Originally posted by thenewchuckd
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Free Agent spending
Collapse
X
-
Why did you guys get rid of the minimum years contract rule again?
I'm too lazy to find the thread.
Baltimore Bulldogs - BLB since '84
- Porter Champs: '92, '93, '97, '98, '01, '03, '06, '08, '12
- Playoffs: '92, '93, '97, '98, '99, '01, '03, '06, '08, '12, '13, '14, '15, '16
- Brewmaster's Cup: '01
Comment
-
Because the game polices itself fairly well.
I've been giving Aston a hard time because last year he sucked up a handful of players on one year deals. All those deals made sense* as they were older players who didn't necessarily justify 3 year deals. All those players are now back on the market.
What we're seeing now is a handful of younger players getting snatched up on one year deals presumably for tagging the next season with a long term deal then.
Implementing a no sign and tag rule, which Aston pretty much confirmed will be going into place, will limit these signings. Instead of sniping to such a great extent, multi year deals will be required for teams who want to hold onto the player after the one season. Granted it moves it to a 2 year deal, which isn't a huge step up from one year, but $30 mil+ a year for more than a season is tough to justify for anyone other than QBs.
But we got rid of the 3 year aspect because it left a bunch of older players for FA2, which made FA1 less interesting. That and the game does a decent job making it tougher to have a ton of extra cap space.
Spoiler*They make financial sense, I don't think it translates into a good or great team building strategy. You lose out on cohesion while constantly plugging in players on 1 year deals. One or two players here or there makes a ton of sense, but fielding half a unit of 1 year players makes little sense to me. The better option would be to suck for a year and get a better draft slot. But that's just my opinion.
Last edited by garion333; 08-26-2015, 12:12 PM.
Comment
Comment