Garunteed Contracts

It seems that many who voted for garunteed contracts to be only 0 year cuts, are having difficulties dealing with the results. Thsi is the very reason I had voted fo rthe garunteed contracts to allow for 1 year contract cuts.

It would still serve the same purpose of reducing the FA longterm contracts that soo many fear and resent, but would allow for a tiny bit of flexability.

It would also answer a current issue that has come up, with peoepl wnating to give Dono a hand out because he took over for Z. Fix the contract cuts to 1 and 0 year can be cut, you have no issue.

If this is a proposal, then I am against it. We are not even a season into this - let it run its course and let's see what three or four seasons of this are like. This makes owners play fair - you bid, you pay.

As for Dono's situation - I thought we had already given an okay for new owners to have a few days to clear up the squad

Figured you'd oppose this. And in no way shape or form do I believe Dono's situation has been excused.

THIS is a solve, adding new mechanics that aren't fair to the rest of the league isn't.

Dono's situation has not been excused. According to the rules we've all agreed on, players with more than 0-year contracts can not be cut. There are no exceptions to the rule for new owners. If we want to make a change to the rules we need to go through the agreed upon decision making process in the league.

My mistake. Well, I feel bad for Dodos, but I still think that we have to stick to our guns to see how it works.

I may vote for a small window of time for new owners, but not to extend the release time.

I would rather re-work the problem that is causing his troubles then add new rules and practices to the league.

Think of the reasons we wanted garunteed contracts? Primarily it was to force players to be more accountable in FA bids. Tat would still be served with 0 and 1 year contracts being able to be cut. the ten year contract to win a biding war is still going to be hangin out for 9 un-cutable seasons...

But in the off-season it will be easier to make a few roster moves here and there on your team, without screaming bloody murder. It also will allow a little more flexability in trades. many trades seem stiffled currently due to peopel needing to keep a good cap threshold this early in the season - because there is no way to find fast capspace later if you take cap on.

I like Garunteed Contracts, I like it quite a bit, and I also regularly bid multi-year contracts for FAs. I do not think that garunteed contracts made FA biding any easier for the people that felt it would help them. Some people will still out bid you. It's just a simple fact.

We started this league with set rules and we need to keep the most fundamental ones....and the no cut contracts if you sign a player to more than 0 years you have to honor the contract...to make any changes is dicking with the league. I for one came into this league looking for something a little new and I don't care what happens to players who take over teams...they need to follow the rules or get the hell out.

Thank you Ang. I agree. I am not interested in making "special" provisions for new onwers. IF anything were to be done it would have to encompass the entire league.

I agree....anything that is done must be league wide....everyone must play by the same rules, even new owners.

i think new owners should be able to clean house...but in dodos' case, he's taking over a team that's just started and already paid for. for a truely new owner, it'd suck to pay your money and not be able to clean house.

also, i think a big problem in bidding on FAs is not being able to see their potentials. it doesn't make much sense when you can scout other teams' players.

No changes to the rules, keep it at 0 year cuts. 1 year cuts would be just like most teams in regular leagues. We all agreed to the rules when signing up. I am against amending any of the original rules.

If you want to "try before you buy", sign them to a 0-year contract, and if they work out, dump them and re-sign them to a 1-year contract.

Keep the rules like they are now.

I think the 0 yr 1 yr issue should be reevaluated after this season. As I said in my game post, we have eliminated a key strategy option if a team is not working and a GM wants to try other players through the free agent market. If they are 0 yr and work you can't keep them. If they don't work and they are 1 yr you can't release them. It messes too much with the guts of strategy for trying to turn a team around to be in a better position the next year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stumps:
If you want to "try before you buy", sign them to a 0-year contract, and if they work out, dump them and re-sign them to a 1-year contract.

---

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">The problem with that is someone might outbid you in your next attempt to sign him.

1 all of us as owners need to police the actions and get rid of the one police officer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by douglass:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Originally posted by Stumps:
If you want to "try before you buy", sign them to a 0-year contract, and if they work out, dump them and re-sign them to a 1-year contract.

---

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">The problem with that is someone might outbid you in your next attempt to sign him.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">And that's the risk you take when you don't want to make a commitment to a player -- if you won't guarantee him a spot, why should he guarantee you one?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by douglass:
1 all of us as owners need to police the actions and get rid of the one police officer.

---

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Why? TuringComplete is doing a fantastic job.

Quote:

---

TuringComplete is doing a fantastic job

---

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Hear Hear!

As long as "the one cop" is doing a great job, in accordance with the rules a majority elected, whats the problem? I am grateful that someone is willing to put the work in....

Yeah, TC has done a great job - despite taking alot of unfair complaining.

Also, no "Buyout" for players willing to renegotiate is a hassle. once a player is on your team, you can not sign them to a 0 year contract - with the intent of cutting them. Minimum offer is 1 year.

Yep, TC is doing a great job. As far as the guaranteed contracts go my opinion on it has changed a few times. At first I was for it and it's one of the main reasons I joined this league. Then after the season started and I had got a look at my guys on the court I hated it because I couldn't cut the players I wanted for others. It made me experiment a lot more with positions, tactics and roster orders, and I now think they are worth it, even for the 1 year contracts. I've learnt quite a bit in the last half dozen games or so and this is helping my other leagues teams.

I think the only thing holding the contracts thing back is the game not letting players renegotiate 0 year contracts signed in that year. In pro sports players signed to short-term contracts can have longer contracts signed without going through waivers. Maybe if we set a mechanism in place to guarantee something like that it would work a little better. Something like releasing 0 year players and signalling the intent to sign long term. I don't know, just a thought.

can we put this 1 yr contract cut ammendment (starting next season) to a vote??