FA Offers - Poll

[BradZ]

We're still a few days away from kicking off FA-1, so I wanted to get a quick consensus on our current "Grey Sheet" rule. 60% of the vote needed to change the rule (Existing rule is each team has to offer any FA on the Grey Sheet at least the number of years they are asking for)

[Rip Murdock]

The Grey Sheet rule has no appreciable impact on anything, so this rule should be removed.

A rule forcing teams to make 3 year offers will have an impact on cap management. I'm in a lot of leagues with a rule like this. It helps teams with cap money get better FA talent and allows them to keep the players for more than 1 year. This rule also helps cohesion because a team has the chance to keep players around for awhile, and that helps cohesion.

[Aston]

I think the Grey Sheet rule does have an impact. It doesn't let you sign good FAs to absurd one-year deals (something the 3-year rule also addresses). It lets you sign less good FAs to one or two year deals in FA1 (with the 3-year rule, that can only happen in LFA). Most significantly, the top FAs will almost always be asking for long deals, and the Grey Sheet rule will enforce that. If you want a stud in FA1, you'd need to shell out for that 5-year contract.

That said I'm on board with the 3-year rule. Much easier to enforce, it makes sense, and helps keep teams out of trouble with the long contracts. Rip, in any of those leagues is there an exception for year 1-3 players who are RFA eligible? Or is that just not a big deal?

[mike17]

In most of my leagues, it's 3-year minimum contract for UFAs.

Restricted guys you can sign however you choose.

[Guest]

ive been a supporter of the grey sheet rule because it makes teams pay big money for big names
i hold up motor city 5yrs, $148,820,000 for that CB yet they have still been competitive playoffs last year 9-7 this year in teh toughest division in the league. yeah its ab it harder to remeber and work with but isint that why we play MP? for a challenge?

im sure most, if not all of you got tired of beating up teh cpu and wanted a challenge, well here it is the 3 year thing is a nice standard but a 3 year bad deal doesnt make or break your team, but if montoya gets a concussion you bet clay will be in cap hell. .

and frankly that makes it all the more exciting to me

[kosar19]

I like the three year rule cause it's easy to adhere to. I don't have to check the grey sheet.

[mike17]

I like the three year rule cause it's easy to adhere to. I don't have to check the grey sheet.

+1

Easy to remember, easy for the commish to police.

[Guest]

+1

Easy to remember, easy for the commish to police.

KISS rule at it's finest...

[nelmsm]

+1

Easy to remember, easy for the commish to police.

Ditto!

[Guest]

I like that Brad hid the results. ;)

[BradZ]

I like that Brad hid the results. ;)

I did? I didn't mean to. Whoops.

[Guest]

I did? I didn't mean to. Whoops.

I'm serious. Blind voting keeps people from feeling pressured. And it keeps me on the edge of my seat. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

[kingfc22]

I'm serious. Blind voting keeps people from feeling pressured. And it keeps me on the edge of my seat. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

I like it!

[Guest]

ive been a supporter of the grey sheet rule because it makes teams pay big money for big names
i hold up motor city 5yrs, $148,820,000 for that CB yet they have still been competitive playoffs last year 9-7 this year in teh toughest division in the league. yeah its ab it harder to remeber and work with but isint that why we play MP? for a challenge?

im sure most, if not all of you got tired of beating up teh cpu and wanted a challenge, well here it is the 3 year thing is a nice standard but a 3 year bad deal doesnt make or break your team, but if montoya gets a concussion you bet clay will be in cap hell. .

and frankly that makes it all the more exciting to me

I would contend that it would've taken a much more damaging contract to sign that CB - i.e., instead of 5 years, 148 million, it'd be 3 years 148 million, or close. I'd bet the bonus money would have to be about the same. So in either case, if a GM decided to cut such a player, the bonus would be accelerated in the same way. If they chose to just hang on, they'd be on the hook for a ton more in the short term. It's a lot easier to work around a 5 year 'oops' than a 3 year one, especially in a league that hasn't cut the cap.

I think the 3-year rule is infinitely easier to observe and police, so I voted for it. But I'm not going to be bothered either way, as long as there's a minimum in FA1.

[kingfc22]

bump