APPROVED 10-2 (Contract Years Rule Change Y/N/Maybe?)

[Preds]

Anyone up for readdressing the contract years allowed per team... a point to consider IMO.

The 32 years we currently allow average out to only 2 years a player.

Since contract years have yet to be assigned might we consider upping that to say 36 (an avg of 2.25/player)?

FYI, our Dev Squad avg is 3.3 in 2002, 3 in 2003, and 2.8 in 2004 and beyond.

Also note, my team roster is pretty much set with little to no cap room and all contract years assigned except for the rookies. So my opinion of this is unbiased. I think it's good for the league as a whole since we've shifted more and more to a dynasty style cap league (more fun IMO).

Vote your opinion in the poll above and be sure to reply to this post that you've done so!

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Let's up it for next year. This seems like a good idea but a pretty fair number of players are already signed (contract years assigned). Why not incremently increase it (say 2 years) over the next couple of years.

Either that or let's discuss a one time contract years renegoation period. Maybe you can change one or two contracts (in terms of years).

Okay, a couple of ideas from my sleep deprieved mind. I am not sure if these make sense so please feel free to comment.

[Preds]

Actually Matt, the majority of RFA's have yet to have contract years assigned. None of the rookies do, and we haven't even started the UFA period.

So I don't see that as an issue.

The only players whose contracts were assigned were RFA's that were traded, and I am the only team affected by that. Actually you can count the players impacted on 2 fingers... Jimmy Smith and Marty Booker.

I guess we could reopen the assignment of years on those 2 RFA's, but I personally don't think it's necessary (doubt I'd change them at all to be honest).

This rule change really isn't effected by anything we've done thus far IMO, so I don't see why we'd need to wait to implement it. Any others out there have thoughts on this?

[Flaxwless]

I say we just bump it up to 36 this year and that's the last time we should raise it. 32 always seemed to small for me considering we had to sign DEF and PK leaving the total for the rest of the roster around 30 years for 14 players.

34 years for 14 players sounds good to me.

I agree with Mike that it wouldn't affect anything that has been done up until this point. I'm all for it as long as this is the last time we raise the years as it would be useless for us to increase it every year like we would be doing with the dev squad.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'm in favor of bumping it up to 36 contract years this year... and I do trust that Mike is acting in the best interests of the league.

However, I am strongly opposed to opening negotiations with current players under contract. I think that sets a bad precedent... even if we "only do it this one time." Quite a few owners this year are new, and stuck with contracts that were not negotiated by us. Likewise, we should be able to have a fair shot at getting some of the "high quality" players that are on other people's rosters.

I still think there are quite a few players who are under REDICULOUS contracts, due to the parameters from the initial draft last season (that's just the way it is).

So increase the years this year... but leave all currently negotiated contracts as is.

[Preds]

I agree Jim,

I'm not at all in favor of renegotiating contract years for ANY players.

Of the RFA's whose contract years have been assigned, I believe I'm the only one effected by the change. Regardless, I don't think it's necessary to reopen their contracts if this change goes through.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

That is fine with me, just figured I would throw another suggestion or two out there. Mike can you change my maybe vote to Yes?

[Nittany Dodgers]

I voted no. I don't think we should up it this year. In my opinion, there are some teams (myself included) that have inherited teams that we are trying to straighten out. I think upping the contract years helps teams that are in a better position more than a team like myself that has to build iteself from the ground up. I'd be open to the idea in a year or two when I don't feel like I'm behind the 8-ball.

This is a totally selfish vote, I acknowledge, so I won't have much of a problem with it if it passes since I'd vote yes in a year or two anyways.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I'd have to be against upping the contract years. At 32 years we still see good amount of player movement and it you would only be able to lock up a core number(3-4) players to long term deals. Keeping the contract years low makes the decision on who to give a long term deal a very challenging one. If you put all your stock in someone like Ron Dayne you'd be screwed. Although you can cut him and recover his contract years(I still think we should talk about a larger cap hit for players cut with multiple years left on their contract but that's another discussion).

BTW Ophi, I totally concur with you, its TOO unfair that the Michael Bennett is only worth $732 four years from now! What's up with that?!?!

Seriously, I sometimes feel bad that I have such a great contract with Alexander........I lay awake feeling guilty that I have an unfair advantage over everyone else...........but then I realize hell I need it to milk every advantage I can possible get! Cutthroat baby, you know Mike would do it to you in a heartbeat

[Urza's Ragers]

Voted yes for selfish reasons. I need more room to work with.

I voted yes

[Mutts]

I delayed vote, but yes I can see benefits to the proposed increase in contract years.