(02-01-2021, 02:24 AM)Hallmonitor_20 Wrote:

(02-01-2021, 02:13 AM)Laser Wrote: This is the first I have ever heard of this, and honestly I don't think it's nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be here. Admittedly I do not keep my eyes glued on the transaction pages, and I don't track every transaction ever made, but if a team is saving 1m on their cap every 4 seasons, then that in and of itself is doing what you say about juggling a checkbook. You say that "Balancing cap space is just as important for a GM as sim testing or drafting. This rule change might not force more free agents or players leaving teams more often but it will make teams actually have to juggle a check book instead of just having 4 years of minimum every contract."

So to me, all you're saying is that the GMs are in fact doing their jobs by balancing their cap space, they're just doing it 3-4 seasons in the future. I know of at least 3 GMs that had their budgets planned out that far, and I personally always knew to within a mil or so how much OCO would have each of the next 2 upcoming seasons.

(edit: I'm not passing judgement on whether or not such behavior is morally right or wrong, but in taking advantage they are helping out their teams to the best of their ability which is their job, so *shrugs* idk how to feel about it to be honest)

Also, no team is going to have 4 years of minimum (as in 1m on a rookie deal) every contract. The problem that you have presented is incredibly niche and rather rare. Most players who it would be worth it to do this with have signed original deals of 3y/1m at roughly 225 TPE. Take into consideration that most users will have earned an additional 400 or so TPE by the time that they sign an extension, and they're probably going to sign a 1-season extension in order to get them to the 800 TPE threshold to get them to sign an unlimited contract. But when they sign that extension, they're signing at 625ish TPE, or 3m per season. Now if you're saying a player is taking minimum for 4 seasons, then sure, I absolutely agree. I took minimum for 10 seasons and would gladly do it again, but the minimum is the minimum no matter the TPE you're at. I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I very well may be misunderstanding your point.

So, all in all, I guess I don't see what point you're trying to make here. It seems like it's a rule that's occasionally going to be abused but it's such a niche department that I don't see a need to outlaw it, at the very least not with the way the rule was written. If you want to say that a player cannot sign a new contract and then an extension on the same day, I'm fine with that. Make them wait a week, I think that's a good idea, forces them to earn more TPE that could possibly push them to the next tier.

To address what I think that the rule was atually targeting, I think that it was an attempt to force teams to spend more money for longer by preventing them from signing players to extensions until late in the season when they had added an additional 60-100 TPE, depending on equipment purchase. That's because somehow every team in the league has cap space every season to field their entire team plus OL bots, and as the person who typically updates OL bots a lot of them are of the 7.5m variety. I believe that 5 or 6 teams used T4 bots this season. The easier explanation, imo?

Just lower cap space. I've thought it since S23, but didn't want to say anything because I was a GM, of course I wasn't going to say anything. I was gonna enjoy the extra space I had to sign my rookies to bigger deals than I ordinarily could. And I did that. But really it did not need to be so high, although at this point I think active players would be out of a job in some situations if it were lowered, so I think it needs to stay in place.

I do agree with you about doing the 1+3 is good GMing because its using a rule the way its currently written. My arguement isn't so much that its bad that there's $1m in the 4th year for veterans but if a rookie was drafted to a team they didn't like and signed a 1 year deal they are forced to only sign a 2 year max deal with their new team due to the rules currently.

Also to the point of the 4 year minimum. Players are signing 1 year at a set minimum (say 2m) and then immediately extending for 3 more years (also at 2m) giving them 4 years a 2m instead of the 3m bump they should hit at the end of the 3rd year.


My arguement is why are rookies boxed in for 2-3 seasons when vets can sign a 1+3 which basically accomplish the same thing. There's been many 1+3 deals in the league especially with GMs because its a smart way to save some cap but there's one famous instance that I know of that punished a rookie for options out and trying to sign a new 3 year contract with a new team. Its just a funny little rule that accomplish the same thing but one is legal and one isn't. 

And I fully agree with you that the cap room is too large. Every team shouldn't have T4 OL bots. There should be a down side to having multiple 800+ TPE players on your team and I think it could lead to more variety in the league if teams have to give up OL talent/old talent

(02-02-2021, 02:27 AM)Air Crou Wrote: RoOkIeS nEeD tO bE pAiD mOrE
That's a big bucket of bullshit. Until the salary cap is increased, players will take minimums, whether you like it or not. The solution is there. Also, there is no way people can be offered more than a minimum contract, when a team only has $85m to play with, and around 18-20 players on the majors roster, along with OL bots. $27.5m is the cost of a full T4 bot OL, leaving the team with $57.5m to give on contracts. Make those bots T5, and the cost goes to $35m, leaving the team with $50m. You think the GM will give a rookie more money because they need it? Write media, do podcasts, make graphics, find a damn league job. Next time, before you complain about anything contract related, open the budget sheet, pull a calculator, a pen & some paper, or a google spreadsheet or the Excel, and crunch some numbers up. And it is so ironic, especially coming from a former GM.

Quote:@AdamS

well...unfortunately the people who benefit from this situation also get to vote on the rules for things like agents who could help rookies out and counteract some of this

(02-02-2021, 02:27 AM)Air Crou Wrote: RoOkIeS nEeD tO bE pAiD mOrE
That's a big bucket of bullshit. Until the salary cap is increased, players will take minimums, whether you like it or not. The solution is there. Also, there is no way people can be offered more than a minimum contract, when a team only has $85m to play with, and around 18-20 players on the majors roster, along with OL bots. $27.5m is the cost of a full T4 bot OL, leaving the team with $57.5m to give on contracts. Make those bots T5, and the cost goes to $35m, leaving the team with $50m. You think the GM will give a rookie more money because they need it? Write media, do podcasts, make graphics, find a damn league job. Next time, before you complain about anything contract related, open the budget sheet, pull a calculator, a pen & some paper, or a google spreadsheet or the Excel, and crunch some numbers up. And it is so ironic, especially coming from a former GM.

(02-02-2021, 10:13 AM)Hallmonitor_20 Wrote:

(02-02-2021, 02:27 AM)Air Crou Wrote: RoOkIeS nEeD tO bE pAiD mOrE
That's a big bucket of bullshit. Until the salary cap is increased, players will take minimums, whether you like it or not. The solution is there. Also, there is no way people can be offered more than a minimum contract, when a team only has $85m to play with, and around 18-20 players on the majors roster, along with OL bots. $27.5m is the cost of a full T4 bot OL, leaving the team with $57.5m to give on contracts. Make those bots T5, and the cost goes to $35m, leaving the team with $50m. You think the GM will give a rookie more money because they need it? Write media, do podcasts, make graphics, find a damn league job. Next time, before you complain about anything contract related, open the budget sheet, pull a calculator, a pen & some paper, or a google spreadsheet or the Excel, and crunch some numbers up. And it is so ironic, especially coming from a former GM.

See everyone says "get a league job" like jobs are just handed out to anyone that wants one. How many jobs go to the same group of people? How many times have rookies been passed on jobs? I get that there's a push to get more rookies involved in jobs but if 40+ new people join each season we dont have 40+ jobs available. Media/gfx/podcasts are good money making opportunities but not everyone has the drive/creativeness to make these consistently. 

Also I know as a former GM that money is easily thrown around. Teams will easily hand out bonuses at the end of the season because they have money left over not all but some. And of your arguement to not pay players is because they need the top tier bots then that is counterintuitive to what the hell we're doing here. 

We should not be screwing over active users because we want top of the line bots and even if you wanted bots you should expect a fall off in cap. Do NFL teams all have amazing OLs? Do they say "we're not paying our generational QB because we want more OL? No. There's a balance to this.

Since you said "check the spreadsheets" like the guy you are I did and wow would you look at that over half the teams in the league have over $2m in cap space some up to $6m but go off king about how the cap is to low.