Discussion on Garunteed Contracts and associated items:

**hornetjohn** · April 8th, 2005, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
It's not a "bail-out" since this "problem" will not be present next season.[/QB]

Why make a rule change for something that won't be a problem next season?

**GrendelKhan** · April 8th, 2005, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Leonidas:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm guessing your response will be - those that didn't do as you did, must have made mistakes, and can suffer.

Well I wouldn't have put it quite that bluntly but basically yes. Not that what I did was right but it was a level playing field from the start. If, for whatever reasons, you regret previous choices then thats just part of the game. There are a lot of things I would have done differently in this league if we started afresh. It's all part of the learning curve.

My squad was at least 3 deep at each positon when I got it and the other squads I checked were also. If you (or Kayne(sorry to bring you into it Kayne), or anyone else) decided you would cut your squads down to a minimum straight away then that was your decision. It had consequences though. The rules were clear, hard cap, guaranteed contracts, minimum roster requirements. Nothing was instituted at the last minute. Personally I can't see "but my FA bid got beat meaning I couldn't cut someone" as an excuse. That's just part of the game.

And yes your situation with llfalcons players was unfortunate but the 4th round players were added to squads 2 days before Free Agency opened. I'm sorry if neither of you checked your squads in that time.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, you are right. I guess I should have drfated more then two players... And I shouldn't have accidentaly had two guys on my roster that didn't belong.

MY BAD.

Now let's move on to 0 year contracts. You have them, I want a shot at hiring them. If they have 0 security, there is no reason other teams shouldn't be able to make a bid on them - they aren't protected by a contract.

[ April 08, 2005 03:14 AM: Message edited by: GrendelKhan ]

**rprodent** · April 8th, 2005, 07:24 AM

You could have easily dropped the 2 extra players added to your team.

0 year contracts aren't protected. If you want them wait until they are released or the end of the season when they are dropped. If they've had them for a year or more and their contracts are down to 0 year then they should have the right to sign them again if they want.

My opinion is the guaranteed contracts are working exactly as planned and doing what they intended. Everyone knew the rules and had time to adjust their rosters. I agree with Tex in that we should wait until early in the playoffs and if enough owners want it changed look at it then.

**GrendelKhan** · April 8th, 2005, 09:30 AM

well, I really don't want this to turn into a "my situation" thing. But no RP, I didn't know at first that Falcon's players had been added to my roster. (my mistake, I guess I really didn't care about things because of the speed at which things were going and all the crying that had already happened). So I bid on FA's around them
the next day they were placed were they belonged, and I couldn't cut players in those positions.

No big deal - what do I care?

-- I do think that the first season -- we should have open season to do as we please with cuts for any player that is willing to renegotiate - simply because WE didn't sign them, they are from the intial pool that was on our teams, and the luck of what fell. "everyone had the same oprotunities", I hear the cry now, but we didn't all have the same situations. And since next season when we are all running aorund with 0 year players that we move at will there won't be a question. Now this is really too late of a topic for me and what I want to do. FAs I wanted have retired due to no one being able to bid on them, you'll have this.

But regardless I'd like to get consistancy from even the opening season. WE are supposed to be building our teams from the ground up. With that, no one on your intial roster that you didn't want should have been there. BUT there are mechanics difficulties. And NO, 2 days really wasn't long enough for us to get teams in order, if we weren't all in such a rush we would have taken a few minutes breather to actually set up our intial teams.

But I do understand why everyone was chomping at the bit, things did seem to take a bit. Notice, my even forgeting what players should have been on my roster. Falcon missing the first day of FA market.

Now, as it has been pounded into me the 0 year players are cutable because the have no contract. So what is keeping us from biding on these players? "well because their mine...." - sorry really not good enough. IF we are going to embrace the concepts behind garunteed contracts, shouldn't we take it as far as we can? I figure we give the "owner" who has them on their roster a chance to beat the bid and send the players to the highest bidder.

As it stands garunteed contracts WILL NOT be a factor after the first season. People will leave their players at 0 years in a rather unrealistic fashion and avoid the hassles of having them tied into a contract. Make owners "protect" the players they want and then garunteed contracts will have more viability.

I'm betting we'll see a trend of the majority of the league's players hanging out on teams without contracts.

If that is the scenario we want then what is wrong with "correcting" the mechanic of the first season?

Now the concept of a "buy-out" I think is rather solid, IF a player is willing to negotiate and they know they reallt don't have a future with a team, many players would be willing to take that cash settlement to leave the team AND go look for other work with soemone that is going to plan on using them, and offer them a contract. It's a lot more realistic then players playing their entire year without a contract... with no security for thier job.

[ April 08, 2005 06:35 AM: Message edited by: GrendelKhan ]

**sandman89** · April 8th, 2005, 10:07 AM

since the likelihood of scott coding us being able to see FA's potentials, i think 0 and 1 yr contracts should be allowable to be cut/released. i hope this issue at least comes to a vote.

**GrendelKhan** · April 8th, 2005, 10:15 AM

That will be proposed as a vote.

But I'd also like to see what other things this discussion about the CORE of the league helps define.

**DaFreak** · April 8th, 2005, 01:19 PM

This is just my opinion and it doesnt make it right. But we arent even halfway through the first season and contracts are already becoming an issue for some teams. I will go on the record that without gaurenteed contracts this league would be just like the rest and I wouldnt have much of a reason to stick around. The contracts are working out just as they were intended on. If a team in the future wants to sit with their players with a 0 yr deal all the way through the season that is their choice. Having a player in the 0 year of their deal is like having a restricted F/A you have the chance to sign them for an additional season or release them if need be. I think 1 thing that is being overlooked quite a bit is the 0 year deal in SimGalaxy is actually a 1 year contract. Players in all major sports will sign a 1 year deal to keep playing or increase their long term value..... isnt this exactly what is being done when someone signs a player to a 0 year deal? I say leave it as it is.....

[ April 08, 2005 10:31 AM: Message edited by: DaFreak ]

**TuringComplete** · April 8th, 2005, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by sandman89:
since the likelihood of scott coding us being able to see FA's potentials, i think 0 and 1 yr contracts should be allowable to be cut/released. i hope this issue at least comes to a vote.

I think this is kind of silly. Let me see if I have this right:

You want to be able to hire free agents and then have the opportunity to either cut them or keep them depending on the single factor of their potential.

You're not willing to say, "Hey, in case this guy is AA, I'm going sign him to a 1-year deal so I can re-sign him, and if he's BA, well, I can still cut him at the beginning of next season."

And you're not willing to say, "Hey, in case this guy is BA, I'm only going to sign him to a 0-year deal, and if he's AA, I'll cut him and hope I can get him again at a reasonable price."

You do know that some players play well above their vitals, don't you? It's entirely possible for you to sign a BA guy to a 1 year deal, get mad for being stuck with him, and then find out as he plays that he's really a gem who'll perform for several seasons.

If you don't like the idea of guaranteed contracts at all, that's one thing, but to throw out guaranteeing 1 year deals (which are really 2 year deals) over possibly being stuck with a BA guy for part of a season? It just doesn't make sense.

If you really want to know some FA's potential, just send me a dollar. I'll be happy to tell you what his potential is. My answers are 100% accurate or your money back.

**GrendelKhan** · April 8th, 2005, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by DaFreak:
This is just my opinion and it doesnt make it right. But we arent even halfway through the first season and contracts are already becoming an issue for some teams. I will go on the record that without gaurenteed contracts this league would be just like the rest and I wouldnt have much of a reason to stick around. The contracts are working out just as they were intended on. If a team in the future wants to sit with their players with a 0 yr deal all the way through the season that is their choice. Having a player in the 0 year of their deal is like having a restricted F/A you have the chance to sign them for an additional season or release them if need be. I think 1 thing that is being overlooked quite a bit is the 0 year deal in SimGalaxy is actually a 1 year contract. Players in all major sports will sign a 1 year deal to keep playing or increase their long term value..... isnt this exactly what is being done when someone signs a player to a 0 year deal? I say leave it as it is.....

[ April 08, 2005 10:31 AM: Message edited by: DaFreak ]

if a 0 year is a contract why isn't it garunteed? I'm fine with ANY player is signed to any contract they are garunteed.

**TuringComplete** · April 8th, 2005, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by GrendelKhan:
if a 0 year is a contract why isn't it garunteed? I'm fine with ANY player is signed to any contract they are garunteed.

Well, mainly because there's no other way to represent signing someone to a short term contract to replace someone on the DL.