Offseason UFA / RFA Changes Discussion

Discussion in 'Hard Knocks' started by NeuroticTruth, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Yeah, I really like that as well, but I feel that if you were to do this you would have to raise the qualifications for being an RFA.

    Personally, I like the idea of adding a rule that limits how many of your UFAs you can resign as well. Maybe something like this for UFA / RFA:

    ===========================================================

    Here is how RFAs will be determined:

    A. Players Age ≤ 25 Years Old and have and Overall rating ≥ 95
    B. Players Age ≥ 26 Years Old and have and Overall rating ≥ 90

    RFA status is determined AFTER progression each offseason. Kickers and punters do not apply to this rule.

    Compensation for winning a bid is a 1st and 3rd round pick, no salary is added to the winning bid.

    UFA:

    Teams are limited to resigning a maximum of 3 UFAs per offseason with 80+ OVR. You're free to resign any UFAs with OVR ratings of 79 or below. If they go into the UFA / RFA 1 pool unsigned you can still bid on them.

    Franchise Tag:

    You can assign a franchise tag to one player per offseason (regardless of whether or not they're a UFA or RFA [this also dosnt count towards your UFA restrictions if the player is a UFA]). The Franchise Tag resigns the player for one season for $10 mil (7 mil salary, 3 mil bonus) and at the end of the contract the player becomes a UFA (regardless of whether or not he meets RFA restrictions [remember, players generally speaking dont like to be franchise tagged]).

    ===========================================================

    Just some ideas to liven up the offseason. The RFA to me personally is too broad atm. Generally speaking as well the UFA pool pre UFA2 is usually pretty lacking. I think this also puts pressure on more people to manage their salary cap and player contracts (in terms of when they expire). It also makes building through the draft more important IMO.
     
  2. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. cp0990

    cp0990 Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    427
    My idea is that the orginal team is about to tender 1 player per offseason with a 1st rd pick. The catch is that the player must be 95 or over and 28 or younger or somthing like this. If the orginal team is to place that 1st rd tender they are to add 2 million to the final asking price. This is the same as if another team signs a RFA but they have to add that salary.
    To me this would help FA by allowing the orginal team to at least get some decent compensation in return for a 95 ovr player. This has happened to me three times with 95 or over ovr guys and have not been compensated more than a 2nd rd pick. In real life this just would not happen. I know we dont want to hurt the frenzy in FA but this is to make the bidder think more about bidding on a player when they see that, that player has been tendered and if they are to sign him they will have to give up a 1st.

    so here is an EX:

    Player X is 96 ovr and 26 years old
    Orginal team decides not to take a chance on the winning bidder to offer only a 2nd (possible less) and slaps that one tender they have on him.

    Bidding Team: wins the bid for say 60/5.
    They ask if orginal team wants to match.
    Orginal team does match and therefore you add 2mil per year to the salary.

    On the time the orginal team does not match the bidding team would then have to give up a 1st w/2mil added or if they want to give up the 1st/3rd they can with less $$ added per yr.
     
  4. cadepetty247

    cadepetty247 Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,843
    IMO i like the way we have it ....

    RFA status is determined AFTER progression each offseason.- Why would you want to do that...
     
  5. NDCOLTS1979

    NDCOLTS1979 I love you red solo cup

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,081
    This is why i paid so much for joplin. I lost jennings cause it was matched and couldbt get a backup plan cause money was already on a guy. I like the rfa how it is. I would say the best thing is find one person in hk who has the time. Make him the rfa rep. Have everyone send him the max offer forthe rfa and the option he chooses. Then the rfa rep goes to the team and says this is the offer you going to match or not. This is done before the fa pwriod is started. Then the offer is sent by the rfa rep to the team or the board if its a cpu team to match or not. This will allow for a backup plan and keep the chances of landing key fas
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. DC

    DC Shake n Bake

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,546
    I like Hals approach
     
  7. SteamboatReb

    SteamboatReb Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,326
    I like it as is with the franchise tag added into the mix.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Why wouldnt you? If you wait you get a more accurate idea of the OVR of the player. If you do it before progression you're going off the OVR from a season that dosnt even matter anymore. If you do it after progression you're getting the age advance and OVR advance that players will be using in the coming season.
     
  9. Cavs4LIFE

    Cavs4LIFE Walk On

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    474
    Im not in favor of removing RFA completely. Like mentioned, it basically kills another team by not being able to resign their OWN free agents. It would suck for a team to build through the draft with quality players, only to have the opportunity to not sign them.
    Control should be more with the owner IMO, than a rule limiting how many players a team can sign. Ill use my team for example. I chose not to resign Brandon Graham, instead drafted his replacement in Kenarious Butler. In free agency, I went after Jimmy Smith and Dickerson, didnt get neither of them. I drafted a FS and CB in the 2nd round to fill those needs.
    The franchise tag is a great idea, that being said you can only use it on one player. If I have 3-4 starters I want to bring back, I should be able to bring them all back. The only case that I shouldnt be able to bring them back is either salary cap issues or I choose not to match the offer.
     
  10. controllerabuser

    controllerabuser Purple People Eaters

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,759
    Too much fucking reading. My head hurts.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. BobJr

    BobJr To each their own

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,123
    Featured Threads:
    2
    We aren't going to remove the RFA system. There is a couple of ideas we might float out this next offseason, but the RFA system enables for a stronger FA period.

    While I like the thoughts and creativity, we don't need this in two threads.
     
  12. HAL9100

    HAL9100 TSO's Resident Antagonist

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    3,259
    Featured Threads:
    1
    That's incorrect. Removing the RFA would not affect your ability to resign your own free agents. Under the current model, you can still be outbid beyond what you can afford. That's typically why people win their RFA bids. That's how I lost Tom Brady to the Bears. If you were always going to be the highest bidder on your own free agents, like Bob with Dickerson or sdid with Peterson, then it doesn't affect anything. The only difference is that the team losing the player doesn't receive a draft pick in return. The other difference is that, like you with Dickerson, you would've known you weren't going to sign him with your offer so you could've offered more or gone after other players.

    This is also closer to reality. Sometimes teams just don't have enough money to resign their players and have to go through a rebuilding phase. It puts more pressure on the owner to properly manage their team.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. BobJr

    BobJr To each their own

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,123
    Featured Threads:
    2
    How would they get screwed over? Maybe not spend so much on the player and go after a few other options. I told him from the beginning I had enough money to match. The idea is to have a game inside a game for offseason. Use strategy to plan your offseasons in advance, look at other guys caps to see how far they can push, etc.
    There were several options to fill holes in the draft and after UFA 2. The idea is to get you guys away from looking at OVERALLS. Everyone needs to be looking at skill sets that complete their team. For instance, Frisk has some shitty rated LBers but they are beast because he knows how to use them. Same with his WR core. Picking all "sexy" players is what gets guys in trouble.
    There are other options. Again look through the attributes. A few seasons ago I was able to sign Terrance Cody (a beast 3-4 DT) for less than a million dollars a season. This was because guys were afraid of his OVR.
    I like the aspect of looking through teams and knowing whats going on. I enjoy the "work". I would almost go to say that the guys that put in the most work enjoy it too. (Diddy, CA, Ry, Cimmy). We try to make it as easy and smooth as possible on you guys, just unfortunately sometimes post are not read...(looks at SteamboatReb, jk bud)
    For one if you were to enable all UFAs, then you would have to enable everyone free reign to resign. It would be COMPLETELY unfair to build a player and not have the opportunity to match for him. This would dilute the FA pool thus creating a Boring offseason (trust me we have tried it in other leagues). Teams would automatically sign their superstars and you still would be left with the scrap heap.

    As for the Franchise Tag, we have something in store for you guys shortly.

    And again, you guys don't need to worry about the work load! Thanks Hal for your input though, I am not knocking any of it, just responding to what I believe. I think all are extremely valid points, I just want you to be aware that we created the RFA system to allow guys to use a bit more strategy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. BobJr

    BobJr To each their own

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,123
    Featured Threads:
    2

    This is why you use the roster and contracts breakdown tab to see what each team has available. Guys get too stuck on overalls, thus creating some pretty hefty contracts

    With Madden we can not always recreate reality. Before XFN we used 10 point scales for contracts, and had automatic releases and such.
     
  15. BobJr

    BobJr To each their own

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,123
    Featured Threads:
    2
    IF the UFA pool prior to UFA2 is lacking then you should be building through the draft. It is your own fault for not doing that in the first place. I see alot of guys that dont stay for the 7 rounds, and I just SMH. There are true GEMS in those later rounds ask Emmdotfrisk
     
  16. NeuroticTruth

    NeuroticTruth dont know , dont care

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    10,037
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Its not lacking in terms of players, its just anyone 80+ is an RFA. I have nothing against the current system, it works and people like it. I personally just dont understand why a 30 year old on his 4th team that has an 80 OVR but digressed to a 77 is an RFA.

    I made this thread because I didnt want to derail the other one from what it was originally intended for. People were still posting their question answers and I didnt want to make it hard to read. Sorry.
     
  17. DC

    DC Shake n Bake

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,546
    That's one thing I didn't get....why my 30 yo 80 ovr ss was a rfa. No one is gonna go after him. It's not a big deal at all. I was just thinking that when he made the rfa list
     
  18. SteamboatReb

    SteamboatReb Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,326
    Any chance we could limit a guy to being an RFA only once in their career. I was thinking that a guy who fits within the RFA parameters at the end of his first (rookie) contract goes through RFA. Maybe allow RFA contracts to be for 6 years. After the expiration of that contract, then the player, regardless of rating, is an UFA. Kind of a unionesque "time of service" deal. After a player fulfills his first two contracts (at least a 9 year vet), he operates outside of RFA and the franchise tag cannot be used.

    As to the franchise tag, it could only be used for one-year on a player who is a RFA (i.e., negotiating 2nd contract and within rating requirement). If you use a tag on a player, you only delay the inevitable, as the next year he is again an RFA and you are faced with matching or taking the compensation.

    This would allow the whole age factor to be done away with, would provide a team with the opportunity to commit to a "franchise" player for the best years of his career, and it would insure that the UFA pool would always be full of 7-10 year stud players who are available to fill those "one or two players from a championship" need.

    I think this would allow owners to project the salary requirements going forward to keep their core "franchise" guys around and also provide a clearer picture of team needs a couple of drafts in advance.

    For example, I start '13 with the 49ers. I get clobbered all year in typical fashion and have a top 5 pick. I take a stud QB and sign him to the usual 3 year rookie deal. This guy really pans out and is killing it. At the end of his first contract, I decide to franchise him because Aldon Smith (who has progressed to a 90 for the sake of argument) is also a RFA and I have several other "studs" (players 84 and > to try and keep in UFA). These other guys are in UFA because they are 7-10 year guys who are coming off there second contracts, etc. If I am gonna keep everyone I need to, I cannot run the risk of letting both the young QB and Smith going to bid in RFA. I say, fuck it, Aldon is getting the franchise tag (I put it on Aldon because I know that HK owners cream their pants when a badass, young LB is available....but for the most part nobody goves two fucks about any qb not named Brady). Whether matching or after RFA period, I get my young QB inked to his second deal for 6 years. I don't have to worry about him again most likely for the rest of the release. Smith is costing me 10 million for one year.

    Now, I get to see how UFA shakes out. I end up keeping most of UFAs and splurge on one who I didn't think I would get. Going into the next offseason, I crunch the numbers and realize that keeping Smith will be tough, so I prepare to lose him if that's how it shakes out. I can look to replace him through the draft or UFA because I know there will be 7-10 year veterans in UFA with equal or better ratings, even if they have less "upside" or "potential."

    I think this system would shrink the RFA pool, but it would definitely add to the depth, breadth and quality of the UFA pool. I don't have to worry about losing the young MLB I snagged the year in the draft when I gave up a lot to trade up and get him because I want to build my franchise around him after his rookie contract expires because Sporty has saved his dollars and will spend what it takes to get him in RFA because he is a MLB short of winning it all in or because he was picking behind me that year but really, really, really wants him. However, I cannot take a franchise that has say, P. Willis and Timmons, and save my money to make sure I can keep them on the team because when their deals expire because I can match any offer. I can keep them, but it will be at market value. On the flip side, Sporty can say, "Man, I need a stud MLB. I sure like that badass MLB Reb drafted three years ago. I could tunnel-vision this shit and offer 100 million for six years. Damn, I would really be committed to this guy, but he is 91 overall and will likely progress to 97. Then again, I know that P. Willis and L. Timmons will be in UFA. They are mid-90 players on their way down and I can only lock them up for three years, but I could probably get one of them for 12 million a year with no added salary or compensation. I will go with either of the veterans and draft a good MLB this year for the future."

    Granted, I have no idea Sporty's thought process in such matters or if he even cares about MLBs. Maybe he likes to build inside-out. Or maybe his inner monologue is less formal. Personally, I think Sporty's inner-monologue uses a lot of abbreviations that you typically see in a text. I use Sporty only as a real-world example. LOL. (Just p[icking on you Sporty, you know you are one of my favorite dudes here!) thegman2.0,
     
    • Like Like x 3
  19. BobJr

    BobJr To each their own

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,123
    Featured Threads:
    2
    Yea we didn't realize when we created the Handbook that HK would blow up to almost completely the cycle. Next release we will lengthen the contracts. Right now there is no point to change the rule on the contract years. But I like the thinking Reb
     
  20. SteamboatReb

    SteamboatReb Walk On

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,326
    That entire diatribe was meant to be addressed to the future (new release). Persoanlly, I don't think it would be prudent or fair to completely overhaul the RFA system 6 years in. It is what it is for now for the most part.
     
  21. DC

    DC Shake n Bake

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,546
    Very well thought out reb. I like what u got there
     
  22. BobJr

    BobJr To each their own

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Messages:
    7,123
    Featured Threads:
    2
    Rebs motto:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 3
  23. HAL9100

    HAL9100 TSO's Resident Antagonist

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    Messages:
    3,259
    Featured Threads:
    1
    I don't know when you told him but I know I never heard it. If it was after he had already bid though, then that money was locked up and unable to be used elsewhere. And he had the most money available last offseason so he could have priced you out if he really wanted to. But even then, that's a very specific example. It's pretty rare to see someone come out and say they are going to match whatever the offer was. There is a strategy behind who you go after due to cap situations but that would exist in both systems.


    Personally, I think some of the guys psyche themselves out by over focusing on the specific attributes of a player. Overalls are not the end-all, be-all of determining who is a better player, but an 85 should play better than a 75, imo. But when you start talking about filling a starting spot on a roster, I'm going to be looking at the 85 ovr player because there's a reason the formula is showing him as a better player than the 75. And in a team game, I think it's very hard to determine the true effect of a single cpu controlled player. There's so many variables involved. So I tend to play it safe and go with the higher overall.

    And mid-80's aren't sexy, imo. These are players that only switch teams if they're traded or if someone screws up by bidding on them, lol. And no matter what we do, that should be a focus, imo.



    I'm not saying you don't enjoy the work, but if something can be done more easily, then you can focus on other things. We're not avoiding using XFN because you want to do that work, if that makes sense. To me, this is something that seems a little more like busy work and minimizing that type of work has always been a priority for me. So I'm not saying you guys need less work or should want less work, just that less work never hurts.

    I'm not sure I'm following you here. You just bid on your own player who is a free agent. I don't see how that's unfair. That's how it really is. And I don't see how it dilutes the FA pool. It would likely be the exact same players who are showing up as RFAs already. You would just see more movement and bidding action in UFA1.
     
  24. biggcoug65

    biggcoug65 49er for Life

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,825
    Slightly off topic, yet similar...have you ever thought about doing blind bids for the FA period? It would show you if you are ahead, but if someone else was ahead of you, you would know you are not in the lead for a guy but wouldn't know who is ahead of you. Just a thought, not saying we should do it, but it might be something to explore.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. _MG_

    _MG_ Watching Folks Swim

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,600
    Featured Threads:
    1
    I am loving all the dialogue and talking between everyone, and how civil it has been. you guys are awesome.

    [​IMG]

    threads like this do nothing but make us better.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page