|
Post by Rebels GM on Dec 27, 2008 1:12:54 GMT -5
Guys,
This is something that I really believe we need to take a serious look at in the offseason for the 2009 season (Not this RFA session)
Currently, we are allowed to extend the contracts of players TWICE per season, once during the season and once right before the RFA session. I think we need to do away with the contract extension option PRIOR to RFA. My rationale is simple. Under the current system we will NEVER see a good RFA class which IMO will take the fun out of RFA over the years as GMs will be able to keep the top players out of the RFA pool with ease.
In TBL we have been using the RFA process for 5 years now and we have only seen a handful of top tier RFAs and we only permit GMs to extend the contracts of players ONCE per season. The system is a little bit different in that GMs have the option to extend the contract of ONE player PRIOR to the start of the NFL season OR they can choose to extend the contracts of a player at the time of trade and a free agent pick up. This really makes a GM make a tough choice PRIOR to the season as to whether they will add the year to a player they already have on their roster OR they can add to someone that they pick up via the waiver wire and at the time of a trade. The catch is that the extension MUST be announced at the time of trade and or waiver ire pick up. This really helps add players to the RFA pool.
Under the system we have in TBL2, I highly doubt that we will EVER see a decent (let alone good) RFA class and that is a damn shame as this is one of the most exciting and fun times in the season (next to the draft itself)
Now, I know that the GMs in this league bitch and moan about just about any and every little thing in this league as evidenced by the way a few of the changes we have proposed last season (IDPS) and then the restructuring of the IDP points (which IMO was a horrible decision as it weighted the DBs WAY too much, but that is an entire different discussion entirely) but this is something that I believe you guys need to seriously take a look at for the long term viability of this league.
|
|
|
Post by gametime on Dec 30, 2008 14:06:20 GMT -5
i agree as RFA is the best way to address and fix team needs for the present! and I won't say I told you so on the IDP scoring, but well, you get the idea....
|
|
|
Post by Argonauts on Jan 1, 2009 19:42:42 GMT -5
I think contract extensions should go away period. I actually think the process I have in place in the DXL and Red Zone Blitz is very exciting. The players are put on contract and there are no extensions. Once the contract is up, those players are RFAs. Everyone except for the original owners can bid on RFAs. After the entire bidding process you have the name of the highest bidder that the player is slated to over to. The following week, the original owner has the right to match the bid or let him go to the new team.
The other part is if you pick someone up during the regular season, they automatically are UFAs (Unrestricted Free Agents) at the end of the season and can only be picked up for one (1) season total. Those individuals are available for the next year draft. This way it gives choices for non-drafted players to be considered as well the influx of new players.
Just a thought. Just wanted to put this out here for possible discussion.
|
|
|
Post by fbguru on Jan 2, 2009 16:15:02 GMT -5
I have to disagree. We are only allowed to sign a free agent during the season to a 1 year contract. So, these guys who come out of no where (Matt Cassell for instance) that are productive will more than likely wind up in the RFA pool.
I think its set up to facililitate trades. There needs to be some life in this league and something to shake these owners out of their trees to make moves. If you make players readily available via FA and RFA period, why trade?
It will be the team with the most money gets the most players and that is not fair.
|
|
|
Post by JagerBombs on Jan 3, 2009 15:36:04 GMT -5
I disagree as well. The fact is extending contracts is getting expensive and RFA is actually becoming the more viable option. In TBL - do you use the same rules where it is 20 BLB times the number of years you have owned a player? Right now the price to extend one year is about to go up from 40 BLB to 60 BLB if this was an originally drafted player. That is a very expensive option for an owner to take on one year. It is getting to the point where battling in RFA for the right to assign a multi-year contract may be more favorable than paying so much for one single year.
Either way there is no doubt your strategy of stock piling BLB is going to pay off, just have some patience.
|
|
|
Post by Wonderlickers on Jan 8, 2009 23:41:56 GMT -5
I'm fine with Andy's original proposal to do away with one of the two contract extension options to help contribute to the RFA pool. But I do think we should still keep one so that an owner has the ability to make that choice. Jager Bomb is right, after a couple seasons this won't be as much of an issue due to the increasing cost. Then it probably won't be only the best RFA's being extended as owners will have to look at the opportunity cost of a one-year 20 blb investment vs. a 60 or 80 blb investment for that same year.
|
|
|
Post by JagerBombs on Jan 14, 2009 11:58:56 GMT -5
Just an FYI, the original post on this thread was Rob and not Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Football Buddah on Jan 14, 2009 13:07:42 GMT -5
Sorry for not being invloved in these conversations more guys, I've been really busy lately.
Eliminating all contract extensions at this point is not something I would be in favor of implementing.
Also, I think there might have been some confusion which may have prompted this discussion:
I believe, (and I will have to re-read the rules), that the IN-Season option was only intended for players acquired via Free Agency or Waiver-Wire during that season. The OFF-Season option was for anybody else. So, theoretically, you do only have one option per year to extend your "stud" players. And, on a roster of 20-30 players, that's not really alot. Especially since you can only extend 1 player for 1 more year. The time will come that you have more than 1 player with 1 year left.
If the rules were intended to be only for players acquired during waiver-wire, then that was my mistake - but, it happened, and the In-season option is over with now.
I'll double check.
|
|
|
Post by fbguru on Jan 14, 2009 13:28:33 GMT -5
I think this topic is driven by an owner looking to take advantage of his situation. My question is, if we reduced extensions, should we cap how many people you sign? or, if you sign a certain amount of players you lose a draft pick. Also, what about if you lose a certain amount of free agents you get compensatory picks at the end of round 3?
It cant just be the guy with the most BLBs buys all the players. Hey, you can, but you can lose picks while giving someone else more picks.
got to be some strategy in there, not just throwing around blbs
|
|
|
Post by Football Buddah on Jan 14, 2009 14:03:58 GMT -5
Ok, this one is my fault.
Luckily I kept a copy of the old RZB rules (from 2007). It stated:
9.43 At only one time each team may lengthen the contract of a UFA acquired in Waiver Wire transactions during the Fantasy Football Regular Season by one rzy at a cost of 20 rzbs.
Now, when I was copying all the rules over to the TBL2 site, I know I did some "find" and "replace" in order to clean things up. This was one of the casualties that got cleaned up. I copied the same info for the off-season contract extension to the above - essentially providing everybody TWO options for extending a players contract. I apologize for this. I didn't intend to just change that rule, but I don't think I fully understood it at the time, and just assumed it was another one of Odie's error's.
I would propose that we keep it as-is for this off-season, but beginning with the 2009 season, revert back to having the in-season extension be only for players acquired via Waiver Wire or Free-Agency.
Yeah - go ahead and say it - "Buddah F'd up!"
|
|
|
Post by Barrister on Jan 14, 2009 14:57:37 GMT -5
"Buddah F'd up!"
|
|
|
Post by Rebels GM on Jan 14, 2009 17:07:44 GMT -5
All I am saying is that in TBL we have had UFA for 5 years now and have NEVER really seen what I would call a quality crop of RFAs hit the open market.
We allow for ONE extension per season to a player that is currently on a team PRIOR to the start of the season OR one extension at the time of trade and UFA pickup.
This has NOTHING to do with the amount of blbs I have or any other GM, rather looking at the long term viability of this league. To answer your question about TBL, as it stands now, the blb cost double EACH time that you extend a contract, but I plan to change that this offseason as it become a MAJOR pain in the ass to keep track of.
I know that this league is a separate venture from TBL and I am not suggesting that we emulate it 100%, but I do know a thing or two about the UFA system having created the model that Scott based this league on. Allowing for TWO contract extension will NEVER produce a decent RFA crop.
I also highly disagree about GURU statement that having TWO extension will encourage trading in this league. IMO, it will do just the opposite. If GMs have less options to extend deals, it will FORCE them to make tough decision and trade players with low years on their deals in hopes of getting something in return for the player rather than lose them in RFA.
|
|
|
Post by crusaders on Jan 14, 2009 18:24:13 GMT -5
I think contract extensions should go away period. I actually think the process I have in place in the DXL and Red Zone Blitz is very exciting. The players are put on contract and there are no extensions. Once the contract is up, those players are RFAs. Everyone except for the original owners can bid on RFAs. After the entire bidding process you have the name of the highest bidder that the player is slated to over to. The following week, the original owner has the right to match the bid or let him go to the new team. The other part is if you pick someone up during the regular season, they automatically are UFAs (Unrestricted Free Agents) at the end of the season and can only be picked up for one (1) season total. Those individuals are available for the next year draft. This way it gives choices for non-drafted players to be considered as well the influx of new players. Just a thought. Just wanted to put this out here for possible discussion. Jerry, Can I have a link toyour set of rules or to your league? Thanks! PEZ
|
|
|
Post by Argonauts on Jan 17, 2009 2:08:26 GMT -5
If you go over to RTSports, they are posted in the league rules.
|
|