Inaugural Contracts

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Like I can spell that. Sheesh...say initial year. Anyway. I agree with one year, so Skippy has a chance in year two!

bite me rami.

i will still own your ass no matter what the rules are.

(i meant that in the nices way) ;)

[Flaxwless]

are you two life partners?

edit to add: come to california and you can be husband and husband.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

are you two life partners?

edit to add: come to california and you can be husband and husband.

No, but we mock each other that way. There's just too much material to work with when mocking him.

He somehow has a way of beating me though. Last year, I played him when I had my season low score by 16 points. I needed Ahman Green to get 53 yards rushing (that's it) on MNF. He didn't... ugh!

He always comes up with an excuse for losing.

I would say that is his greatest strength.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Okay so after year one are rosters essentially cleared other than franchise tag or players received via trade (that can be given extensions). I agree that limiting this may help teams out but I think making one year the maximum is a bad idea. I would agree with a 2 or 3 maximum in the beginning (by the way if there is a rookie draft would this same cap apply) but it seems like we are essentially starting a re-draft for this year.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay so after year one are rosters essentially cleared other than franchise tag or players received via trade (that can be given extensions). I agree that limiting this may help teams out but I think making one year the maximum is a bad idea. I would agree with a 2 or 3 maximum in the beginning (by the way if there is a rookie draft would this same cap apply) but it seems like we are essentially starting a re-draft for this year.

I agree. Let's cap it at 3 years for first year contracts, to allow teams to reneg on players that are affordable and keepers, rookies included.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Okay so after year one are rosters essentially cleared other than franchise tag or players received via trade (that can be given extensions). I agree that limiting this may help teams out but I think making one year the maximum is a bad idea. I would agree with a 2 or 3 maximum in the beginning (by the way if there is a rookie draft would this same cap apply) but it seems like we are essentially starting a re-draft for this year.

I agree here. I think we need to put more thought into this. I could go along with only franchise and RFA tags as ways to keep players, but I don't like instituting the trade reneg for the first year. That won't help balance out the talent. Teams with the best talent could trade good, but not RFA quality players to other teams with excess talent and both teams get the bonus of the reneg. Meanwhile, teams still adjusting to the system could be left out of the cold.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I agree here. I think we need to put more thought into this. I could go along with only franchise and RFA tags as ways to keep players, but I don't like instituting the trade reneg for the first year. That won't help balance out the talent. Teams with the best talent could trade good, but not RFA quality players to other teams with excess talent and both teams get the bonus of the reneg. Meanwhile, teams still adjusting to the system could be left out of the cold.

Agreed.

But Franchising wont work because it is based off player salaries and if we are not carring anyone over than the average will be 0.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

if there is no reneg of trades, then it's a re-draft next year because all players are set for 1-yr contract this year. In which case, why would I trade since I can't reneg the contract.
However, I do see your valid point (and I would hate to keep Skippy as the bottom dweller for tooooo long). Good teams get better, etc.
However, on the other hand, if we are all starting fresh (not taking over someone else's team and cap hits, etc), then we all are on the same footing. That means, you have to draft/auction well this year. If NOT, you suck...I mean, it's your own fault for having a crappy team and no one wants to play with you (read this with a little glibness in my voice - not cold-hearted bastard!). What I am saying in a very long-winded way is that we are all on the same starting position and I don't think anyone will have a distinct advantage (unless they are just that much a better FF owner than someone else - in which case, Kudos to them).
So, I'm sayin we should have trades be able to be reneg...

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I think we all agree that we we don't want to leave anyone behind so why not just say that the longest contract that can be given out in the 2005 is 3 years (on the veteran/auction side). With 30 players it is not like one or two bad decisions will ruin anyone for too long. Not sure how to handle rookies since part of the rookie idea is having players that can develop over time.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

I can live with three year. This way, if you are not sure about IDP, then contract them for 1 year.
I really wasn't confortable with the 1 year deal for everyone. I think 3 years max this first year is fine...

works for me. i am pretty open.

[Flaxwless]

How about this idea.

As far as the offensive side of the ball goes, we are alright. We all know what to do. The problem is on the IDP side where for many of us this is our first ever IDP league and it would suck to have to pay for basically a learning period down the road.

So I'm suggesting maybe for just this year and into next offseason we have basically have the normal rules for the offensive side of the ball. 5 year contracts, franchise, the whole 10 yards. RFAs whatever.

However on the defensive side of the ball it would basically be a keeper system for the first offseason. We auction our players like normal, everyone get one year deals. Then at the end of the year we get optional 3 "keepers" for defense. I'm thinking one for each position who will be extended for maybe set three levels of contracts... 1 year at 10% raise, a 2 year deal with 12.5% raise each year, 3 year at 15%, 4 year max at 17.5% (or some other system you stats whizz pop out with)

Then for the following season everyone (IOP/IDP) are under the basic rules.

I think this is the best solution. Allows owners to get used to IDPs but also rewards those who make great IDP choices to keep them around.

What do you folks think?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by The Immortal Ramirez

if there is no reneg of trades, then it's a re-draft next year because all players are set for 1-yr contract this year. In which case, why would I trade since I can't reneg the contract.
However, I do see your valid point (and I would hate to keep Skippy as the bottom dweller for tooooo long). Good teams get better, etc.
However, on the other hand, if we are all starting fresh (not taking over someone else's team and cap hits, etc), then we all are on the same footing. That means, you have to draft/auction well this year. If NOT, you suck...I mean, it's your own fault for having a crappy team and no one wants to play with you (read this with a little glibness in my voice - not cold-hearted bastard!). What I am saying in a very long-winded way is that we are all on the same starting position and I don't think anyone will have a distinct advantage (unless they are just that much a better FF owner than someone else - in which case, Kudos to them).
So, I'm sayin we should have trades be able to be reneg...

I understand what you are saying, but then why have any restrictions at all the first year?

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

How about this idea.

As far as the offensive side of the ball goes, we are alright. We all know what to do. The problem is on the IDP side where for many of us this is our first ever IDP league and it would suck to have to pay for basically a learning period down the road.

So I'm suggesting maybe for just this year and into next offseason we have basically have the normal rules for the offensive side of the ball. 5 year contracts, franchise, the whole 10 yards. RFAs whatever.

However on the defensive side of the ball it would basically be a keeper system for the first offseason. We auction our players like normal, everyone get one year deals. Then at the end of the year we get optional 3 "keepers" for defense. I'm thinking one for each position who will be extended for maybe set three levels of contracts... 1 year at 10% raise, a 2 year deal with 12.5% raise each year, 3 year at 15%, 4 year max at 17.5% (or some other system you stats whizz pop out with)

Then for the following season everyone (IOP/IDP) are under the basic rules.

I think this is the best solution. Allows owners to get used to IDPs but also rewards those who make great IDP choices to keep them around.

What do you folks think?

oooo me likey

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

How about this idea.

As far as the offensive side of the ball goes, we are alright. We all know what to do. The problem is on the IDP side where for many of us this is our first ever IDP league and it would suck to have to pay for basically a learning period down the road.

So I'm suggesting maybe for just this year and into next offseason we have basically have the normal rules for the offensive side of the ball. 5 year contracts, franchise, the whole 10 yards. RFAs whatever.

However on the defensive side of the ball it would basically be a keeper system for the first offseason. We auction our players like normal, everyone get one year deals. Then at the end of the year we get optional 3 "keepers" for defense. I'm thinking one for each position who will be extended for maybe set three levels of contracts... 1 year at 10% raise, a 2 year deal with 12.5% raise each year, 3 year at 15%, 4 year max at 17.5% (or some other system you stats whizz pop out with)

Then for the following season everyone (IOP/IDP) are under the basic rules.

I think this is the best solution. Allows owners to get used to IDPs but also rewards those who make great IDP choices to keep them around.

What do you folks think?

Not a bad idea, but just for another alternative (you know me), keep your idea for the offensive side, and 1 year contracts accross the board for IDPs, but allow each team 2 non -compensatory IDP RFAs at the end of year 1?

[Flaxwless]

RFAs or contract extension.... i'd be in favor of a contract extension at a level. That way the owner can choose to keep long term.

If we do non-comp RFA then the owner either loses the player or pays more. I don't think that's fair as the reason for keeping them would be b/c the outperformed their salary.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

RFAs or contract extension.... i'd be in favor of a contract extension at a level. That way the owner can choose to keep long term.

If we do non-comp RFA then the owner either loses the player or pays more. I don't think that's fair as the reason for keeping them would be b/c the outperformed their salary.

True. The question is, and there is no right answer, do we want to allow teams to keep key IDPs at a fair price, or do we strictly want to reward teams for drafting IDPs well the first year.

Just throwing the idea out there.

[Preds]

I'm gonna let you guys fight this one out before commenting. I can see both sides.

Originally Posted by Preds

I'm gonna let you guys fight this one out before commenting. I can see both sides.

Gutless ;)

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

RFAs or contract extension.... i'd be in favor of a contract extension at a level. That way the owner can choose to keep long term.

If we do non-comp RFA then the owner either loses the player or pays more. I don't think that's fair as the reason for keeping them would be b/c the outperformed their salary.

I think that we all seem to have a handle on the consequences of long term contracts, and don't really see why anyone would get it with offense and not defense. So I don't think we should seperate the two. I am starting to lean towards not having exceptions to the rules, that we just go for it. Everyone is already in long term leagues, so I assume we will all be around for a while. While it may take a bit more effort to detgermine the value of IDP's, the information is out there and we can all make intelligent choices off the bat. And we will all make mistakes regardless.

i can see not having a limit. i can choose personally to sign IDPs to shorter contracts if I want...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Skippy the One Eyed Beagle

Gutless ;)

OK, this day is SHOT! I don't know how much more of this I can take at the office!

[Nittany Dodgers]

I agree with Skippy and paulsonpatch's two recent postings. I know I know as little about IDP as anyone in the league, and I've yet to prove my offensive knowledge in the Frenzy either. Assuming I'm going to be in the bottom bucket of teams, I have no problem starting the league all in the first year. Finding fixes for possible problems often creates more than it solves. If I screw my team after the first year, I can deal with the consequences and have no problem building for a year or two.

[Flaxwless]

I doubt many would sign their players long term with raises each year i specified...

Let's say Ray Lewis is auctioned for 100 cbs....

1 year extension = 110 (121), (133), (146)
2 year extension = 113, 127, (143), (161)
3 year extension = 115, 132, 152, (175)
4 year extension = 118, 139, 163, 192

It would be a reward and a fair price I believe. If they want to sign long term they have to pay for it. Most likely the 10% raise would be used but it is only for one year.

The percentages or be it gradual or have it in descending order or whatever don't matter to me... i just fired some arbitrary numbers. I just like the idea of being able to keep 3 starters no matter what.

[The Immortal Ramirez]

Originally Posted by paulsonpatch

I think that we all seem to have a handle on the consequences of long term contracts, and don't really see why anyone would get it with offense and not defense. So I don't think we should seperate the two. I am starting to lean towards not having exceptions to the rules, that we just go for it. Everyone is already in long term leagues, so I assume we will all be around for a while. While it may take a bit more effort to detgermine the value of IDP's, the information is out there and we can all make intelligent choices off the bat. And we will all make mistakes regardless.

I agree with paulsonpatch. we're all going to win some and lose some. It's the nature of the beast. Ask anyone who took Steve Smith last year...bid him to where he was supposed to be...plop...IR. Oh well. Same with IDP. You can pick a diamond in the rough or a schlep (I made it up before you all ask). Just play the game :drinktoge and let's not take all the risk out of it. It is just a game of risk anyway!

[Flaxwless]

It's not more so long-term contracts... but just finding a balance between teams new to IDP and those who have had experience before.

RFA tags or contract extension... i really dont care... my preference would be contract extension.

My theory here is that... defensive players would be set at market value. However, since we are in a learning process we were limited to 1 year deals, so having a keeper system for the first year on defense rewards teams who snagged a player who outperformed their auction salary by giviving them the ability to give them more contract year that they possibly could have done if allowed to.

Basically it's 3 options for inagural contracts:

1. limit all to 1 year deals
2. limit all to 3 year deals
3. IOP no limits, IDPs 1 year deal with keeper option (from there you can talk abotu RFA or extension)

I would perfer option 3 as i see it as the best comprimise.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

It's not more so long-term contracts... but just finding a balance between teams new to IDP and those who have had experience before.

RFA tags or contract extension... i really dont care... my preference would be contract extension.

How many teams have IDP experience?