2026 FA 1.5 SIM Complete - Next SIM Sunday 10/07

[BradZ]

http://simgamingnetwork.com/osfl/lea...t_10_05_12.zip

Files due by 11am ET! Next SIM = FA 1.6, Sunday 10/07.

Reminder on FA contract caps:

you can offer:

1 yr max $2mil
2 yr max $4mil

Anything 3 years or more is open/fair game.

[Guest]

Looks like the Sinclair sweepstakes are over. Now for the Bullock sweepstakes!

[Clay]

That Sinclair contract is offensive.

[Guest]

agreed, and the worst part is itll be renegotiated for about half as i said before with only $18 mil bouns itll be reneg'd for maybe 7-10 mil hate to beat a dead horse but....

[prinzar]

So is it a consensus that we should change the negotiating rule, say either no negotiating or last year only?

How difficult would last year deals be to govern?

[Matt]

Probably not hard since that is what it was for years and years until everyone complained and we changed it.

[prinzar]

I'm undecided on the idea. I rarely offer contracts worth renegotiating but it might be worth a poll if Brad is happy to go back to the old rules if it wins

[Guest]

Did anyone offer a contract with more guaranteed money? Considering that Dakota's bid was a smokescreen I don't think anyone else guaranteed almost $7 mil a year and that's why he got the contract. Yes, it'll be reneged but it'll still be higher than what anyone else offered in bonus.

[Aston]

1) There is no need for a renegotiation rule. That rule was only in place because previous versions of the game allowed for exploits on renegotiations, but that is no longer the case. You can scrimp and save and play the contract game by renegotiating, but nothing unfair.

2) There is nothing wrong with the Sinclair contract other than it was sort of a ghost offer. The highest bidders tricked people into thinking the bidding on Sinclair was getting higher than it was. A 3-year, $40 million offer with equal salary each year and similar or more bonus, probably easily beats it.

Ghost offers like that maybe should be disallowed because they're meant to trick human owners, I don't know. But it isn't like the overall # of the deal actually had any effect on the player, who really only looks at bonus + year one salary. Any 'problem' here is with gamey offers, not the renegotiation rule.

Anchorage won the Sinclair sweepstakes because even pretending the last year of the deal was only $10 million or whatever, it had the best *real* offer, not because the player was wowed by $25mm in the last year. That meant literally zero to him. We've had monster ghost offers turned down before by superior real offers with much lower totals.

3) A general reminder to not get too drawn into FA bidding sweepstakes because you can't tell how serious another team's offer actually is from the overall #s. You know how much cap room you have and how much you can afford; don't let other potentially ghost offers stretch you to the limit.

[Guest]

Did anyone offer a contract with more guaranteed money? Considering that Dakota's bid was a smokescreen I don't think anyone else guaranteed almost $7 mil a year and that's why he got the contract. Yes, it'll be reneged but it'll still be higher than what anyone else offered in bonus.

i was about the same my 3 yr 36 mil offer had 21 mil in bonus 7 mil a year over 3 years 5 mil a year base salary

[Guest]

Lower the cap, problem solved. More FAs, less money to waste.

[Guest]

To expand... the issue isn't the ridiculous contracts. If you have cap, SPEND IT. The 'rewards' for not doing so are negligible.

I do totally agree that the FA system is ridiculous, but it isn't going to change - especially now with JG all but saying he's done with FOF. The only mitigation that I've seen help is lowering the cap. (20-25%)

[Aston]

Lowering the cap in general seems like a good idea, but its main purpose and consequence is to prevent the accumulation of super teams (so if we do go that route, a grace period, please? :-P).

It won't specifically address the issue of ghost offers. Teams will always be free to load up on later years to deceive other owners and drive up bidding. Although being in the CCFL you have more experience than me with the results of it, Jughead. How's that been?

Right now, the reason teams can throw big money is because they have no talent and aren't paying anyone. That isn't a huge problem per se, because it lets the talent-poor teams dominate FA while the talent rich teams, such as Utah, can't spend a damn thing and haven't been able to for years. A cap-crunch would introduce more talented players into the FA pool, though.

Another potential side effect I see with the cap thing: it will reign in super-talented teams, but it the cap-savvy owners aren't going to be punished - the ones who are less careful with it now will. As with other balancing efforts I think there's a potential to just widen the gap.

If the issue is solely realistic-looking contracts, that isn't an issue, IMO. As you say: that money is there to be spent. No NFL team is sitting around with $87mm in cap space, either.

[Guest]

I'd say the point is more to have a better/deeper FA market, not so much to break up/prevent a 'super team'. A side effect of that is the contracts aren't so outlandish, as there are more than 1-2 good players available. Looking at our current situation, if you were to lop off 25% of the cap, and there were say, 3-4 decent TEs available, you wouldn't be seeing this TE looking at an 80+ million payday. That WR would still have gotten paid, but probably not nearly as outlandish.

I'm not unhappy with the current setup here, but my stance is I'd rather see something addressing the cap than going back to an antiquated system of final-year renegs. And neither will solve the 'ghost-bidding', as you mention. Not sure that that really bothers me.

[Aston]

yeah, I think we are in full agreement.