League Discussion

[FantasyMan13]

Oops! Didn't see that. But with the NTC, shouldn't the total contract amount be (5x$3.9M) 19.5M?

One of those odd accounting errors. The total is actually based on the amount as if there was not an NTC, just that the team originally signing him get a discount(but he could end up with the total if he is traded). So, correct as posted

OK, but a little

Much simpler this way so we know the owner is actually raising the total value of the contract...

[terpfan]

Yikes, so I don't suppose we might want to consider a cap on what the anti-franchise tag can get you out of? The Ahmad Bradshaw bidding war is getting all Dan Snyder-ish.

I mean really what's to stop people from throwing down enormous deals with all the money crammed at the end if you can just get out of it? I've actually thought about doing this myself...

[WaCougMBS]

Yikes, so I don't suppose we might want to consider a cap on what the anti-franchise tag can get you out of? The Ahmad Bradshaw bidding war is getting all Dan Snyder-ish.

I mean really what's to stop people from throwing down enormous deals with all the money crammed at the end if you can just get out of it? I've actually thought about doing this myself...

Interested to see what others have to say about this as well. I have always tried to be a good citizen and either balance or front-load my contracts so I could either deal guys cheaply or cut them for minimal damage down the road, but even when I back-loaded a contract I didn't really think of this ...

[Toltec]

I heavily frontloaded a contract last year when I had a ton of room and people got upset. But the back loading of a contract only works for one contract per year. You backload too many and you will run a team of scrubs with too much loaded into a few guys.

[terpfan]

I heavily frontloaded a contract last year when I had a ton of room and people got upset. But the back loading of a contract only works for one contract per year. You backload too many and you will run a team of scrubs with too much loaded into a few guys.

Ven one player per year is pretty significant if you ask me. The other issue is who's to say any particular person (or even the league itself) will even be here in 5 years. Maybe thats cynical, but it just seems to open a huge can of worms.

[logan]

Yeah I thought we had talked about this last year? If didn't think I missed a vote but I'm not a fan of NTC on a FA. It's a bidding war. If I'm a player and I'm looking at a contract and it's paying me less money per yer than another contract of the same time frame I'm not talking that contract . You put the lowest bid you can on a player and hope it holds and work out the contract. The NTC is there to help out with draft picks and resigns as a bonus.

If you're going to allow that then I think if you should either be stuck with the player for the life of the contract 9barring career ending injury or retirement) or if the player is allowed to be cut you eat the remaining money in full with no option to AFT.

[flotsamnjetsam]

I heavily frontloaded a contract last year when I had a ton of room and people got upset. But the back loading of a contract only works for one contract per year. You backload too many and you will run a team of scrubs with too much loaded into a few guys.

Ven one player per year is pretty significant if you ask me. The other issue is who's to say any particular person (or even the league itself) will even be here in 5 years. Maybe thats cynical, but it just seems to open a huge can of worms.

Even though I posted my 1st ever ridiculously backloaded contract on Bradshaw, honestly, I'm totally against those type of contracts. I brought it up to dream last year. Even though it's within the rules, it's really just a way to get around the salary cap. I'm all for discussing a possible rule change/solution.

Yeah I thought we had talked about this last year? If didn't think I missed a vote but I'm not a fan of NTC on a FA. It's a bidding war. If I'm a player and I'm looking at a contract and it's paying me less money per yer than another contract of the same time frame I'm not talking that contract . You put the lowest bid you can on a player and hope it holds and work out the contract. The NTC is there to help out with draft picks and resigns as a bonus.

This. That's why I was confused in my previous post. NTC really doesn't make sense for the FA auctions. You pay them less, but the contract is higher? That doesn't make sense to me.

[flotsamnjetsam]

I'm just not going to ever post a ridiculously backloaded contract again. My apologies for doing it earlier. I feel like a hypocrite since I was totally against them last year.

[flotsamnjetsam]

OK guys. I sent a PM to dream & WaCoug about these 2 issues. I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.

Yeah I thought we had talked about this last year? If didn't think I missed a vote but I'm not a fan of NTC on a FA. It's a bidding war. If I'm a player and I'm looking at a contract and it's paying me less money per yer than another contract of the same time frame I'm not talking that contract . You put the lowest bid you can on a player and hope it holds and work out the contract. The NTC is there to help out with draft picks and resigns as a bonus.

I think logan hit the nail on the head. NTC doesn't make sense for the FA auctions. The NTC saves the owner money. The tiebreakers for the auctions are basically: which contract gives the player more money? So how does a contract that pays a player less $$ per year (with the NTC) beat a contract that pays a player more $$ per year (without the NTC)? logan is right. No player would ever take the contract with the NTC. I think the NTC should only be used for rookies and re-signed players (like logan said).



Regarding ridiculously backloaded contracts, I think they are just a way to get around the salary cap, but they are within our current rules. The only thing I can think of to really stop this from happening would be to do away with our AFT. I think that would deter owners from seriously backloading contracts that they know they can't get out of.


Thoughts?

[terpfan]

My thoughts:

Ditching the AFT is one solution. That would prevent a team from getting totally out of a committment. My only concern with that is it still makes sense to backload contracts just for the simple fact that it's way in the future. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some provision against an extremely backloaded (or frontloaded) contracts? Like say, no more than a certain percentage of the total money can be in any one year. I don't know, just thinking out loud here.