More Rules discussion
 

Since we are still in off season, and have gotten active again, I would like to toss around another idea, kind of an offshoot of RFA.

In Frenzy, you can only have a player for a max of 5 years. So when we draft rookies, we are using part of that 5 years, in most cases, to let a player develop. So, for pretty much all positions other than RB, we lose a big chunk of this contract while letting a guy get his bearing.

I would propose that while we keep the TS and PS size the same, 5 and 3 total, and the round in which we can place a draft pick on our PS, we would not have a years cap, but instead would not be required to put contract years on a player until we declare them active. This gives us a full contract like we would get for UFA's and RFA's. The limits once you declare an 'Active' contract would be the same as they are currently.

Thoughts?

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Also, salary would be set the same, and would roll up each year as currently stated, 10% plus bonuses..

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Re: More Rules discussion
 

This sounds like how we set it up in baseball. However, I think the bigger issue is that we can't reneg players. I would be fine with leaving it as it it but adding some reneg ability (not quite sure how to phrase that idea) to the process.

If that does not take than I can see this as a viable alternative.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Burt is only proposing this because his taxi squad is already maxed out! :)

My $0.02:

I like the strategic aspect of having to assign years and live within the taxi squad cap. Makes you think more, make the hard decisions. Under this proposal, you will just hold on to five players. When one of them pans out, you will assign the max contract and practically hold on to him forever. Is this what we really want?

Also, the off-season FA wire will dry up even more. The off-season activity is why I like this league. I'd rather have as many players as possible up for bidding in June. After the draft, that's where the fun is!

Re: More Rules discussion
 

I'm not in favor of giving players a "free pass" on the TS/PS until declared active... that's one of the challenges in drafting & assigning contract years. I could see adding an additional 1-2 years for any player on the PS... but I think you should declare it at the start. I agree that it would adversely affect the UFA market. So much of what makes this league great is the "supply & demand" principle. With no renegotiation, just about every player will (sooner or later) be available to every one of us... IF WE CHOOSE TO PUT OUR MONEY THERE.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

My argument against would be you still would only have 5 spots on TS and 3 on PS....how long can you really hold on to these players when we draft 4 rounds each year? You really think this will take a chunk of players out of action? At most, you can only keep a player on your TS for 3 years....

And yes, it does sort of have something to do with my current situation, but with this proposal, I would still have decisions to make to make room for new crop of rookies....

Re: More Rules discussion
 

It's the monopolizing of a player that I'm most concerned about. You could hold onto a player for 3 or 4 years until he finds his place (ala Rogers in GB) and THEN slap a 5-year tag on him... pretty much guaranteeing no one else in the league's gonna get their hands on him. That's just way too long for me.

But like I said... if we want to expand the number of years available to 4th rounders, that might drastically change the way we draft for our PS.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

well, if you draft smart, then having a player that long is a bonus for waiting on the guy you were smart enought to draft.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

If you draft smart... you'll have guys you can use BEFORE that time.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

1st and 2nd round yes, but 3rd and 4th rounders?

Re: More Rules discussion
 

I don't know how much credit should be given to "drafting smart" in later rounds....I do as much research as I can, even on the undrafted rookies. And I still think 3rd and 4th rounders are practically a crapshoot that has more to do with luck and circumstances than with player talent.

So I gotta side with Jim on this one. The reason why this league is more fun than the usual contract dynasty is because enough good players hit RFA and FA. Even so, I think our FA pool is fairly dry this year. I'd say, let's not jeopardize the important stuff because we want to get a chance to keep the good rookies for 8 years.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

This proposal changes the draft strategy for some players as mentioned. Under this proposal I believe there are quite a few players that would have more value than they have now.

I also believe this proposal puts more value on the draft and takes some value away from FA. The draft is my favorite part and I like the proposal.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

I think it's a matter of magnitudes. Yes, draft value goes up, but FA value goes down more.

Either way, it looks like Burt is close to securing a majority here. Maybe put it to a vote and wrap up the issue?

Since the draft has already started and people have made their choices, I am guessing it can't be effective immediately, but starting next off-season.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Anyone can put a rule up for vote... but yes, since the draft has already started this year (and RFA bidding had an impact on who one chooses to draft)... should this have a majority, it would be in effect NEXT football year.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Re: More Rules discussion
 

I love stirring things up...LOL

I can certainly put it up for vote...I was hoping to get some opinions for different options of doing this...maybe a total limit...if you go past a certain number of years, you lose RFA rights to the player, etc.

technically, this is still the off season, so any rules passed will go into effect for this years season.

I really do not see how this can change the way you draft players, but maybe that is just me....

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Scorpions is right - let's move away from the Aaron Rodgers example. That's a clear outlier case.

The reason why FA suffers is because every year you will dump the crappy players and keep the promising ones for an extra year. If you chose to throw a player away, how likely is it that the FA benefits much from his addition to the waiver wire?

Then, the few good guys that eventually make your active roster will not hit the FA until FIVE years after they become useful to you. Under the current situation, they would hit RFA/FA in only TWO-THREE years - and that's assuming you had to wisdom to give them max contract in the first place.

That's how the FA/RFA suffers: most good players will be kept much longer and cheaper.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

yeah but you only have 5 slots, how many guys are you goign to keep each year, one maybe two, then you have to toss guys out there, plenty of guys get thrown to the waiver wire, Example Foster was a FA last year, someone already gave up on him, heck i cut peyton hillis after 2 years of him rotting on denvers sideline. SO basically your assumign you are perfect at assuming who is better players. If i was that good, i would be workign for an NFL team.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

It may seem like "only 5 players" but for the league as a whole, this becomes 60 potential quality FAs that will be "hoarded" until the cows come home (or they get put into action & given a 5-year "stay out of the FA market" pass!).

It may be just my opinion... but I think this will have a MAJOR impact on the league (and not in the right direction).

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Right...my point is, you take a chance on a rookie, and a lot of times, you ONLY get 2-3 years benefit....if you sign a good UFA, you can get 5 years benefit....

How about this as an alternate, as I know what is coming, a good FA/RFA will be paid premium dollars. If you do take a rookie to max of 5 years after being on your roster for 1 or more years, than his salary will be adjusted somehow...like maybe 5 % below top 10 average salary or 50-100% increase in current years salary....something to offset the normal low price ....

I just don't want to put into play something thats going to make people want to leave the league...I guess this is a very sensitive subject with some of you....

Re: More Rules discussion
 

LOL

Not as sensitive as you may think from this thread... just opinionated.
But yes, if we adjusted the contract to make it more like an NFL "Franchise" tag... then that might be more equitable.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

ok..I'll put together a few options and put out an initial yes/no vote to see where the majority lies...

Re: More Rules discussion
 

your argument about 60 hoarded assumes you are not keeping any you draft, or promoting them right to active from there, I just don’t see the math here, and if your hoarding 60 players among all teams , then were all really good at evaluating talent, and need to call the NFL today so we can all get jobs, we could make millions in the NFL.
LOL

Re: More Rules discussion
 

My preference would be 'against', but I will fall in line with whatever the majority prefers.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

This wouldnt be effective till next year even if it did pass, I think were at that point of the year already, new rules have to be in place before any new season activities start, we already started the year with RFA.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

and based on the posts so far,i only see 3 for 3 against, so I am doubting this would pass.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

See what happens when the draft slows down, LOL

Re: More Rules discussion
 

It would take effect this year, as we are still in the off-season

Re: More Rules discussion
 

ok, so i am wrong, happens once in while, lol

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Reading the posts and opinions it appears some are missing the point (or at least some of it) that all players drafted will not be effected by this proposal and will reach FA as usual. My first 2 pick will most likely (at least I expect) be on my active roster. Also I would think that at least 2 of Chunks picks will be on his active roster. I haven't looked at everyones roster but I'm sure other picks will be on active rosters before the season is over.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Nah....I don't see how. If you insist on putting it up for this season, I will ask for a separate vote to check the views of the majority. It seems very clear to me that the implications of such a rule would be significant for drafting and pick trade decisions. Most of those have already been made. This would be changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Fair enough...not that I agree, but no matter, I can buy into it...I doubt its going to pass anyways...

I'll word it to take effect next year, without a grandfather clause, so would only affect Rookies drafted from 2012 and on....

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Maybe we need some more discussion from those that haven't weighed in yet before we vote.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

I'll post something on Monday..that will give everyone plenty of time to weigh in on suggested alternatives...I understand there are people completely against it, so you can just vote no...I am looking for creative suggestions as possible variations in case majority votes yes...thanks...

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Perhaps I misunderstood the issue?

Is the concern that we can't get proper use of 3rd and 4th rounders in the short window between the player becoming a viable starter and hitting free agency?

If so, here is one idea:

Let's increase the maximum contract for those picks to 7 or 8 years. If you think you have a gem on your hands, call your shot in advance and give him a longer contract so you can have him available cheaply and longer once he matures. On the other hand, if you just stumble into a lucky pick, you probably wouldn't have assigned a longer contract to begin with, so you wouldn't get rewards for being lucky.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

I am against this proposal for the reason Jim and Mike have mentioned. This would significantly impact the value of draft picks and make FA less important, one of the reasons why I enjoy Frenzy more than SAC'D.

It would basically ensures that studs never hit FA during their prime years since you can sit and wait for them to develop. Well like Jim mentioned if you draft smart then you can use players BEFORE their rookie contracts run out.

The heart of the matter is everyone values the draft differently. Some place more value on draft picks than other. It seems to me that Burt has reassessed the value of draft picks to be lower than he previously thought because of all the factors he mentioned. Does that mean the system is broken or flawed? I don't think so, since it has created an enjoyable league for 10 years. It just means that an alteration in strategy is required to make use of his new valuation on draft picks.

Also if ANYTHING REMOTELY close to this comes to pass, it SHOULD NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL the 2013 Rookie draft. It is unfair to owners who have already traded future 2012 draft picks at their current valuation, especially when the proposed changes SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT the value of draft picks.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

Well I COMPLETELY DISAGREE that this rule would have SIGNIFICANT impact on FA's, rookie impact, or peoples drafting strategy. That is a TOTAL crock IMO. I am going to draft the same people I think will help my team regardless of if I can keep them 3 years or 8. I would still have taken Golden Tate, Brandon LaFell, Price and Ford last year at same spots, regardless of which rule was in place. You are still going to take the best guy who fits into your needs...crazyness....

I'm certainly not going to propose a rule now that won't take effect for 2 years...but you can certainly vote no based solely on that fact if you care too.....

Aren't you guys glad you let me in this league? Buwahahahahahaha....

Re: More Rules discussion
 

For those that think it will dilute the FA market, one could also think there might be an increase in trades due to higher quality players available for trade.

Re: More Rules discussion
 

(We just need more people to make their picks... and all would be well in the league!)

Re: More Rules discussion
 

LOL..true dat...I don't think I have any left though....