*Contract Rules Issues

[Hallmonitor_20]

So with the rules summit concluding and the results posted I wanted to explain an issue with one of the rules in the rulebook that allows for teams to abuse the contract system we have in place. 

This ruling has to do with extensions, the 3 year max rule, and the rookie contract rule. 

First, let's talk about the rookie contract rule:

Rule II. D. 15

Code:

If a rookie signs a 1-year contract, they can only sign at most a 2-year extension or other new contract. This includes situations such as a 2-year rookie deal with an option on the second year that is used to accomplish the
same thing.

The purpose of this rule is to prevent GMs/rookies from abusing their low TPE to sign players to more than 3 years at the $1m minimum. This is a good rule that has been famously enforced. Take note that a 1 year rookie contract can only get a 2 year extension. This prevents anyone from abusing and buying an extra year at the $1m minimum on rookies. 

So now let's talk about the extension rule:

Rule II. D. 11

Code:

.Players may extend their contracts if they are in the final year of their current contract. A player may NOT extend their contract at any other point.

Rule II. D. 10

Code:

A player’s contract does not end until free agency starts as defined in the league schedule.

Following these two rules a player can only get an extension in their final season which begins when free agency begins. Currently, free agency begins the day after the ultimus. This means a player can sign their new extension before receiving any offseason TPE or even unclaimed TPE from the previous season such as Playoff Predictions. Basically the extension period works as signing them as free agents.

The rules summit had a new rule (which has been brought up multiple times and obviously voted down):

Move the extension period open date from season open to trade deadline.

This was voted down with 8 for and 13 against. 

Normally when something is voted down its due to poor wording and looking at the wording this rule change implies that the extension period begins when the season begins which is wrong. The extension period begins when the offseason begins. This is a small tricky tacky wording but I've seen rules voted down for less. 

Now you may be wondering what this rule would actually change? If you're not then honestly I don't blame you because its not something that's super obvious.

Basically with the rule the way it currently is (and always has been) a player can sign a 1 year contract at $2m the day after the ultimus and immediately sign an extension at the same time (since technically they're in their last season of their contract) for 3 years at $2m a year. So now a 599 TPE player has a 4 year contract at $2m a year. 

HO has aggressively forced the rookie rule (which is understandable) to insure that GMs aren't taking advantage of their rookie players contracts to have more than 3 seasons at the $1m cap hit which is basically nothing to a teams cap space. 

However, 

HO (and GMs as well since they obviously abuse this) refuse to make a change to a rule that allows GMs to bend the cap room by singing these makeshift 4 year deals (which are illegal btw) just to keep players on longer for cheaper. 

So what would this new rule change actually do?

1st it would force all extensions to happen after the trade deadline. Meaning a player can no longer sign a 1 year deal and immediately sign a 3 year extension. This bans all the 1+3 deals. Now if a player wants an extension they have 2-3 weeks of TPE they've earned since signing that 1 year deal which could place them in a higher TPE bracket meaning their extension would be worth more. Now there may be some players that stay in the same bracket from offseason to deadline and thats fine but the max earners (that probably make up a lot of the leagues 1+3 deals) would no longer be able to play way under their worth TPE wise. 

Below is the most recent example of this loophole being abused. 

Berlin signs Hunt to a 1 year deal on 1/15 (https://forums.sim-football.com/showthre...#pid412168)

Then signs Hunt to a 3 year extension also on 1/15
(https://forums.sim-football.com/showthre...#pid412450)

So now Hunt (who at the time of signing was at 774 TPE) signed a 1+3 deal which basically equals 4 years a $3m a year. This may not seem like a big deal but had the extension have to wait until the deadline theres very very good chance that Hunt is over the 799 TPE limit which would push him into the $4m bracket. So basically this sign and extension bought Berlin $1m in Hunt's 4th season. Which again may not seem like a lot but thats another rookie that they could call up for free in his 4th season of the deal. 

If your arguement to this is, "Whats $1m? Why make a rule change for $1m?" Then my argument to you is, why have the rookie deal when a 1+3 for a rookie is illegal and all it adds is $1m in their 4th year instead of $2m TPE wise. Both of these scenarios cause the same outcome but only 1 is illegal. 

So my arguement is either make them both legal (which would be dumb imo) or make them both illegal (which I've been saying since s19.)

And to the GMs that are against this because its too much work, I'd like to remind you of something that was said when the "limit strat changes" rule was being debated; If you don't want to do work then don't become a GM. 

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.

[124715]

I believe we discussed changing Rule II.D.15 to read "Player", not "Rookie" when it was implemented, but that never went through because that could plausibly happen in free agency with no ill intent. Perhaps it's worth another look at that, with a stipulation that this requirement is waived for non-rookies switching teams

[.Laser]

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.

[Hallmonitor_20]

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

[TomHanks]

Not only do I agree with you here but I also think that the unlimited season extension at 800 TPE is kinda silly too. Imo you should either make it so anyone can sign a contract longer than 3 seasons but the minimum for that contract is $5 million or you can only sign the unlimited length contract once you have cracked 1000 TPE. Tangentially related but a similar concept. More importantly I agree with you that the 1+3 deal is bogus and is exactly what the rookie extension rule is trying to prevent. Extensions being post trade deadline makes infinite sense to me, not only for the 1+3 deal thing, but also just so players sign extensions at what they're worth minimum wise. I know in NOLA we've had a couple seasons where extending everyone as soon as we could saved us like $5 million in cap space which is significant. Everyone extended in those cases would have cost an extra $1 million by the TDL, likely by the very next week.

[.simo]

To help Hall's point. I literally edited out T6 equipment to get myself back under 799 and after the contract was approved by everyone bought it again and was over 799 like 2 hours after I signed. I agree the rule should be changed but as someone who needs no money I'll take advantage of it while it's there.

---

Also I don't think making them wait a week or so it's going to make a difference. We've seen people happy shave TPE off their total to sign a deal in a cheaper bracket. Making someone wait 2 weeks to go for 780 to 810, they'll just take a 11 TPE penalty to be paid less.

[AdamS]

I'd argue that the main part of the problem isn't that you can do a 1+3 beyond your rookie contract. Its that the rookie contract rule has been amended to give rookies less freedom in this regard to start with. No one would care about a 1+3 otherwise.

The initial requirement of having to a sing a multi-year rookie deal to get a 3 year contract after was perfectly fine. But GMs just needed to have more control and thus it was changed to having to have a full 3 year contract before you can get a 3 year deal as your second. Even after the initial team whom this rule protects has traded you away. I'll let @Hallmonitor_20 make that argument though, all things considered. On top of all that, rookies are the only ones who can use opt outs without the contract being considered to be completed.

[Hallmonitor_20]

I'd argue that the main part of the problem isn't that you can do a 1+3 beyond your rookie contract. Its that the rookie contract rule has been amended to give rookies less freedom in this regard to start with. No one would care about a 1+3 otherwise.

The initial requirement of having to a sing a multi-year rookie deal to get a 3 year contract after was perfectly fine. But GMs just needed to have more control and thus it was changed to having to have a full 3 year contract before you can get a 3 year deal as your second. Even after the initial team whom this rule protects has traded you away. I'll let @Hallmonitor_20 make that argument though, all things considered. On top of all that, rookies are the only ones who can use opt outs without the contract being considered to be completed.

Heavily agree that rookies get shafted currently. Especially new creates. Nothing is more magical then getting drafted for the first time and then getting told you should take the $1m for 3 years "because everyone takes the minimum". Recreates normally have the money to take min but these new creates deserve to make money also and if a player doesn't like a team we shouldn't punish them for wanting to leave.

[AdamS]

I'd argue that the main part of the problem isn't that you can do a 1+3 beyond your rookie contract. Its that the rookie contract rule has been amended to give rookies less freedom in this regard to start with. No one would care about a 1+3 otherwise.

The initial requirement of having to a sing a multi-year rookie deal to get a 3 year contract after was perfectly fine. But GMs just needed to have more control and thus it was changed to having to have a full 3 year contract before you can get a 3 year deal as your second. Even after the initial team whom this rule protects has traded you away. I'll let @Hallmonitor_20 make that argument though, all things considered. On top of all that, rookies are the only ones who can use opt outs without the contract being considered to be completed.

Heavily agree that rookies get shafted currently. Especially new creates. Nothing is more magical then getting drafted for the first time and then getting told you should take the $1m for 3 years "because everyone takes the minimum". Recreates normally have the money to take min but these new creates deserve to make money also and if a player doesn't like a team we shouldn't punish them for wanting to leave.

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

[Hallmonitor_20]

I'd argue that the main part of the problem isn't that you can do a 1+3 beyond your rookie contract. Its that the rookie contract rule has been amended to give rookies less freedom in this regard to start with. No one would care about a 1+3 otherwise.

The initial requirement of having to a sing a multi-year rookie deal to get a 3 year contract after was perfectly fine. But GMs just needed to have more control and thus it was changed to having to have a full 3 year contract before you can get a 3 year deal as your second. Even after the initial team whom this rule protects has traded you away. I'll let @Hallmonitor_20 make that argument though, all things considered. On top of all that, rookies are the only ones who can use opt outs without the contract being considered to be completed.

Heavily agree that rookies get shafted currently. Especially new creates. Nothing is more magical then getting drafted for the first time and then getting told you should take the $1m for 3 years "because everyone takes the minimum". Recreates normally have the money to take min but these new creates deserve to make money also and if a player doesn't like a team we shouldn't punish them for wanting to leave.

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