unequal to the National Football League, most GMs reference point - though usually of no consequence to the IFL and severy outdated when it is - , and the Phantoms are enjoying the success of the scheme we devised in 2004.


Are we troubled that a "decade" of GMing with foresight is in jeopardy - though never direly so so don't start the pathetic fear talk - by talk of someone in the league a few "months" lobbying for new rules in an attempt to strip the talented rosters this far into the game? Yes. This way or that way I and others put in our time and adjusted to the system. So too should all.

There's a lot of FOF leagues and we can't all adopt the same rules. The IFL is it's own entity and has done damn good up until now. Every proposed change risks that, even if the majority - the same majority that wanted a higher salary cap increase last time - thinks it's a good decision at the time.

[JesterBlaze]

There are definitely some GMs whose opinions I respect on the other side of this argument so to those I ask for the spirit behind the current proposed changes, which to me just seems to be an entitlement mentality of the lesser rosters to the players on the full rosters.

If I trade you my 1st for your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th to me that's for keeps. I see no reason that I should have to outbid you for any of the players in 3-4 seasons while yours single player is signed to a new contract. But I'm open to the other side(s) of this argument.

[BOSS]

Jester, what is your opinion of the Torres situation? Don't you think that is something that needs to be fixed in this game?

When Orlando made that signing it took a lot of money. Fast forward to next year and the player decides to take half of the value of his contract he signed prior to last year.

Orlando ponied up a lot of cash to get him but can turn around and cut the deal in half the next year?? Just not right....

[Coder]

I haven't actually looked at the Torres-deal, but what's the bulk of the offer? Bonus or base? I've yet to see a player accept a heavily backloaded contract, even in FOF2K7, so huge contracts will come back and haunt you.

[Pirates]

I agree the Torres deal is not right, but I am playing by the same rules as everyone else. Right or wrong, it is in the rules.

[tarcone]

I have adapted to the system in place in the 6 seasons I have been on board. I didnt squak that the rules were unfair. I adjusted and am now flourishing. Play by the system. Its the same system for everyone. And you can build a winning team. And more importantly, keep the players you drafted.

[tarcone]

As for Torres. Every team had a chance at him. It is your fault you didnt go hard after him. Not Orlandos. And because Torres wanted less money to resign, it is even worse for you for not trying to sign him. You knew it was going to happen. Everyone in the league knew it was going to happen.
The lesson here is: If a stud ever hits the FA market, you better go after him. Not wait until the next season and complain about how poorly the game manages finances.

[Pirates]

As for Torres. Every team had a chance at him. It is your fault you didnt go hard after him. Not Orlandos. And because Torres wanted less money to resign, it is even worse for you for not trying to sign him. You knew it was going to happen. Everyone in the league knew it was going to happen.
The lesson here is: If a stud ever hits the FA market, you better go after him. Not wait until the next season and complain about how poorly the game manages finances.

Pretty much right on the money. Is it a ton of money if I still had 30-40 million of cap space after I sign him? Because I had more money and could afford it does that make me a bad GM? I think if we signed him and then missed the cap mark and were in trouble financially, then it is a bad deal. But, if we have millions in cap more then other teams and do not outbid for him then I think I am a bad GM for not trying to make my team better.

If everybody thinks resigning him to a lesser deal is an exploit then lets make a rule on it. I think if it was true exploit I would be profiting at a huge expense to everyone else. Please also look at my tenure and history in the league. How have I conducted myself and how have I dealt with player contracts before?

[BOSS]

I agree the Torres deal is not right, but I am playing by the same rules as everyone else. Right or wrong, it is in the rules.

Well at least you agree that it is wrong. Its not your fault, i would have done the same thing with Torres if he was a member of my team. You did nothing wrong. You broke no rules. Just trying to get a rule proposed that would stop this sort of thing in the future.

[Hell Atlantic]

If I trade you my 1st for your 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th to me that's for keeps. I see no reason that I should have to outbid you for any of the players in 3-4 seasons while yours single player is signed to a new contract. But I'm open to the other side(s) of this argument.

thats a great point, actually. can't go both ways.

[Hell Atlantic]

i think the simply thing to do is anything outside of a 2 year deal - you can't renogotiate until the last year of the player's contact. so, for example, if Torres was signed to a 5 year deal with a heavy bonus - no renogotiating until year 5. that way you have to pay him the bulk of the money. now, you still get to keep him on your team by rengotiating him to a cheaper deal, but its in the last year of his contract after you've already paid him a TON of money. when a player is a FA you can offer them as silly a contract as you want, but the drawback should be you can't free up more money after his 1st year, so that means you're out of the running for the next season's prime FAs. that seems the most logical.

[Pirates]

Well at least you agree that it is wrong. Its not your fault, i would have done the same thing with Torres if he was a member of my team. You did nothing wrong. You broke no rules. Just trying to get a rule proposed that would stop this sort of thing in the future.

I am actually all for that rule. We use it in two other leagues and I think it helps the FA a little bit. Not a ton but you see more 50ish players hitting FA and some older studs do not get resigned.

[JesterBlaze]

My thoughts on the Torres' situation go back before Orlando's signing. Torres should never have been a FA. He only was due to very extreme circumstances and I think the league should've appointed a temp qualified GM to resign him and others. That's not how Sui and Matt choose to do it. That's fine.


Now on to when he was a FA: If we didn't have the 50% bonus rule then maybe he goes to a team for a deal in the 2 year $26M range and they're forced to honor the contract. We're shooting ourselves in the foot here with the bonus rule. Players WILL resign almost any deal for another signing bonus if they want to stay with the team. They know that the non-bonus or "Monopoly money" is never to be considered real until the check comes.

Why would a player sign a new contract for half the "value" of his old? The same reason any of us would tear up board game money, or a contract with a 3 year old for a real suitcase full of real money.


Take off the bonus handcuffs and this stuff ends.


Or another thing I thought of last night: Minimum 4-5 year offers on all FAs under a certain age. I believe the game already bumps those since when I try to add a couple years at the same asking price I get "Player won't play for that salary".

[Pirates]

Actually your right on the Torres thing. He should never have hit FA. This may not happen again and if a GM leaves and someone of that quality gets dumped we should probably move in for integrity sakes.

[Jave]

There was an inaugural draft which saw many trains of thought: Some teams drafted for the "now", some teams drafted for the future, one had a very damn close but ultimately unsuccessful 3 year plan mocked by many whose successes fell to one knee in comparison, and the Phantoms drafted balanced as always with an eye towards today and an eye towards tomorrow.

BTW, so few remember how close I came to that plan. I lost 8 starters before mid-season in year 3, and another 2-3 were out at various times throughout the season. At one point, if I remember both starting WR's, starting RB, 2 starting offensive lineman, starting DT and 2 starting LBers were all out for the year. It was fucking crazy, I wanted to cry....literally!!

However the next year I came within ONE FUCKING MINUTE and a certain guy named "Finger" of winning the whole thing!! And yea, like you said, I planned from day one for the future. Remember my team in year one? 3/4 were all rookies or 2nd year starters however all of them had 75-85 potential.

If I had it to do all over again I wouldn't go that extreme with the rookies but my plan did indeed work. The problem occured in year 4 when I had to resign everyone and they were all rated like 78-92 and wanted the BIG fucking contracts. Couldn't afford em and had to trade alot and lost alot in FA.