New FA Signing "Problem" - New Rule Inside

[Cringer]

This is very odd, but apperently done ON PURPOSE according to Solecismic.

I am going to sleep soon, so I will check this thread in the A.M. and see what else has been said.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=33131

Edit: Where I see this being a big problem is in resigning guys already under cntract. I have not tested it because I am too damn tired right now, but I think it is NOTas big of a problem with FA's n th open market. With franchise tagged guys and guys being resigned then yeah, it sounds like a problem, :?

Edit: rule abolished

[BreizhManu]

I don't think it hurts that much.

Sure for the owner it has some advantages cap wise, but the player becomes untradable and if he sustains a long injury and his career is over that will really hurt the team.

I see it as a gamble, unless there is some abuse, I'm fine with that.

[ThomasG]

If you would have to raise the bonus to have the player agree to that kind of contract, all would have been fine, but the bonus stays the same, therefore the player accepts a far lesser contract in total than his demand was in the beginning.

I really don't think there are many players accepting that IRL, regardless of the possibility of a release.

[Kcin]

this is very serious!

I would vote for banning any use of this glitch!

[roadrash]

This isn't good, could hose the league up for a number of years depending on when it's fixed.

Plus, Jim believes it works as intended, I do hope he realizes it is a bug. A killer one too

[Warhammer]

I'm not so sure it is a glitch, I was checking some of the salaries for Rams players, and Kyle Turley is only paid $535,000 this year. Bulger is only getting $455,000! Hell, Torry Holt is getting $535,000 this year!

The only players making more than $1 million that I found were Pace (franchised), Aeneas Williams ($2 mil), Bruce ($4.7 mil) and Faulk ($2 mil), which is substantially less than I would have assumed they would all make.

So before we all assume this is a glitch, let's wait a bit. Also, as someone else pointed out, having a contract with little to no salary is a bit of a gamble, as any significant/career ending injury has substantially more dead cap space.

[roadrash]

I'm not so sure it is a glitch, I was checking some of the salaries for Rams players, and Kyle Turley is only paid $535,000 this year. Bulger is only getting $455,000! Hell, Torry Holt is getting $535,000 this year!

The only players making more than $1 million that I found were Pace (franchised), Aeneas Williams ($2 mil), Bruce ($4.7 mil) and Faulk ($2 mil), which is substantially less than I would have assumed they would all make.

So before we all assume this is a glitch, let's wait a bit. Also, as someone else pointed out, having a contract with little to no salary is a bit of a gamble, as any significant/career ending injury has substantially more dead cap space.

Didn't most of those players just resign in the last year? The first year is usually for minimum, but it escalaes in later years. The team then cuts or renegotiates, which this new, "improvement", compensates for.

Either way it will cause caos in our league. Those owners that have already signed their big name players to big deals are stuck with them, while new signings will get more bang for their buck

[Hammett]

[ Either way it will cause caos in our league. Those owners that have already signed their big name players to big deals are stuck with them, while new signings will get more bang for their buck

stuck with them for one year, then they can renegotiate...but it does make it seem likely that there will never be a good free agent available again

[roadrash]

Either way it will cause caos in our league. Those owners that have already signed their big name players to big deals are stuck with them, while new signings will get more bang for their buck

stuck with them for one year, then they can renegotiate...but it does make it seem likely that there will never be a good free agent available again[/quote]

And I don't think that the salary cap will matter anymore

[Suicane]

This is bad, bad, bad.

[Icy]

As i have seen in the NAFL were a lot of us renegotiated before knowing this was a bug, this affect a lot the future years salary cap. All teams there will be under cap next year for more than 20 millons. We talked about it before knowing it was a bug and some pointed that mybe the free agency will be much more agressive as we will have more cap room so at the end the market will put things again as they should cap wise. I think it should be tuned by Jim.

[Warhammer]

As i have seen in the NAFL were a lot of us renegotiated before knowing this was a bug, this affect a lot the future years salary cap. All teams there will be under cap next year for more than 20 millons. We talked about it before knowing it was a bug and some pointed that mybe the free agency will be much more agressive as we will have more cap room so at the end the market will put things again as they should cap wise. I think it should be tuned by Jim.

I think I agree with this. I think a lot will be determined looking at FA next year.

Also, don't forget what will happen to your cap number if your player goes down, and you want to cut them. That will be a significant hit if it happens to a star player.

Also, I know Turley was in his second year of the deal at least. Bruce is in the first or second year of his new deal.

[Suicane]

I think a decision has to be made before we go forward. Wether or not theres going to be a house rule in the league against using this feature/bug. To go willy nilly ahead and then complain later would be counterproductive IMO.

[Cringer]

I have a hard time excepting this as is, placing a rule is a pain in the ass as we would have to check every resigning/signing. And then you have the problem with a rule of then having to figure out the fair and unfair offers, and drawing a line.....hmmmm. What a pain in the ass....

[Kobeck]

I used this technique, not knowing it was in any way a technique, to renogiatite with DT's Ash and Monroe, probably a couple of others but nobody else on my roster is worth talking about. :lol:

Anyhow, the way I see it, if those guys go down or retire then the Mules suffer a huge CAP hit as all the bonus money comes forward. Again the same as if I wanted too cut them. Also what about holdouts with the minimum salary's. I guess that would have to be more of a concern IMO.

I can see plusses and minuses with this and really all it accomplished too me is to keep the CAP even instead of gyratting with backloaded contracts - which is what I wanted too do. I paid them the money up front and leveled their contracts out over the remainder of their careers.