Discussion on Garunteed Contracts and associated items:

**GrendelKhan** · April 11th, 2005, 10:22 PM

In response to Sandman's questioon in the cuting thread:

for the 0 and 1 IF they will renegotiate - that woudl have to have the comish log on to the team and exicute the move.

**hornetjohn** · April 11th, 2005, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
[QB]Supposedly Garunteed contracts are what si supposed to make this league different then other leagues.

What garunteed contracts do as we have them right now is only help control FA biding. [QB]

That is what it was supposed to do. Besides there are too many negatives to changing it - and not enough credible reasons to change - we just don't have problem to fix right now. Maybe your idea might have more backing three years down the road if any of the claims start to happen.

**GrendelKhan** · April 11th, 2005, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by hornetjohn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
[QB]Supposedly Garunteed contracts are what si supposed to make this league different then other leagues.

What garunteed contracts do as we have them right now is only help control FA biding. [QB]

That is what it was supposed to do. Besides there are too many negatives to changing it - and not enough credible reasons to change - we just don't have problem to fix right now. Maybe your idea might have more backing three years down the road if any of the claims start to happen.<hr /></blockquote>IF it is only expected to help control FA biding then, why are you oppesed to opening up flexability for players on rosters? why not allow for 0-1 year cuts to be made? IF it is only supposed to help control FA biding?

PLease list the negatives to making it so that the majority of players WILL have contracts of at least 1 year in duration.

As it has been already pointed out, IF players remain on 0 year contracts to avoid the troubles of Garuinteed contracts, WHAT will be the differeance between this league and any other? OH, controled FA bids... Weeeeeee, I signed on for more then that.

we open up biding on 0 year players (through soem form or another) and the garunteed contract will be more then window dressing.

**hornetjohn** · April 11th, 2005, 11:01 PM

IF it is only expected to help control FA biding then, why are you oppesed to opening up flexability for players on rosters?

Because that would reward those owners who like to make huge offers on players, but making them have that player for one less year.

PLease list the negatives to making it so that the majority of players WILL have contracts of at least 1 year in duration.

It makes a situation as confusing as the above statement. 0 year deals are, in reality, 1 year deals. So even if every owner in this league decided to leave their guys on 0 year deals so they could cut them - those guys would still be under contract for a full year. I have looked at my cap and I am still paying them.

Among the negatives of letting players release on 1 year (in reality 2 years left), or, allowing bids on 0 year deal players:
-changing a main rule of the league less than halway through the first year - when the current rule is working.
-gives those owners who give huge contracts two fake years of bidding, rather than one
-teams without owners would lose their best players to bidding, while the league is still looking for a new owner.
-would negate any advantage you gained for training and sticking with a player (in reality players give the team they are with extra negotiation time and "discounts"
-allows bidding on players still under contract (0 year is 1 year left)
-creates less flexibility by forcing owners to deal with more cap issues when guys ask for more money in a new deal, than owners are ready to offer.

I would be against any release, even a 0 year one -if there was a way to sign guys for injury reasons (10 day contracts and such)

As it has been already pointed out, IF players remain on 0 year contracts to avoid the troubles of Garuinteed contracts, WHAT will be the differeance between this league and any other? OH, controled FA bids... Weeeeeee, I signed on for more then that.

Actually you didn't - you agreed to the rules that had been set out - although that hasn't stopped the whining since day one.

we open up biding on 0 year players (through soem form or another) and the garunteed contract will be more then window dressing.

How about we let it play out and see if this "problem" ever even happens?

[ April 11, 2005 08:06 PM: Message edited by: hornetjohn ]

**DaFreak** · April 11th, 2005, 11:12 PM

I dont even know why we are voting on this subject at this point in time.... we arent even halfway through the first damn season and we are having situations like this arise..... makes me wonder if this league will end up like 25 where most GM's dont re-up

[ April 11, 2005 08:13 PM: Message edited by: DaFreak ]

**GrendelKhan** · April 11th, 2005, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by hornetjohn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />IF it is only expected to help control FA biding then, why are you oppesed to opening up flexability for players on rosters?

Because that would reward those owners who like to make huge offers on players, but making them have that player for one less year.

PLease list the negatives to making it so that the majority of players WILL have contracts of at least 1 year in duration.

It makes a situation as confusing as the above statement. 0 year deals are, in reality, 1 year deals. So even if every owner in this league decided to leave their guys on 0 year deals so they could cut them - those guys would still be under contract for a full year. I have looked at my cap and I am still paying them.

Among the negatives of letting players release on 1 year (in reality 2 years left), or, allowing bids on 0 year deal players:
-changing a main rule of the league less than halway through the first year - when the current rule is working.
-gives those owners who give huge contracts two fake years of bidding, rather than one
-teams without owners would lose their best players to bidding, while the league is still looking for a new owner.
-would negate any advantage you gained for training and sticking with a player (in reality players give the team they are with extra negotiation time and "discounts"
-allows bidding on players still under contract (0 year is 1 year left)
-creates less flexibility by forcing owners to deal with more cap issues when guys ask for more money in a new deal, than owners are ready to offer.

I would be against any release, even a 0 year one -if there was a way to sign guys for injury reasons (10 day contracts and such)

As it has been already pointed out, IF players remain on 0 year contracts to avoid the troubles of Garuinteed contracts, WHAT will be the differeance between this league and any other? OH, controled FA bids... Weeeeeee, I signed on for more then that.

Actually you didn't - you agreed to the rules that had been set out - although that hasn't stopped the whining since day one.

we open up biding on 0 year players (through soem form or another) and the garunteed contract will be more then window dressing.

How about we let it play out and see if this "problem" ever even happens?

[ April 11, 2005 08:06 PM: Message edited by: hornetjohn ]<hr /></blockquote>First I will address you statement at whinning. I never whine, you on the other hand... I am abrasive and demanding in things, but I don't whine. Let's not make this aperssonel thing HJ.

ok your "negatives" as expected most are pointed towwards the comcept of cuting a player at 1 year as well as 0. and don't have substance when you are talking about the prospects and negatives of open bididng for 0 year players.

Let's look at the ones that might aplpy to open bidding for players without contrcats.

-teams without owners would lose their best players to bidding, while the league is still looking for a new owner.

-- this scenario would happen at the end of the year if that is when they wnet ownerless. An ownerless team without a quick replacement will suffer regradless to any mechanics of the league.

-would negate any advantage you gained for training and sticking with a player (in reality players give the team they are with extra negotiation time and "discounts".

-- it wouldnt affect this at all, it owuld just mean you'd have to actually sign that player you wnat to develop, and might cause more contrcats to be longer then 1 year.

-allows bidding on players still under contract (0 year is 1 year left)

-- then we shouldn't be able to cut the player at all, IF we are assuming that is a contract, and not just a player agreeing to play under old terms UNTIL they get a new contract.

-creates less flexibility by forcing owners to deal with more cap issues when guys ask for more money in a new deal, than owners are ready to offer.

-- That is the point. NO FREE RIDES. If we are going to have "garunteed Contracts" let's actually have it do more then help control FA bids.

You have already showed that you will be interested in manipulating 0 year deals next season HJ, so you are showing me that yes, 0 year deals will be a major factor in future seasons - ie, Garunteed Contracts are sidestepped and it will become Window Dressing.

**GrendelKhan** · April 11th, 2005, 11:31 PM

A basic Summery for Open Bidding on 0 year players, after discussion and other ides have arisen:

"Owner" of a 0 year player will be given the off season, and then 7 games to sign their 0 year players to a deal.

2 0 year players may be placed on a "protected" list - allowing the "owner" to have 30 more days to sign them or cut them.

Once open bidding starts for 0 year players, bidding goes for 7 days. At the end of these 7 days the "owner" gets the opprotunity to match the final bid and re-sign them at that deal, or the player is traded to the new team or cut so that the new team can sign them to the final bid.

-- this should give the "owner" plenty of time to deal with their contracts and decide on what players they want to "lock-in". It will also open up a small amount of player movement through restricted Free agency.

This can only help to make "Garunteed Contracts" an effective tool and add more depth and competitiveness to the league.

**GrendelKhan** · April 11th, 2005, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by DaFreak:
I dont even know why we are voting on this subject at this point in time.... we arent even halfway through the first damn season and we are having situations like this arise..... makes me wonder if this league will end up like 25 where most GM's dont re-up

[ April 11, 2005 08:13 PM: Message edited by: DaFreak ]

Only reason is to try and assure the health of the league in the future, and to make sure that we get thinigs completely "Fleshed out".

-- Besides a a vote on Cuts will help and make sure that everything has been explored, discussed, and DECIDED.

Votes on things like open biddinig for 0 year players, will help to shape our Garunteed Contracts, which should be the cornerstone for the league.

**DaFreak** · April 11th, 2005, 11:38 PM

GK your last post was a very well thought out concept and to me normally wouldnt be an issue. BUT i have had a few seasons in the past with a couple of my teams where I had a few players on the 0 yr of their contract up until I was eliminated from the playoffs or won the championship where I cut 1 of the 0 yr contract guys and resigned any players I had left with 0 yr deals. This is a very legitimate stratagy even in this league with gaurenteed contracts. I shouldnt have to get into a bidding war with anyone else in the league if I have a player under conract for an existing season under any circumstances. This is why I would be extremely against any concept of restrictions to bidding on your own players under contract.

**DaFreak** · April 11th, 2005, 11:46 PM

-- Besides a a vote on Cuts will help and make sure that everything has been explored, discussed, and DECIDED.

I'm sorry I really dont mean to be cynical or sarcastic when I say this.... But I thought that it had been discussed, it had been explored and it had been decided when the league was in discussion on the main forums when tracker was trying to get this league going. It WAS the rule that most of us used to decide to join this league. With being able to cut a 1yr guy or any guy would go directly against this idea discussed initially when we thought of this league.

Thread: Discussion on Garunteed Contracts and associated items:

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions