Free Agency - Out of the Box

[Chris Rex]

What I dont understand is this:

Why make this a RULE? Its already been proven that if you OFFER a contract like this, it WILL BE ACCEPTED over lower bonus but higher salary offers.

Basically, If you structure two different deals for the same amount, one with higher salary and one with higher bonus, the highest bonus will get the player ANYWAY.

So why MANDATE it? If someone doesnt want to offer the huge bonus, they wont get the player, simple. In the Torres situation, he OFFERED a huge bonus and got the player, then he restructured that huge bonus and had to eat some cap space. It would work the same way under this 'new rule'.

This is REALLY trying to tell people how to play the game. If they offer the contracts the way your RULE implies, they will get the players they want.
The bottom line is, I really dont see this as a rule change, so much as 'this is how guys are getting the big name players ANYWAY'.
All this would do is force everyone to play in this exact same style, and for no reason. This would not go over big.

[r00k]

I really don't get it. Can someone explain it? How will one owner outbid another? And what about other factors, like, "play for winner"? Teams that suck would be at a huge disadvantage here as I'm not offering enough money to tempt the guy from signing with a Lawrence or Norfolk.

Jave ... you outbid by the amount of real dollars you put on the table to the player in the bonus.

Other factor llike play for winner, loyalty etc are the wild cards that no one can predict, just like in real life. I bet if you do offer enough money, he will sign with you and not a winning franchise. You are assuming that Norfolk and Lawrence type teams have unlimited cash to sign everyone. We don't. In fact we are at the bottom of the list with excess cap.

[Jave]

You must off the $5 to $6 mil in bonus and multiply that bonus times the number of years of the proposed contract.

With this system, if you want a FA, you better be serious, cause you will pay the piper every dime of that bonus that you offer. And if you really want a player and you have millions in cap, then spend that cap anyway you want ... but again once spent it is gone.

In the Torres deal, the bonus on the original deal would have been around $80 mil and it would have been guaranteed money with no chance to renegotiate it down.

Now this is ONLY for OFF-Season FA negotiations. Other negotiations are handled as they are now.

So there is NO chance to redo the contract to save money down the road? This sounds like DG's idea only much better worded haha.

[JesterBlaze]

We'd need a house limit on total bonus money spent by each team to go along with this. Once a team's in trouble with bonus money the league can literally stop (I believe) since there's no way to rectify that.

I played a quick SP game one night and cut almost everyone from my inaugural draft without looking at the future bonus that I was bringing on to the next season's cap. When the next season came I was surprisingly in a position where I simply couldn't sign enough people at league minimum to field a team. I didn't inspect ways to get out of it much but it appeared to me that the game was simply over at that point.


I can see someone coming into the IFL with a Dan Snyder mentality and put their team in serious trouble with one off-season. I like the proposed rule so far. This is just one cautionary tale of what could happen without league foresight.

[Jave]

Jave ... you outbid by the amount of real dollars you put on the table to the player in the bonus.

Other factor llike play for winner, loyalty etc are the wild cards that no one can predict, just like in real life. I bet if you do offer enough money, he will sign with you and not a winning franchise. You are assuming that Norfolk and Lawrence type teams have unlimited cash to sign everyone. We don't. In fact we are at the bottom of the list with excess cap.

No sorry, I was confused. It sounded like everyone makes basically the same offer...I was way off!! haha

[JesterBlaze]

This sounds like DG's idea only much better worded haha.

No. DG's idea stretched outside the scope of what it was intended to do by interfering with our ability to restructure contracts mid-season. r00k (Is the "R" capital when starting a sentence r00k? ) has devised an idea to penalize the sign-and-resign FA technique that's bothering a lot of GMs that pretty much sticks to that part of the game.

[Cringer]

I can't stand it, because it applies to everyone. Rookie FA's? Scrubs? It's a good idea I guess, I just don't like it.

As for picking at it, teams with the best stadiums have the advantage do to the fact they bring in more money and their owner gives them more bonus money to spend each year. Now we have to come up with a rule to fix that problem to make things 'fair' and the cycle continues of adding rules trying to fix FOF.

Teams have gone from being on top to dropping down, or have risen up from the bottom, under our current system. Our current system is not as horrible as some guys give the impression. No offense to Orlando, but does the Torres deal mean they are taking down Lawrence without even a thought about Vermont and Newark? I doubt that. I think it's getting too much focus, just my opinion though.

[Chris Rex]

HERES A RULE CHANGE IDEA:

Let's start the season. Today. So people are no longer bored and need to post 7000 fucking rule changes in a league that was peaceful as shit 6 months ago.

"Start the games, end the madness."

[r00k]

Ok, and what are the benefits of this plan? Where does the signing bonus actually come from? The available cap the team has left to spend?

I have to admit, I am NOT well versed in the inner workings of the salary cap which is why this idea confuses me. What would be the advantage to using a "bonus only" strategy in terms of the offers made during free agency?

Jave ... benefits

1. All of the excess cap sitting around could start to be reduced over time since the moneys used are primarily guaranteed with no chanced to renegotiate.
2. FA are open to all in a equal and defined way ... winning bid will be based on the cap offered and the length of the contract (and those intangibles like loyalty). I think all players will differ a little on their preferences (i.e., a younger player will prefer a shorter term rather than a longer term for example) ... but if the money is right (like $80 mil - I can see the younger player snapping that up too.
3. No more Torres renegotiations.

[r00k]

HERES A RULE CHANGE IDEA:

Let's start the season. Today. So people are no longer bored and need to post 7000 fucking rule changes in a league that was peaceful as shit 6 months ago.

"Start the games, end the madness."

I did do this out of complete boredom ...and really prefer your thought to move forward. But, all in all, I still think the idea has some merit. I also agree with Cringer's remarks above.

[JesterBlaze]

It's a good idea I guess, I just don't like it.

haha Classic!!

As for picking at it, teams with the best stadiums have the advantage do to the fact they bring in more money and their owner gives them more bonus money to spend each year. Now we have to come up with a rule to fix that problem to make things 'fair' and the cycle continues of adding rules trying to fix FOF.

Does FOF limit bonus money? I thought we all could spend up to the salary cap, though I've already given reason for a needed house limit below the salary cap.

[r00k]

haha Classic!!




Does FOF limit bonus money? I thought we all could spend up to the salary cap, though I've already given reason for a needed house limit below the salary cap.

Now that you mention it, ticket sales do not have an impact on the salary side of things. We all have the same cap and we differ by what contracts we have negotiated with our players.

The extra ticket sales only allows for extra spending money for coaches, staff and possibly to fund a stadium improvement. I think this is right.

[Cringer]

Does FOF limit bonus money? I thought we all could spend up to the salary cap, though I've already given reason for a needed house limit below the salary cap.

Each team has a maximum bonus amount they can offer at once. So say I can offer superstar FA RB a bonus of $68 million but another team is only allowed to offer a max bonus of $46 million because of their financial situation. I win out on top free agents over that team and others like him whenever I want.

It just leads to more rules, it all does at this point.

[r00k]

Each team has a maximum bonus amount they can offer at once. So say I can offer superstar FA RB a bonus of $68 million but another team is only allowed to offer a max bonus of $46 million because of their financial situation. I win out on top free agents over that team and others like him whenever I want.

It just leads to more rules, it all does at this point.

But Cringer, only if you decide to offer that and once you do that once or twice, you will be in the same situation as guys with less money - it will eventually catch up to you (like a credit card). That is the basic rule of the free market. Spend your money and you will have less to spend and be in charge of the free market.

[BOSS]

Since the other rule was shot down for the 2nd time im in favor of anything that will help this mess out. Good thinking r00k!