2039 Off-season

[Sharkn20]

Am surprising how people still declining bargain offers for proven veterans... Not blaming anyone but with the new version, there is not many "good" rated players out of the middle of the 2nd Round... Usually are nuce good role players with great bars on specific attributes.

When the full generation of FOF 2007's players is gone we will have a completely different approach to trades...

By the way how many years are we into the new version wasting late rounds picks?

[Guest]

It depends what you mean by "proven players".

I think even in the new version it is possible to find role players with an overall rating of 30-40 in the 5th round with two bars in the 50ish range. Plus they will come cheaper and they won't have a possibility of an age decline.

[Guest]

Holy hell you guys are putting up some insane offers for LT Perez.

[Sharkn20]

He'll be the best paid player in the OSFL

[Sharkn20]

Kalispel gaming the game, got Perez with a $45M per 1 Year......

[Guest]

The Aston Effect is on.

Time to get rid of that there Franchise Tag.

[Delandis]

The Aston Effect is on.

Time to get rid of that there Franchise Tag.

I don't see the correlation.

[IrishGuy65]

I don't see the correlation.

Guys sign a player to a huge 1 year deal when they have the spare money laying around, then franchise and resign a lot cheaper for a longer contract... leaving more money to do it again or to build around the big name they just signed.

Removing the franchise tag would mean guys had to either sign a player to a multiyear deal, or keep giving the guy a monster 1 year deal every year in free agency.

I never really liked the franchise tag anyway. I rarely use it, unless there is a player I have been trying to negotiate with in the last season, and couldn't come to terms.

[Guest]

Kalispel gaming the game, got Perez with a $45M per 1 Year......

Gotta get that OLine

[Sharkn20]

I do like the Franchise tag, you can use to keep your Cohesion and donīt risk your star player, or whoever

[IrishGuy65]

I do like the Franchise tag, you can use to keep your Cohesion and donīt risk your star player, or whoever

You can keep your cohesion by signing him to a long term deal, also.

[Delandis]

2039 Off-season

Guys sign a player to a huge 1 year deal when they have the spare money laying around, then franchise and resign a lot cheaper for a longer contract... leaving more money to do it again or to build around the big name they just signed.



Removing the franchise tag would mean guys had to either sign a player to a multiyear deal, or keep giving the guy a monster 1 year deal every year in free agency.



I never really liked the franchise tag anyway. I rarely use it, unless there is a player I have been trying to negotiate with in the last season, and couldn't come to terms.

They can't get out of that bonus right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sharkn20]

You can keep your cohesion by signing him to a long term deal, also.

Really??

[IrishGuy65]

They can't get out if that bonus right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The bonus on the one year deal, or the long term deal?

The one year deal only affects the current season salary cap. When you sign a guy to a long term deal, you are stuck paying that bonus money no matter what.

The point is this... if the guy is a really good player and a staple on your team, the likelihood of you trading him is very small, so the bonus money really doesn't matter. However, if you are finding an old guy for a quick fix, or you are trying to get a guy to use a future trade bait, then a one year signing, followed by a franchise tag which has no bonus money attached, is a great option.

The point garion made that you asked about was sorta a joke about how Aston runs in free agency. But, if you've been watching the game over the last few years, many guys far overpay a player with a 1 season deal, when they have the money to do it, THEN franchise him next season and renegotiate and much better deal for him. Teams would not be able to do this if there was no franchise tag, which is the point I'm making.

I don't have a problem using the franchise tag to keep a long time player that doesn't want to resign, or is older and may retire and leave you stuck with his bonus on a long term deal. But, signing a guy for a very large 1 year contract and then franchising him is basically gaming the system, which I don't like. I will admit that I have done this myself... the only way to keep up is the play the same strategies as others are doing. But removing the franchise tag removes this way of gaming the system and forces teams to rethink their hiring practices and reduces the overall salaries of the entire league, as players ask for salaries based on what others are being paid.

So, removing the franchise tag will, over time, reduce the asking price of players, and also stop the ability to game the system. Very few players in the NFL is going to sign a monster 1 year deal, and be happy when he is franchises. They all want long term security. This isn't reflected in the way the game handles free agents.

Finally, let me say I'm against the franchise tag, but I don't care if it's here or not. I just came in to answer someone's question. I can game the system just like everyone else... it's an even playing field. I just disagree with it.

[IrishGuy65]

Really??

<YAWN>

You realize, Shark, that I'm a 50 year old man that won't be sucked in by a Spanish stalker trying to harass every post I make. It's just silly, and maybe you need to grow up.