2019 rule change discussion - including years with bids

[TrueDawg]

So this has been discussed for a few years and we've never really been able to come to a consensus on how to do it.

I think if we're including years, we should also have to include contract structure (straight or bonus)... I think it makes the most sense to determine the winner based on who is offering the player the most guaranteed money (guaranteed money seems to be king among NFL players these days). If we submit years and contract structure with our bids, we could easily determine the winner based on who is offering the player the most guaranteed money.

And I think bidders should have to calculate the guaranteed money and include that in the bid as well so we can easily see how much we have to bid in order to take the lead (its easy... salary * 20% * years).

For example...

Owner A bids 1 year for 30k with bonus... that's $6,000 guaranteed

Owner B bids 3 years for 18k with bonus... that's $10,800 guaranteed

So under this proposal, owner B would win the player.

Discuss.

[ssmith313105]

I like the idea of adding years to the bidding. If we’re trying to be as realistic as possible then guaranteed money should trump everything. It would also help lower the tags since players won’t be getting these 1 year 60k contracts.

[Tonystavoli]

what happens when we don’t do contracts with a bonus? That is not valued like a bonus contract even if it’s bigger?

[TrueDawg]

what happens when we don’t do contracts with a bonus? That is not valued like a bonus contract even if it’s bigger?

If you do a straight (no bonus) contract... there's no guaranteed money. So, just like the NFL, you can cut the player at any time with no cap hit... but players don't typically choose to sign a contract with no guaranteed money unless they have no other choice.

So yeah... a straight contract bid would lose to pretty much any bonus contract bid. I know some people aren't going to like that idea. But you know what I don't like? 1 year, 60K straight contracts ...this idea would at least force owners into some guarantees which = risk.

[Xulu Bak]

what happens when we don’t do contracts with a bonus? That is not valued like a bonus contract even if it’s bigger?

If you do a straight (no bonus) contract... there's no guaranteed money. So, just like the NFL, you can cut the player at any time with no cap hit... but players don't typically choose to sign a contract with no guaranteed money unless they have no other choice.

So yeah... a straight contract bid would lose to pretty much any bonus contract bid. I know some people aren't going to like that idea. But you know what I don't like? 1 year, 60K straight contracts ...this idea would at least force owners into some guarantees which = risk.

Except, that's not quite true. There's a catch-and-release penalty. Players IRL "bet on themselves" with one year deals hoping for the big payday the next year. So maybe devalue a no-guaranteed contract some, but don't devalue it completely; otherwise, we may as well eliminate it completely, because it would be worthless. A $300 minimum guaranteed contract shouldn't trump a $40k no-guaranteed contract.

[TrueDawg]

Except, that's not quite true. There's a catch-and-release penalty. Players IRL "bet on themselves" with one year deals hoping for the big payday the next year. So maybe devalue a no-guaranteed contract some, but don't devalue it completely; otherwise, we may as well eliminate it completely, because it would be worthless. A $300 minimum guaranteed contract shouldn't trump a $40k no-guaranteed contract.

Yeah... but there's a difference between a 1 year deal (a "prove it" or "bet on myself" type contract) and a deal with no guarantees. And the "catch and release" thing only applies if you sign and cut a player in the same offseason. Beyond that, you can cut a dude with a 60k no bonus contract with no penalty.

I've actually toyed with the idea of allowing owners to determine the percentage of the contract they want to guarantee (in say 10% increments from 0 to 100%)... that would allow more flexibility when bidding than the current system (which is basically 0% or 20% only)... but would not apply to rookie contracts since they're fully guaranteed... at least for 1st rounders.

So you could bid like this:

• 1 year, 60k, 10% bonus... so that's $6,000 guaranteed

• 3 year, 20k, 50% bonus... so that's $30,000 guaranteed

[citsalp1]

Nope leave it alone.

[jimscafs25]

Yeah, id definitely vote in favor of bidding with years and love the idea of owners choosing what percentage guarantees.

[OnABloodbuzz]

Yeah, id definitely vote in favor of bidding with years and love the idea of owners choosing what percentage guarantees.

Agree.

[Tom155]

Nope leave it alone.

This no need to change it's fine the way it is

[Craig0331]

I’m definitely in on the years and guaranteed percentage. So much of the best parts of this league is how in-depth and realistic it is. It’s crazy to have guys signing for one year 75k contracts every off season.

[SuperHawks]

Eliminate one year contracts altogether. I laid out my case for it last year. I'd love to see that idea get some discussion. It's the easiest most straight forward way to get these outrageous contracts under control in this league.

[TrueDawg]

Eliminate one year contracts altogether. I laid out my case for it last year. I'd love to see that idea get some discussion. It's the easiest most straight forward way to get these outrageous contracts under control in this league.

Not a fan. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to give someone a 1 year deal (old players like Larry Fitzgerald and injury fill-ins are two). And real NFL players sign them regularly.

[monkeybones]

The current rule doesn't bother me at all. I'm fine leaving it the way it is.

[SuperHawks]

Eliminate one year contracts altogether. I laid out my case for it last year. I'd love to see that idea get some discussion. It's the easiest most straight forward way to get these outrageous contracts under control in this league.

Not a fan. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to give someone a 1 year deal (old players like Larry Fitzgerald and injury fill-ins are two). And real NFL players sign them regularly.

I get it but what’s more outrageous if we are trying to stick to being realistic? Not being able to sign a guy for one year OR signing a player to a contract that is 70% of your cap?

Another thought could be a hybrid where a one year deal cannot be a bonus contract?