*Contract Rules Issues

[.Laser]

This is the first I have ever heard of this, and honestly I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be here. Admittedly I do not keep my eyes glued on the transaction pages, and I don't track every transaction ever made, but if a team is saving 1m on their cap every 4 seasons, then that in and of itself is doing what you say about juggling a checkbook. You say that "Balancing cap space is just as important for a GM as sim testing or drafting. This rule change might not force more free agents or players leaving teams more often but it will make teams actually have to juggle a check book instead of just having 4 years of minimum every contract."

So to me, all you're saying is that the GMs are in fact doing their jobs by balancing their cap space, they're just doing it 3-4 seasons in the future. I know of at least 3 GMs that had their budgets planned out that far, and I personally always knew to within a mil or so how much OCO would have each of the next 2 upcoming seasons.

(edit: I'm not passing judgement on whether or not such behavior is morally right or wrong, but in taking advantage they are helping out their teams to the best of their ability which is their job, so *shrugs* idk how to feel about it to be honest)

Also, no team is going to have 4 years of minimum (as in 1m on a rookie deal) every contract. The problem that you have presented is incredibly niche and rather rare. Most players who it would be worth it to do this with have signed original deals of 3y/1m at roughly 225 TPE. Take into consideration that most users will have earned an additional 400 or so TPE by the time that they sign an extension, and they're probably going to sign a 1-season extension in order to get them to the 800 TPE threshold to get them to sign an unlimited contract. But when they sign that extension, they're signing at 625ish TPE, or 3m per season. Now if you're saying a player is taking minimum for 4 seasons, then sure, I absolutely agree. I took minimum for 10 seasons and would gladly do it again, but the minimum is the minimum no matter the TPE you're at. I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I very well may be misunderstanding your point.

So, all in all, I guess I don't see what point you're trying to make here. It seems like it's a rule that's occasionally going to be abused but it's such a niche department that I don't see a need to outlaw it, at the very least not with the way the rule was written. If you want to say that a player cannot sign a new contract and then an extension on the same day, I'm fine with that. Make them wait a week, I think that's a good idea, forces them to earn more TPE that could possibly push them to the next tier.

To address what I think that the rule was atually targeting, I think that it was an attempt to force teams to spend more money for longer by preventing them from signing players to extensions until late in the season when they had added an additional 60-100 TPE, depending on equipment purchase. That's because somehow every team in the league has cap space every season to field their entire team plus OL bots, and as the person who typically updates OL bots a lot of them are of the 7.5m variety. I believe that 5 or 6 teams used T4 bots this season. The easier explanation, imo?

Just lower cap space. I've thought it since S23, but didn't want to say anything because I was a GM, of course I wasn't going to say anything. I was gonna enjoy the extra space I had to sign my rookies to bigger deals than I ordinarily could. And I did that. But really it did not need to be so high, although at this point I think active players would be out of a job in some situations if it were lowered, so I think it needs to stay in place.

I do agree with you about doing the 1+3 is good GMing because its using a rule the way its currently written. My arguement isn't so much that its bad that there's $1m in the 4th year for veterans but if a rookie was drafted to a team they didn't like and signed a 1 year deal they are forced to only sign a 2 year max deal with their new team due to the rules currently.

Also to the point of the 4 year minimum. Players are signing 1 year at a set minimum (say 2m) and then immediately extending for 3 more years (also at 2m) giving them 4 years a 2m instead of the 3m bump they should hit at the end of the 3rd year.


My arguement is why are rookies boxed in for 2-3 seasons when vets can sign a 1+3 which basically accomplish the same thing. There's been many 1+3 deals in the league especially with GMs because its a smart way to save some cap but there's one famous instance that I know of that punished a rookie for options out and trying to sign a new 3 year contract with a new team. Its just a funny little rule that accomplish the same thing but one is legal and one isn't. 

And I fully agree with you that the cap room is too large. Every team shouldn't have T4 OL bots. There should be a down side to having multiple 800+ TPE players on your team and I think it could lead to more variety in the league if teams have to give up OL talent/old talent

Okay, I did mostly misunderstand you then. I do agree that there should be some kind of relief for rookies who do not want to play for the team that drafted them for whatever reason, and it is a little dumb that they can't. I can understand why they can't, to keep them from being at the 1m minimum for longer, but I do also feel that there should be some way around that for a sophomore player who wants to play long term somewhere else and not have to worry about it.

I do see the points you're making now and I do agree with them for the most part, although I think the number one thing would then be to find a way to propose a rule that covers all of this in a way that will get it passed, with good language. You were spot on about language of rules making them not pass.

[Dewalt27]

I have no regrets. Berlin big brain.

[Air Crou]

RoOkIeS nEeD tO bE pAiD mOrE
That's a big bucket of bullshit. Until the salary cap is increased, players will take minimums, whether you like it or not. The solution is there. Also, there is no way people can be offered more than a minimum contract, when a team only has $85m to play with, and around 18-20 players on the majors roster, along with OL bots. $27.5m is the cost of a full T4 bot OL, leaving the team with $57.5m to give on contracts. Make those bots T5, and the cost goes to $35m, leaving the team with $50m. You think the GM will give a rookie more money because they need it? Write media, do podcasts, make graphics, find a damn league job. Next time, before you complain about anything contract related, open the budget sheet, pull a calculator, a pen & some paper, or a google spreadsheet or the Excel, and crunch some numbers up. And it is so ironic, especially coming from a former GM.

[Kotasa]

RoOkIeS nEeD tO bE pAiD mOrE
That's a big bucket of bullshit. Until the salary cap is increased, players will take minimums, whether you like it or not. The solution is there. Also, there is no way people can be offered more than a minimum contract, when a team only has $85m to play with, and around 18-20 players on the majors roster, along with OL bots. $27.5m is the cost of a full T4 bot OL, leaving the team with $57.5m to give on contracts. Make those bots T5, and the cost goes to $35m, leaving the team with $50m. You think the GM will give a rookie more money because they need it? Write media, do podcasts, make graphics, find a damn league job. Next time, before you complain about anything contract related, open the budget sheet, pull a calculator, a pen & some paper, or a google spreadsheet or the Excel, and crunch some numbers up. And it is so ironic, especially coming from a former GM.

The solution I hear is to expand salary cap but GMs don't want to do that either.

@AdamS

well...unfortunately the people who benefit from this situation also get to vote on the rules for things like agents who could help rookies out and counteract some of this

The solution here is to join the ISFLPA until we have enough power to demand votes

[Hallmonitor_20]

RoOkIeS nEeD tO bE pAiD mOrE
That's a big bucket of bullshit. Until the salary cap is increased, players will take minimums, whether you like it or not. The solution is there. Also, there is no way people can be offered more than a minimum contract, when a team only has $85m to play with, and around 18-20 players on the majors roster, along with OL bots. $27.5m is the cost of a full T4 bot OL, leaving the team with $57.5m to give on contracts. Make those bots T5, and the cost goes to $35m, leaving the team with $50m. You think the GM will give a rookie more money because they need it? Write media, do podcasts, make graphics, find a damn league job. Next time, before you complain about anything contract related, open the budget sheet, pull a calculator, a pen & some paper, or a google spreadsheet or the Excel, and crunch some numbers up. And it is so ironic, especially coming from a former GM.

See everyone says "get a league job" like jobs are just handed out to anyone that wants one. How many jobs go to the same group of people? How many times have rookies been passed on jobs? I get that there's a push to get more rookies involved in jobs but if 40+ new people join each season we dont have 40+ jobs available. Media/gfx/podcasts are good money making opportunities but not everyone has the drive/creativeness to make these consistently. 

Also I know as a former GM that money is easily thrown around. Teams will easily hand out bonuses at the end of the season because they have money left over not all but some. And of your arguement to not pay players is because they need the top tier bots then that is counterintuitive to what the hell we're doing here. 

We should not be screwing over active users because we want top of the line bots and even if you wanted bots you should expect a fall off in cap. Do NFL teams all have amazing OLs? Do they say "we're not paying our generational QB because we want more OL? No. There's a balance to this.

Since you said "check the spreadsheets" like the guy you are I did and wow would you look at that over half the teams in the league have over $2m in cap space some up to $6m but go off king about how the cap is to low.

[Air Crou]

RoOkIeS nEeD tO bE pAiD mOrE
That's a big bucket of bullshit. Until the salary cap is increased, players will take minimums, whether you like it or not. The solution is there. Also, there is no way people can be offered more than a minimum contract, when a team only has $85m to play with, and around 18-20 players on the majors roster, along with OL bots. $27.5m is the cost of a full T4 bot OL, leaving the team with $57.5m to give on contracts. Make those bots T5, and the cost goes to $35m, leaving the team with $50m. You think the GM will give a rookie more money because they need it? Write media, do podcasts, make graphics, find a damn league job. Next time, before you complain about anything contract related, open the budget sheet, pull a calculator, a pen & some paper, or a google spreadsheet or the Excel, and crunch some numbers up. And it is so ironic, especially coming from a former GM.

See everyone says "get a league job" like jobs are just handed out to anyone that wants one. How many jobs go to the same group of people? How many times have rookies been passed on jobs? I get that there's a push to get more rookies involved in jobs but if 40+ new people join each season we dont have 40+ jobs available. Media/gfx/podcasts are good money making opportunities but not everyone has the drive/creativeness to make these consistently. 

Also I know as a former GM that money is easily thrown around. Teams will easily hand out bonuses at the end of the season because they have money left over not all but some. And of your arguement to not pay players is because they need the top tier bots then that is counterintuitive to what the hell we're doing here. 

We should not be screwing over active users because we want top of the line bots and even if you wanted bots you should expect a fall off in cap. Do NFL teams all have amazing OLs? Do they say "we're not paying our generational QB because we want more OL? No. There's a balance to this.

Since you said "check the spreadsheets" like the guy you are I did and wow would you look at that over half the teams in the league have over $2m in cap space some up to $6m but go off king about how the cap is to low.

First and foremost, thank you for the answer.

Now, to touch on your points one by one. The economy of the league is flawed, and, as long as those that manage the economy vote on how it is run, it will remain as such. Put your name out there for jobs, even if it is something like being an updater or auditor. Tedious jobs, but you put yourself out there. Many apply for HO internships and GM jobs. When I got the budget team job, there was 3 applicants only. People tend to go after the fancy jobs.
For a team to have money to give out bonuses, and that 2-6m cap space, there are so many people that have taken one for the team and signed for the minimum. This will remain a problem. Almost nobody tests FA. No FA asks for big money. Everyone will gladly sign for the minimum.
You also HAVE to get the expensive OL bots if you have the gaps to fill. Teams in the majors want to win. GMs care for the team as a whole, and they will use every trick in the book to get their team to win. And NFL teams have around 160m to manage. And paying a generational QB a big stack of cash may hurt them in the long run.
They have the power to vote on it. The current flawed system suits them. And as long as they have the power, the system will remain as it is.