Constitution, Rules, Suggestions

[Suicane]

I want to clean the constitution up and make things clearer for a lot of the guys who've joined us the past couple of years. First thing I want to do is get your opinions on whether you'd like to keep the Rule about 1 and 2 year deals in free agency or switch to a flat 3 year contract rule for all offers during free agency.

If you have any other suggestions let me hear them.

[DakotaGeorge]

What would a flat 3 year contract rule be. Does that mean all contracts would have to be a minimum of 3 years? If thats the case I dont support that. I dont want to sign a 15 year vet to a 3 year deal

[Suicane]

Yes, that's what it would mean. A flat 3 year rule during early free agency.

[Suicane]

I've started a couple polls in the polling section. Look them over and vote, and more important give me feedback on things you'd like to see or whatever.

[Mike17]

The argument against the 3 year rule is always that old guys have to get a 3 year deal as well.

Maybe cap it out at some arbitrary experience level, like 12th year guys and older are fair game for any contract.

[Suicane]

I really don't like that idea. I think the older the guy is adds to the strategy. There are 12 year guys who still have something left, it becomes a question of do you throw extra money his way or lose out on the bidding process.

[iceman99]

OK I can see the good and bad in this...

I am not sold that I would be ok with it for ALL of free agency... Maybe the first half... *ALL players require a flat 3 year offer in free agency stages 1-6* or something like that... Because offering a 23/23 12 year mentor a 3 year deal in the later stages would be discouraging...

The good - I think that less teams would be willing to throw HUGE money/bonus at an older player because it would be a major money risk if the guy retired after the one season. I think that would open up the players to more teams... But if there is an older player that teams have to have and they will spend the money regardless... IMO

The bad - the loss of the current 1/2 year rule.. this is a nice rule and wish more leagues did it. And depending on the rules about the flat 3 year deal... you could have teams offer big salaries and smaller bonus... so the cap hit should they retire would not be as bad.

Just my input...

[DakotaGeorge]

Why fix what isn't broken? Leave the rule as is and leave it as ANY contract not this EFA LFA idea either.

[Suicane]

Because I'm asking the members of the league for their input based on how a lot of other leagues that they are in are run.

[DDT]

I doubt this league would go for it but I'd like to see something like throw all the contract rules out the window and require each team to cut down to say 8-12 players of 5+ years experience sometime soon after retirements are announced. It would make the league more attractive to new owners, increase the value of FA and the draft, more closely resemble the NFL (with my picks, signed players and RFA's I was fairly close to the 70 man roster limit. Ridiculous.) I'm no expert but I think it would also allow the defense to play a larger role by limiting offensive cohesion. Most importantly it would add a whole bunch of roster management strategies to a game that is frankly a little stale.

[SteveBsFan]

Either:

- Can't bid on a new coach or scout while you still have one employed
or
- Similar to FA, the 1st stage is only for the re-sign chance

I like the latter option better to be put up for vote...

[DDT]

Either:

- Can't bid on a new coach or scout while you still have one employed
or
- Similar to FA, the 1st stage is only for the re-sign chance

I like the latter option better to be put up for vote...

I don't like either of these. Hiring/firing staff doesn't seem to be causing any kind of problems other than the ones I want are far more likely to resign with their current team all things being relatively equal. Seems realistic.

If by first 1st stage you mean early FA1 that's already built into the game. Couldn't change that if we wanted. If you are referring to ALL of early FA you'd be killing FA. As long as your offer doesn't get the 'my client' statement I think virtually every player would resign with their current team for far less money than they'd get on the free market.

[markc]

I tend to like the current rule regarding bonus money - I always thought it applied through the whole FA and I think that would be easiest for everyone to follow.

I looked around a little bit, seems a lot of leagues have this rule:
Players currently under contract may only be offered a renegotiated contract in the last year of their existing contract.

And some leagues have this rule:
An FA (in some or all of the FA stages) may NOT be offered a 1 year deal

I don't know if these would be a big impact on FA but I think the first one would be hard to "police".

Finally, I disagree with DDT's statement that coaches and players require "far more" money to be signed away from their current team. I've seen it happen with a difference of $10k and I think it routinely occurs with $100k or so. That said, I don't think it is a problem with players since we are all operating under the same salary cap. IMO, the coaching staff is a bit of an issue - where I think there is some concern of a snowball effect. I think something like SteveBs second suggestion might be good for the league. Does anyone play in a league where there are any limits on coach signing - does it work well?

[JesterBlaze]

Steve means 1st stage of Staff Hiring, DDT.

[SteveBsFan]

Steve means 1st stage of Staff Hiring, DDT.

Yea, I mean the first stage of staff hiring, only allow teams to re-sign their coaches. If the coach doesn't take the offer, allow other teams to bid.