2018 Rule Change Discussion

The league forum for the Tecmo Bowl Fantasy League

Moderators: TrueDawg, monkeybones, Dionosys

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby monkeybones » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:59 am

Here is the original rule change suggestion thread: viewtopic.php?f=152&t=145165

I know we need another owner but I'd like to at least start the discussion with the following items:

1. Prohibit conditional trades - Each trade should be posted and completed when the trade is finalized. No team should "owe" another team anything at any point. Trades should be done and over with once they are approved and confirmed.

2. Change contract years structure to resemble more closely to that of the nfl. No player in UFA is going to sign a 6 year minimum salary deal so I suggest something as follows:

contract value of $1000 per year or less will be allowed a max of 2 years of control.
contract value of $1001-$5000 per year will be given a max of 3 years of control.
contract value of $5001-$10000 per year will be given a max of 4 years of control.
contract value of $10001+ per year will be given a max of 5 years of control.

This would also cap the max years given to 5 years instead of the current 6.

3. Use the FT at face value for 1 year
Use the FT as a 2 year contract extension at an increase of 4% over the FT value for that position.
Use the FT as a 3 year contract extension at an increase of 7% over the FT value of that position.

Limit of the extensions would be 3 years total for a Franchise Tag player.

4. Awarding comp picks for FA's lost during the FA period.

5. When should the DS designation be for players who are already on the DS and for those drafted in the current season?

6. Contract Renegotiations should have a year cap on them to what the player had or less.

7. Adding an "Inactive" designation instead of an IR slot.

8. Eliminate a FLEX starting position and replacing it with a RB and WR.

This one isn't a rule change but a process change for the commissioner. I like it and will try to do this when a bidding thread is done.
When a players UFA is complete the name of the post should be changed (if possible), just adding an "x" or "z" in front of it would eliminate a lot of opening and closing of posts.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby monkeybones » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:16 am

1. It's my idea so I'm totally in favor of prohibiting conditional trades.

2. I like the idea of the sliding scale for players added through any sort of FA. The only way to get a player locked up for multiple years and for cheap is to draft him.

3. I like the idea of the FT amount being the minimum with a sliding scale if you want to give the player a longer contract. I'd suggest 5% for 2 years and 10% for 3 years.

4. No. Comp picks would be impossible to determine and I don't see much value in the implementation of this type of system.

5. I think the DS designation for players already on the DS should be done before the draft starts. This way no one is tempted to demote a player to the DS early since the player counts towards the roster cap. Once the DS designation deadline passes the player is considered to have accrued one more year of service if you wish to promote or the player can be cut for a $45 cap penalty. The DS designation for players drafted during the current year should be designated no later than 48 hours after the entire draft is complete. This is consistent with the contract assignment rules for FA's.

6. No. Part of the reason for a contract renegotiation is to be able to extend the player's contract if you want to.

7. I'm fine with having an "Inactive" designation instead of an IR designation. This will allow teams to manipulate rosters easier and add players they need to start for a week without having to drop a player who is healthy. That being said, anyone on the "Inactive" squad keeps their contract and cap penalties will be assessed the same as if the player were active. The contract amount also counts towards the salary cap.

We will have to make sure the rules specifically address the issue with the IR as it relates to players on IR. As of right now you are not allowed to renegotiate a player who ended the prior season on the IR. This should relate to the player's actual NFL status, not the players status in our game. The commish will need to designate players as soon as the season is done so we know who is not eligible to be renegotiated the following year.

8. I like the FLEX position but I can be convinced to move away from one if we want to add another RB or WR or both.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:17 pm

1. I would note NO on this strictly to not restrict the freedom of our owners. If owners want to engage in conditional trades, any conditional / future compensation owed is completely up to the individual owners to manage. I do not believe it is the league's or the commish's responsibility to manage or enforce this. In other words, I don't care. It is, for all intents and purposes, two separate trades. If someone renegs on future compensation, not my problem... although that's probably going to impact that owner's ability to make future deals.

2. I know this is an attempt to increase player movement and to force owners to more frequently pay market value for players. But this suggestion completely negates an owner's ability to identify diamonds in the rough and lock them up long term cheaply. I might be in favor of something less restrictive (2 years for less than $1000 sucks). I'd be in favor of reducing the max contract to 4 or 5 years. We should also cap the max contract for in-season pickups to 1 year (if we haven't already, I can't recall), so that helps prevent owners from signing FCFS players to smaller salary long-term deals because everyone has less cap space available.

3. In KFFL, if the player receives a bid and the controlling owner matches, the player can be signed to a multi-year deal. If no one bids on the player, the player is signed at the tender offer amount for 1 year. I like that... I don't think there should be an option for a multi-year deal if the player doesn't receive a bid (most FT players do NOT receive any bids). The NFL's FT is one year... period. The transition tag should allow multi-year deals.

4. Too difficult to manage

5. What's wrong with what we have now? I didn't know this was an issue.

6. I don't really care about this one... most owners are using the renegotiation to reduce the cap hit of a player who is underperforming, so they're probably giving them a 1 year deal anyway (so they can get him off the books next season). Nobody is really exposing good players to bidding by other owners, cuz they'll probably end up paying MORE. So I don't see a lot of owners actually giving renegotiated players LONGER deals. But I have no problem with that.

7. Why?

8. Meh...

Don't see how renaming a thread is any easier than closing it, but however you wanna handle that is fine.

OnABloodbuzz
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1231
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby OnABloodbuzz » Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:49 pm

1. Yeah, conditional trades are awkward with no way of easily tracking them.
2. Reduce contract max to 5 years but that's it.
3. FT and TT as 1 year deals only unless a bid is made.
4. No comp picks.
5. Whatever is easiest
6. Works fine as is
7. We only start 7 from 19, plenty of room to move, this sounds unnecessary.
8. Keep the flex

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby monkeybones » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:21 am

TrueDawg wrote: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:17 pm 1. I would note NO on this strictly to not restrict the freedom of our owners. If owners want to engage in conditional trades, any conditional / future compensation owed is completely up to the individual owners to manage. I do not believe it is the league's or the commish's responsibility to manage or enforce this. In other words, I don't care. It is, for all intents and purposes, two separate trades. If someone renegs on future compensation, not my problem... although that's probably going to impact that owner's ability to make future deals.
My reasoning is if there is a conditional part to a trade it can lead to further problems. I can just see so many ways it could lead teams to do things which aren't exactly honest as a way to get out of a conditional deal since no one is actually tracking it.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby monkeybones » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:27 am

TrueDawg wrote: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:17 pm 2. I know this is an attempt to increase player movement and to force owners to more frequently pay market value for players. But this suggestion completely negates an owner's ability to identify diamonds in the rough and lock them up long term cheaply. I might be in favor of something less restrictive (2 years for less than $1000 sucks). I'd be in favor of reducing the max contract to 4 or 5 years. We should also cap the max contract for in-season pickups to 1 year (if we haven't already, I can't recall), so that helps prevent owners from signing FCFS players to smaller salary long-term deals because everyone has less cap space available.
I can see what you're saying but there is no real downside to giving a player making $1,000 a 6 year contract. If you hit on the player he is way underpaid but if you don't you just cut him for a $1,200 cap penalty to grab the next guy.

In season signings get an automatic 1 year deal so that's already taken care of.

I know this is a fantasy league but in real life there is no way a FA signs a multi year deal for the league minimum.

Maybe the best option is to reduce the max contracts to 4 years for all players except 1st round rookies who get the 5th year option? I'd be fine with that.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby monkeybones » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:29 am

TrueDawg wrote: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:17 pm 3. In KFFL, if the player receives a bid and the controlling owner matches, the player can be signed to a multi-year deal. If no one bids on the player, the player is signed at the tender offer amount for 1 year. I like that... I don't think there should be an option for a multi-year deal if the player doesn't receive a bid (most FT players do NOT receive any bids). The NFL's FT is one year... period. The transition tag should allow multi-year deals.
I like this idea too. Honestly, we need something which stops players from being given the FT and a multi year contract without any bidding on the player.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:35 am

monkeybones wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:29 am
TrueDawg wrote: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:17 pm 3. In KFFL, if the player receives a bid and the controlling owner matches, the player can be signed to a multi-year deal. If no one bids on the player, the player is signed at the tender offer amount for 1 year. I like that... I don't think there should be an option for a multi-year deal if the player doesn't receive a bid (most FT players do NOT receive any bids). The NFL's FT is one year... period. The transition tag should allow multi-year deals.
I like this idea too. Honestly, we need something which stops players from being given the FT and a multi year contract without any bidding on the player.
Absolutely... like I said, most FT players don't receive a bid cuz nobody wants to give up 2 first round picks on top of a huge salary. So yes, that should be a 1 year deal, just like the REAL franchise tag.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby monkeybones » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:36 am

Here are the current rules for Transition Tags
Franchise/Transition Tags

Owners are allowed to use the Franchise Tag or Transition Tag on one player per off-season. Any player with an expiring (0 years left) contract will be eligible. The current year franchise tag amount will be the prior year average of the top five players at his position or a 120% of the player's current salary, whichever is greater. The current year transition tag amount will be the prior year average of the top 10 players at his position. Once the tag is applied the player is then available for open bidding (using UFA rules).

Frachise Tag: The controlling owner has the right to match the highest bid. If the owner declines to match than the player will go to the highest bidder at the cost of two 1st round picks (or negotiated price). To be eligible to bid on a franchised player an owner MUST have at least two first round picks within the next two years in the event the controlling does not match. If the bidding owner has more than two first round picks, the controlling owner may pick the two they want. Compensation can be negotiated if the controlling owner is willing to accept less than two 1sts. There is no obligation to do so.

Transition Tag: The controlling owner has the right to match the highest bid. If the owner declines to match than the player will go to the highest bidder and the controlling owner receives no compensation.

At the appropriate time the controlling owner may sign the player to a contract not to exceed 6 years.
Should we change the wording so players given the TT cannot be paid less than their previous year salary? I mean, the FT is 120% or the Top 5 at their position. Should the TT be 100% or the Top 10 at their position?

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:01 am

monkeybones wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:27 am I can see what you're saying but there is no real downside to giving a player making $1,000 a 6 year contract. If you hit on the player he is way underpaid but if you don't you just cut him for a $1,200 cap penalty to grab the next guy.
But even real teams are doing this... they churn the bottom 1/3 of their roster ALL THE TIME trying to find guys they can develop, at no real cost to the team. I don't see what we do any differently. And I'd argue the one significant downside for us is that these players are occupying a roster spot. We can't afford to do this with too many players. If you look at my roster, I have a *TON* of players making $1000 or less on multi-year deals. But I think the only one I signed as a FA was Jonnu Smith... the rest I either drafted or acquired via trade.
I know this is a fantasy league but in real life there is no way a FA signs a multi year deal for the league minimum.
I mean maybe unknown players who haven't "broken out" yet aren't signing 6 year deals, but they obviously don't get mega-contracts in real life either. Take Jonnu Smith for example... I signed him as a UDFA. Maybe he pans out... maybe he doesn't. Meanwhile I'm carrying him on my roster cuz we no longer have a PS. I gave him 6 years because I could. I'll agree I probably shouldn't have been able to, but I don't think that because he has a $300 salary. He was a rookie who hadn't played a snap and that's why nobody bid on him.
Maybe the best option is to reduce the max contracts to 4 years for all players except 1st round rookies who get the 5th year option? I'd be fine with that.
I think that's definitely a step in the right direction. And I prefer more of an incremental approach versus a drastic change all at once. What if we lowered the max to 5 years for vets and 3 years for UDFA rookies (I think UDFAs get 3 year deals in the NFL)? I'd be willing to bet this happens most often with rookies right after the draft.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:10 am

monkeybones wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:36 am Should we change the wording so players given the TT cannot be paid less than their previous year salary? I mean, the FT is 120% or the Top 5 at their position. Should the TT be 100% or the Top 10 at their position?
No... I dont think so. The transition tag tender is simply the starting point for the bidding. That doesn't mean that's what he'll end up being paid. Players who receive the transition tag are much more likely to receive bids than FT players, because there's no compensation. I think the market will decide the player's value, just like the NFL. And maybe that dude was grossly overpaid the previous year.

bills2
Captain
Captain
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 am

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby bills2 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:04 am

I'll get my vote in, some topics I might kind of pass on if it is something I'm still not super familiar with. If I'm not getting the point of some of these, please correct me.

1. I would say yes to prohibiting conditional trades. If there is a trade it should all be out there and accepted at the time of the trade. No extra pieces that some could go back on or if one person leaves the league it puts the other party in a bind.

2. So I'm pretty new to this part, but I like the idea of a 5 year contract compared to a 6. I probably wont say anything on the scale part cause that still confuses the heck out of me.

3. I would probably say leave FT and TT to one year, then you could try to FT that person the next year similar to the NFL.

4. I'd say no comp picks for FA's, just for the FT.

5. I would say people stay on the DS for one year after they are drafted.

6. I'd say no

7. I'd probably say keep the IR as it is.

8. I'd say keep the flex.

Multiple Scorgasms
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:35 am

1) No. Just no. Why? The ONLY negative thing I'd agree with is that we don't want to create more work for the commish... but that hasn't happened in this regard yet, and it won't in future. It is the OWNER'S responsibility.

I trade Joe Bloggs for a 2nd, and if he gets 1000 yards, I get another 2nd. If the dude puts up 1200 yards and I forget, that's totally on me and no one else.

2) Ehhhhhhhhhh. It's another rule suggestion that I just don't see the need for really. I wouldn't care all THAT much if it got voted in, but I'm not for it. Especially 1k-5k w/ 3 years max. You can often get a nice little steal for a WR3 or TE making 3-5k in UFA, and I really don't see why we should have a 3-year limit. Besides, they don't always work out, and if they get cut, the more years = more cap penalties.

3) Seems OK. Not a huge deal either way. The FT price is high enough for me to not really care if an owner is able to sign him for 2-6 years. Especially if it's a drafted player... I like the idea of incentive and reward for owners who, somehow or some way, acquired a great player.

4) Definitely nothing higher than a pick AFTER the whole 3 rounds now ... at which point I think it's a huge waste of time and effort to attempt to track it all anyway.

5) Don't understand. So whatever. Never liked the DS anyway.

6) Sure, makes sense. Yet another one that I wouldn't have even thought about if it wasn't written here, though.

7) Again I dunno. Whatever promotes more roster flexibility.

8) No. Why??????

Overall, a lot of quite unimportant topics here, which is probably a good thing. There's not much to fix about this league IMO.

User avatar
monkeybones
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby monkeybones » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 am

Multiple Scorgasms wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:35 am 1) No. Just no. Why? The ONLY negative thing I'd agree with is that we don't want to create more work for the commish... but that hasn't happened in this regard yet, and it won't in future. It is the OWNER'S responsibility.

I trade Joe Bloggs for a 2nd, and if he gets 1000 yards, I get another 2nd. If the dude puts up 1200 yards and I forget, that's totally on me and no one else.
My reasoning is to eliminate the potential for issues like this:

You trade Joe Bloggs for a 2nd and he gets 1,000 yards so you get another 2nd. But instead of getting another 2nd you and the other owner decide to work out a deal where he doesn't bid on a FA you want which allows you to get that player at a significantly reduced price. That's essentially collusion but no one can prove it and since no one is tracking the conditional draft pick no one realizes anything went down.

I just see the opportunity for abuse and I wanted to close it.

User avatar
TrueDawg
Ring of Fame
Ring of Fame
Posts: 3986
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2018 Rule Change Discussion

Postby TrueDawg » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:31 am

Multiple Scorgasms wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:35 am 3) Seems OK. Not a huge deal either way. The FT price is high enough for me to not really care if an owner is able to sign him for 2-6 years. Especially if it's a drafted player... I like the idea of incentive and reward for owners who, somehow or some way, acquired a great player.
If you draft a player in the first round, you can control him for 6 years with the 5th year option and a one year franchise tag before his salary probably starts to get prohibitive (depending on position)... I think that's plenty so I'm not a fan of being able to sign a guy to another 5 year deal on the franchise tag, which would enable you to control him for probably his entire career (10 years).


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests