FA Rule

[BradZ]

Ok, Free Agency is almost upon us and it seems time to take a look at where things stand as far as rules are concerned. Last season was our first under the new 3 year minimum rule, whereby any FA contract offer during FA1.1 through FA1.12 had to be a minimum of a 3 year deal. That worked reasonably well and the concept makes perfect sense to avoid any gaming of the financial system related to large 1 yr deals.

However, the more and more I think about it the more and more I want to carve out exceptions. When people are building their teams it just makes too much sense to allow shorter term deals in certain cases. Roster fodder/filler type pieces that every team needs in order to field a complete team. Making people wait until the FA2.X signing periods doesn't quite feel "natural". There's only a few of those SIMs available to anyone needing to build their roster and if someone is unavailable for those few days it can have a significant impact on the makeup of their team.

With all that being said, from this day forward we'll operate under the following rule: FA contracts of less than 3 years are allowed during Free Agency 1.1 through 1.12 if the average annual value (AAV) of the deal is less than $5mil.

Simple enough. Want to offer a 2 yr deal to an aging QB to be your backup? 2yrs/$8mil = good (AAV = 4). 2yrs/$12mil = no good (AAV = 6). 1yr/$5mil = good. 1yr/$7mil = no good. Simple math.

This allows enough freedom for owners who want to build their rosters early in the FA period, but still enforces the true essence of the FA contract rule restriction which is preventing prized FA's from accepting 1 yr/Big$ contracts from teams with a lot of cap space.

[Matt]

Cool. Let's rock and roll.

[Guest]

I thought it was 1.2-1.12 and that RFA's were fair game for whatever you wanted to offer.

Edit: Now that I looked at the poll, it just said "FA1."

[Aston]

To be clear, this isn't about RFAs. "Under 3 years" isn't the player experience, it is the contract length. So this is a modification of the "only 3-year contracts to UFAs" rule that allows less than that, if the average annual value <5mil.

There haven't been and aren't now any restrictions on what you can offer the RFAs that only you have the ability to sign (I see why Matt was asking that in the sim thread now).

I will roll with anything, of course, but I do think that this new exception, which seeks to address the issue of "lesser FAs" only, would change the stakes for a much higher percentage of UFAs than that.

[Guest]

Seems to needlessly complicate things, but okey doke.

[Guest]

Seems to needlessly complicate things, but okey doke.

agreed, funny i thought the 3 year thing was supposed to make thing easier, im still waiting for that point

[Aston]

Without modifications, it does.

(and with the modification, it's still more straightforward than looking guys up on the Grey Sheet).

[mike17]

Perhaps this rule change should get a little reminder in the sim thread?

[tomr1962]

gotcha

[kingfc22]

I think this should definitely be posted in the main forum.

[Rip Murdock]

I applaud the commish's desire to make the 3 year rule more fair and adaptable to a team's situation and needs. But this is a bad idea.

1. This rule can be exploited.

What happens when you have a good player who is worth about 5 million a year? Team A offers him a 3 year deal worth 5.0 million a year. Team B offers him a 2 year deal worth 4.9 million with all possible money dumped into bonus. The player will accept the 2 year deal, thus giving an advantage to team B. We have a situation where the 2 teams are competing for the player on an uneven playing field. That's wrong and subverts the good intentions of the rule.

2. What happened to discussion and voting?

Last season the league had a good discussion about the 3 year rule and then voted. It was a good, healthy process. Why not do the same here? Why rush this? If the commish wants to change the rule, then let's talk about it first. Then we could discover the rule's flaws before implementing it.

[Guest]

How about if what the person is asking for is greater than $5 mil/yr then you have to offer at least 3 years?

[BradZ]

I applaud the commish's desire to make the 3 year rule more fair and adaptable to a team's situation and needs. But this is a bad idea.

1. This rule can be exploited.

What happens when you have a good player who is worth about 5 million a year? Team A offers him a 3 year deal worth 5.0 million a year. Team B offers him a 2 year deal worth 4.9 million with all possible money dumped into bonus. The player will accept the 2 year deal, thus giving an advantage to team B. We have a situation where the 2 teams are competing for the player on an uneven playing field. That's wrong and subverts the good intentions of the rule.

2. What happened to discussion and voting?

Last season the league had a good discussion about the 3 year rule and then voted. It was a good, healthy process. Why not do the same here? Why rush this? If the commish wants to change the rule, then let's talk about it first. Then we could discover the rule's flaws before implementing it.

Fair enough and this was a bit rushed admittedly. Here's the true issue - last season I had to void roughly 30 contracts during the FA 1 stages and not 1 of them was a deal that would have been considered "gaming the system". I'm looking for a happy medium here.

It seems realistic that a team would be interested in roster building during the FA1 stages, but for whatever reason many owners, good owners, were incorrectly submitting <3 yr deals during these stages. I expect to see similar offers made this FA season.

I'm looking for a $$ threshold that makes sense and welcome discussion, albeit after I've already jerked the wheel in a certain direction.

As discussion on your Point #1, couldn't something similar play out IRL? A player making a decision to get more guaranteed cash up front and in the bank as opposed to taking less money up front in the hopes he stays on the roster for the life of a deal?

I was hopeful the $5mil figure would be high enough to avoid any "unnecessary" voiding of improper deals while being low enough to prevent the gaming of the financial system. If the "cap" of a two year deal is a known quantity it would seem someone offering a 3yr offer would be able to take that into consideration, or at least that was my rationale.

[BradZ]

How about if what the person is asking for is greater than $5 mil/yr then you have to offer at least 3 years?

Correct.

[Aston]

I agree with Rip's sentiments that it can be exploited. The rule is to allow us to offer guys who are lesser FAs to short deals, but it is going to affect FA on a lot more than just those lesser FAs.

The uneven playing field is not such a big deal, except that to overcome it, the 3-year team would have to offer substantially more than 5 mil per season, or have a very nice bonus, because of the contract length. To beat the 1- or 2-year deal, that team has to make a much more significant commitment.

Perhaps it can be "If the player is in their 2nd year only, or in their 10th year or later, offer whatever length you like." Although there can be good 10th year + FAs.

That said, we're at the start of this FA stage already. Keep the rules for this year, re-evaluate if there are issues.