|
Post by kiko13 on Aug 18, 2010 23:10:27 GMT -5
I am guessing this will get shot down real quick, but I will throw it out there anyways.
I know I have only been in the league about a week and maybe I just haven't seen enough of how all this works during the season or early in the offseason, but so far I have only seen 5 year contracts offered to free agents. And why wouldn't they be? Obviously if there is no RB there is absolutely no downside to offering the longest contract allowed.
My thought is to require a minimum RB on all FA. Perhaps lower the minimum to 5000 (it's 10000 now, right?) and no required RB on contracts offered that are only 1 year in length.
Here is my reasoning. First, it would actually require some thinking on the owner's part about the length of the contract rather than constantly blindly making every contract 5 years. Really think the guy is going to turn into something big? Offer that 5 year contract. Could be big, but not so sure and want to be a little conservative? Go 2-4 years. Only need the guy for a couple of weeks as a bye week or injury fill in? Offer 1 year (hence the idea of not requiring a RB on 1 year contracts).
Ya, it's always great when you can snag that sleeper gem for next to nothing and now you have him for 5 years, but if you're wrong, there is absolutely no downside, you just end up dropping the guy. I just feel there should be some thought involved and some sort of payment/penalty for taking chances on long term contracts and being wrong. if you do end up keeping a small contract guy for several years it's not going to cost much assuming it's 5000/yr for RB, but picking up tons of guys hoping to find that cheap long term stud will end up costing you if you continue to only offer 5 year contracts.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by dabest3 on Aug 18, 2010 23:15:38 GMT -5
nah i think what he have is good. maybe that could be considered next season but for this season no because it would mess things up
|
|
|
Post by kiko13 on Aug 18, 2010 23:35:26 GMT -5
nah i think what he have is good. maybe that could be considered next season but for this season no because it would mess things up Oops, forgot to mention that if we did do this it would probably need to go into effect in the next offseason. Thanks for the reminder.
|
|
|
Post by patsfan on Aug 18, 2010 23:50:54 GMT -5
very well thought out. thanks for that suggestion. you seem to be getting a hang of it around here. thats interesting.
first off, we dont have a minimum rb in place (u said 10,000) just 250k for salary.
anyway yeah thats interesting. i dont think a 5k minimum rb is gonna be a huge deal to add in, but im not sure if its necessary. i mean thats just one more regulation to crowd our very complex rulebook.
ur reasoning makes a lot of sense, but i dunno. our league was built with a 30 player offseason limit and owners scrambling to fill it with quality guys in fa. if the player in question has any percieved value there will most likely be rb on the player anyway. and when owners sign guys for 250 k, it means they are the only ones interested and often they will even add a little rb to scare others off who arent serious (iv done it). so its a good idea but im not sure how much of an effect it will have and if its really necessary.
plus while i have nothing against it, i have a feeling most of the owners will prefer to just keep the status quo
wel see what the commish thinks
ps- ur ariving late in this leagues offseason so u havent lived through the first month of fa. ul find that players dont get 5 year deals like they are currently. its just cause most of the players bid on recently arent very high profile. at the start it isnt at all like that, 5 year deals are a lot more rare because of the risk with rb
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Aug 19, 2010 20:29:19 GMT -5
I actually really like the idea but if i remember right we already talked about this in staff didnt we?
but basically we decided that RB is more of a tool for owners to really drive up that price of an FA without getting an outrageous salary, it adds another thing to increase in FA besides just yearly salary. So if owners really want an FA they put a RB on them to oust the other bidders, and of course, theres the downside that if the player is a bust and gets traded or cut, they have to pay off that RB.
the rb adds that risk/reward factor for the high bidders going after high profile players, somewhat like real life contracts in the NFL when teams sign the big guns.
and Sim's right, when we had FA 'month' not everybody was 5 yr deal, there were a lot of 3s and 4s, even a couple 2s
|
|
|
Post by kiko13 on Aug 21, 2010 10:54:22 GMT -5
OK, thanks for the feedback. Like I said, I haven't been through in-season or early offseason free agency scenarios yet. However, based on what I just saw recently I could see another thing that's exploitable for free agency (and could possibly be discouraged with a required RB).
GB upped a bid on Willie Parker for the sake of raising the salary, he didn't actually want the player. Not a big deal really, this sort of thing happens all the time in auction leagues. However, as soon as he won him, he dropped him since no one outbid him. There were no RB's involved so the drop had absolutely no effect on GB, but all it did for the rest of the league was make the bidding start over for Willie Parker. In an auction league, if you try to increase a bid on a player just for the sake of getting the price up, but end up getting stuck with him, you lose out on that money that you bid (whether you plan to keep him or not). In this league, what GB did may have been a little bit of a d-bag move, but was completely within the rules.
The way things are set up now, someone could bid a small amount on a player, I could come along as say, I don't want them to have that player or I want to delay them getting that player or something along those lines and bid $8,000,000 (this is for a scrub keep in mind), obviously no one is going to outbid for that so I win the player and then just drop him. No downside for me at all and it delays the player from being picked up. D-bag move? Likely. Within the rules? Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by kiko13 on Aug 21, 2010 11:00:56 GMT -5
first off, we dont have a minimum rb in place (u said 10,000) just 250k for salary. I thought I saw somewhere that the first time a bid includes RB it needed to be at least 10,000. Maybe I got that mixed up with needing to increase the bid by at least 10%. So are you saying I could do an RB of $1 if I wanted (kind of pointless, but asking just in theory).
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Aug 21, 2010 11:47:03 GMT -5
For the minimum RB, i'd have to look in the rules to confirm it but off top of my head i dont beleive there is a min RB bid, but i think common sense should take care of that. in theory tho, yes you could bid $1 RB.
and for the GB scenario thing, as of now, that's how the game works, we set it up that way, were going with it for now. so far it's worked pretty good, if it's a problem, can we fix it and change it? of course.
|
|