Discussion on Garunteed Contracts and associated items:

[GrendelKhan]

I realy like Garunteed contracts. It's a great Idea. I do have soem thoughts about the mechanics for how we are exicuting these contracts. Some of these "issues" are only a single season problem, and then more will be created by the following seasons. We were allowed to make roster cuts at leisure before the first game of the season, but this was also controled by outside factors such as what your depth was at for different positions. I know at least two teams that didn't get to make cuts that they wnated because it would have taken them below the minimum for a position, and they had to sign a FA in order to be able to make the cut. I guess, hey that happens, but still - If you look at the concept of a team being built from scratch why should ANY contract be enforced upon you for your team, that you didn't ink?

Well this problem of 1 year contracts that can't be cut will be "solved" next season. because I predict many will carry the majority of their players at 0 year contracts for flexability until after the trading deadline.

So if this problem will not exist next season, then why should we box teams THIS season? Or are we ignoring the first Title? I din't think we were...

Buy-outs? Many teams have players that are intereste din re-working their contracts, but it isn't possible to sign them to a 0 year deal, and then cut them. BUT, since they are willing to deal we should be able to take any of these players and resign them giving them a signing bonus equal to have their asking salary, and then cut them. This could be done rather easily by the commish, as he would use a temporary password to access your team and exicute the actions.

OK, so next season, we have players running around with no contracts so that they can be cut at will. I'd like to make offers to those players. SInce we are bringing in the artificly mechanic of the Garunteed Contract, let's take it a little further. Open posted biding on 0 year players - the team that has the player on their roster has the option to bid higher. Both notify the Owner his player is being bid on, and post it. 5 days later the highest bid wins. the team that has him cuts him, and he is bid on by the winner only.

Job Security should mean something, and maybe we won't see ten million players at 0 year contracts for 3/4s of every season.

As I see it the main reasons for the Garunteed contract were to help "control" FA biding, and to force owners to "honor" their longterm contracts. I like that, I think it's a great idea. but thsoe same two situations would be served, while allowing for some flexability - IF we allowed 0-1 year Contracts to be cut. It really wouldn't change the spirit of the Garunteed Contracts, just would free the league up a pinch to allow more trades, and roster movements. the longer term contracts would still be enforced, and it would stil make FA biding a bit more "legit".

Just a few thoughts. And with the intention of at least 1 vote devloping out of this thread.

[hornetjohn]

Some good points, but i think by next year everything will sort itself out - and I would like to see how things work over the next couple of years before modifying guarnteed contracts. We all struggled with the initial rosters - so the winner this year will not have an astresik by his championship - he simply overcame the obstacles better than we did.
I think to allow any renegotiating to lower contract years goes directly against what guarnteed contracts tries to accomplish - in making owners responsible for the contracts they offer. I mean wouldn't Shawn kemp's and Juwan Howard's Owners wish they could have just reneg down and cleared the cap room - but they couldn't because no player would accept such a deal. "Hey yeah! I will renegotiate so you can cut me -s ure."
I don't like the idea of bidding on my players either. It would be cool if the system knew if it could get a higher dollar on the market - but we don't have that smart of an AI.


So to keep it from becoming a rule automatically - I would say "No"

[TuringComplete]

One thing I'd like to see in the league is an incentive to sign long-term contracts. In the regular game and especially with our guaranteed contracts, you gain the most flexibility by leaving all your players on 0-year deals until after the FA signing deadline and then resigning them to 1-year deals. Ideally this would be taken care of in the programming, such as having players insist upon longer term deals, but since that's not possible, I have thought of something that would give people an incentive to sign long term contracts.
<font size="18">UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENCY!!!</font>
Yeah, it's probably going to be an unpopular proposal, but here's how it would work: No one is allowed to renegotiate a contract that is in it's 0-year.

If you sign someone to a 0-year deal, they come off your roster at the rollover (same as now).

If you sign someone to a 1-year deal, you can't renegotiate in the same year so you'll have them for one full season and then can cut them when the reach 0-year or they'll come off your roster at the rollover.

If you sign a multi-year deal it increases your options somewhat. Some players will renegotiate while they still have more than 0 years left on their contract. If so, you're in luck and can make whatever deal you want with them. Also, if you train a guy until he's unhappy, he'll also renegotiate allowing you to sign a longer deal. However, if you have not created a new contract with him before he reaches 0 years, you can't negotiate and he'll come off your roster at the rollover.

The reason that I like this idea is that it makes us as owners make harder choices. Right now it's too easy. Unless you're bidding on a FA against competition or looking to lock in a particular salary while you train a player, there's no reason to sign a long term contract. With the no negotiating 0 year deals rule, you'd have to think long and hard about what kind of deal you want to offer your players. If you want to keep a talented player on your roster for a long time, you're going to have to "lock him in." Otherwise after his couple of years are up, he'll be off to see how much he can get as a free agent. On the flip side, if you sign a bum to a long term deal, you may have to do some real finagling to get someone to take him off your hands.

[Leonidas]

Well I have discussed this at length with Grendel in CHAT but will put in my thoughts here.

I think guaranteed contracts are working exactly as they were intended to. It's one part of the league that I really like. I sympathise if some GMs were not able to get there rosters sorted by the time games started and got stuck with players they didn't want but I don't see why we should be going to such lengths to bail them out. They had the same opportunities that everyone had to shape their roster as they wished through the draft and free agency before games started. This buyout idea sounds like a lot of hard work to bail people out of a situation they didn't think through properly initially. The idea of guaranteeing contracts was to make GMs think twice about what contracts they would/would not offer. It brings a whole new aspect to cap & squad management that isn't present in any other league. I'd hate to see it changed.

As for your idea TC. I'd love something that would enable a more market based salary structure but I somehow doubt that can happen through coding anytime soon and trying to manage it outside the game sounds like a nitemare to me. Maybe if ALL players would negotiate on a 1yr deal (as long as it wasn't signed that year) then it could work but IMO teams should be allowed an exclusive negotiation period with their players rather than having them automatically fall in Free Agency. That sounds harsh to me.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 06, 2005 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Leonidas ]</font>

[Stumps]

I agree with everything Leo said.

[DS]

I would hope that there will be more holdouts so GM's would have more of an incentive to sign the players on 0 contracts. Especially for next year when GM hold out giving 1 year or more contracts. Holdouts hurt teams. It makes the GM sign or cut the player in a timely fashion.

[GrendelKhan]

Originally posted by Leonidas:
Well I have discussed this at length with Grendel in CHAT but will put in my thoughts here.

I think guaranteed contracts are working exactly as they were intended to. It's one part of the league that I really like. I sympathise if some GMs were not able to get there rosters sorted by the time games started and got stuck with players they didn't want but I don't see why we should be going to such lengths to bail them out. They had the same opportunities that everyone had to shape their roster as they wished through the draft and free agency before games started. This buyout idea sounds like a lot of hard work to bail people out of a situation they didn't think through properly initially. The idea of guaranteeing contracts was to make GMs think twice about what contracts they would/would not offer. It brings a whole new aspect to cap & squad management that isn't present in any other league. I'd hate to see it changed.

As for your idea TC. I'd love something that would enable a more market based salary structure but I somehow doubt that can happen through coding anytime soon and trying to manage it outside the game sounds like a nitemare to me. Maybe if ALL players would negotiate on a 1yr deal (as long as it wasn't signed that year) then it could work but IMO teams should be allowed an exclusive negotiation period with their players rather than having them automatically fall in Free Agency. That sounds harsh to me.

<font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ April 06, 2005 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Leonidas ]</font></font>

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">I'd agree Leo, IF we had signed those intial players. It's not a "bail-out" since this "problem" will not be present next season.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ April 07, 2005 03:02 AM: Message edited by: GrendelKhan ]</font>

[kidpreacher]

I think the guaranteed contracts are fine how they are set up. I ran into a problem of drafting a guy without being able to see his vitals gap or being able to see that he was BA. Also he didn't fit within my system. I didn't get the chance to give him the contract I wanted. I drafted him and a contract was given him. In fact the contract was 800k more than what I thought he would have. Unfortunately he stank for my team, but because of guaranteed contracts at 1 yr I couldn't release him so I had to find a trading partner. He wouldn't have been a problem to keep if he didn't cost 7.8 million. However since players don't renegotiate until their 0 yr deal (this defeats both TC and GK's idea, if others are able to bid on my 0 yr player or they immediately go to FA. Then every player would be able to do that, because only sometimes do players renegotiate during the season. and players signed to 0 yr deals don't renegotiate during the season) I was forced to trade him. Now nobody wanted him for 2 bench players, because everyone was worried about the cap and the guaranteed contracts so I had to trade him for cap space basically, I traded him for a 0yr player who was 7 years older and a lot worse. I never would have done that in L007, because without guaranteed contracts I could have sent him to an owner who could have cut players to make the room. Leave it the way it is. Multi-year contracts will be more in vogue in the next couple years once teams begin to see how well their players play.

[Leonidas]

I'd agree Leo, IF we had signed those intial players. It's not a "bail-out" since this "problem" will not be present next season

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">The draft players were effectively signed by the GM who picked them. Yes the balance of the players on our inital squads were not signed by the respective GMs but that is why we agreed to allow cuts of those players up until the first game started. This suggestion still seems like a bailout for people who didn't get that sorted properly initially.

[GrendelKhan]

Originally posted by hornetjohn:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
It's not a "bail-out" since this "problem" will not be present next season.

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Why make a rule change for something that won't be a problem next season?[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Because we are competeing for the Title this year, right? We aren't ignoring it, as the mechanics of the league take effect NEXT season.