Board 8 > Board 8 National Football League League (B8NFLL) Season 12: The Offseason

Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
SockoressKnight 07/06/19 9:53:18 PM #251:	In real life, sign and trade is an NBA thing because of league salary rules. I'm not sure why it has flourished here. If you realize you aren't going to keep the player, just move him by the trade deadline. Unless you really want to have him for the rest of that season. From the other perspective, why would you give up assets for a player that is about to hit free agency? --- http://imageshack.us/a/img339/6921/rinoa1d.jpg "Rinoa...Even if you end up as the world's enemy. I'll...I'll be your knight." <cite>SockoressKnight posted [p:924340637] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>In real life, sign and trade is an NBA thing because of league salary rules. I'm not sure why it has flourished here. If you realize you aren't going to keep the player, just move him by the trade deadline. Unless you really want to have him for the rest of that season. From the other perspective, why would you give up assets for a player that is about to hit free agency?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/06/19 10:05:06 PM #252:	Sign and trades flourish here because unlike real life you can definitely keep a player if you want him (unless you really pissed them off). It's not like true free agency where once a contract is up, everyone gets a fair crack at him. If the original team wants to keep that player then they can without anyone else getting a shot at him. So people will happily give up assets for sign and trades for 3 reasons. 1. You don't know for sure that player will hit free agency. Original team isn't obligated to let him go or inform other users of their intention not to resign 2. You get the player guaranteed and don't have to compete with other offers for him 3. You get the player on a cheaper contract because of the original team eating the signing bonus / dead money and also not having to overpay him in FA to ensure he picks you over other teams <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924341059] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Sign and trades flourish here because unlike real life you can definitely keep a player if you want him (unless you really pissed them off). It's not like true free agency where once a contract is up, everyone gets a fair crack at him. If the original team wants to keep that player then they can without anyone else getting a shot at him. So people will happily give up assets for sign and trades for 3 reasons. 1. You don't know for sure that player will hit free agency. Original team isn't obligated to let him go or inform other users of their intention not to resign 2. You get the player guaranteed and don't have to compete with other offers for him 3. You get the player on a cheaper contract because of the original team eating the signing bonus / dead money and also not having to overpay him in FA to ensure he picks you over other teams</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/07/19 1:32:12 AM #253:	I am cool about forcing limits on sign-and-trades. Would something like this work: - Not allowed with AI teams - One player per season - Cannot involve 1st round picks I too sometimes worry about the future of free agency, but the markets thus far seem to have a healthy amount of quality players (whether that means overall rating, productive history, or both), if the not the most ideal positional distribution. I have let a few great or elite players hit the free agent market because I wanted to do my part in making free agency better and more interesting, but I have done my fair share of sign-and-trades in the past. The reason why I started the sign-and-trade trend was because though was because unlike real life, there isn't a compensatory mechanic in the game. All players that go unsigned are lost for nothing, but I agree it has started to get a little out of hand. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924349067] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I am cool about forcing limits on sign-and-trades. Would something like this work: - Not allowed with AI teams - One player per season - Cannot involve 1st round picks I too sometimes worry about the future of free agency, but the markets thus far seem to have a healthy amount of quality players (whether that means overall rating, productive history, or both), if the not the most ideal positional distribution. I have let a few great or elite players hit the free agent market because I wanted to do my part in making free agency better and more interesting, but I have done my fair share of sign-and-trades in the past. The reason why I started the sign-and-trade trend was because though was because unlike real life, there isn't a compensatory mechanic in the game. All players that go unsigned are lost for nothing, but I agree it has started to get a little out of hand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 11:28:05 AM #254:	That is something I'd agree with although I'm not sure the restriction on 1st round picks needs to be there if teams are only allowed 1 S+T per season? RFA would already be over by the time S+Ts can happen so we'd know how many 1sts a team would have. And if you're personally approving all trades you could also make suggested changes if you felt a 1st was too much or a team had too many 1sts. I would possibly throw in that it cannot involve future picks though? So a team can't mortgage the future for a S+T and the team likely receiving picks can't be pre-loaded with high picks prior to RFA? I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it. I'm fine if you just wanted it to be exactly as you outlined. <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924360666] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>That is something I'd agree with although I'm not sure the restriction on 1st round picks needs to be there if teams are only allowed 1 S+T per season? RFA would already be over by the time S+Ts can happen so we'd know how many 1sts a team would have. And if you're personally approving all trades you could also make suggested changes if you felt a 1st was too much or a team had too many 1sts. I would possibly throw in that it cannot involve future picks though? So a team can't mortgage the future for a S+T and the team likely receiving picks can't be pre-loaded with high picks prior to RFA? I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it. I'm fine if you just wanted it to be exactly as you outlined.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 3:33:34 PM #255:	Haven't thought through this entirely, but my 1st instinct is this is probably a bad idea rule-wise. The rule's not really clear, but I assume there's nothing to prevent you from signing a player to a longer than one-year deal and then trading them the following year/whatever year their deal ends (and if there was, hopefully it is obvious why that would be dumb). It's more inconvenient, but it's not really encouraging anyone to let players go to free agency in the vast majority of cases. I also don't see what's stopping you from re-signing a player in the final year of their deal to one more year during the season in order to trade them the following year, but you could make a rule against that. Making teams pay a premium in free agency instead of sign-and-trading, depending on the player involved and the teams' cap space, can be more costly, and more importantly, it's unclear what benefit the rule accomplishes. I foresee at best a really insignificant boost to the free agent market which will probably mostly benefit random AI teams since they don't pay premiums in FA, so they'll pick up the guys that slip through the cracks offer-wise. That doesn't seem like much of a benefit to me especially when the price being paid is more needlessly complicated rules to prevent users from trading with one another. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924369890] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Haven't thought through this entirely, but my 1st instinct is this is probably a bad idea rule-wise. The rule's not really clear, but I assume there's nothing to prevent you from signing a player to a longer than one-year deal and then trading them the following year/whatever year their deal ends (and if there was, hopefully it is obvious why that would be dumb). It's more inconvenient, but it's not really encouraging anyone to let players go to free agency in the vast majority of cases. I also don't see what's stopping you from re-signing a player in the final year of their deal to one more year during the season in order to trade them the following year, but you could make a rule against that. Making teams pay a premium in free agency instead of sign-and-trading, depending on the player involved and the teams' cap space, can be more costly, and more importantly, it's unclear what benefit the rule accomplishes. I foresee at best a really insignificant boost to the free agent market which will probably mostly benefit random AI teams since they don't pay premiums in FA, so they'll pick up the guys that slip through the cracks offer-wise. That doesn't seem like much of a benefit to me especially when the price being paid is more needlessly complicated rules to prevent users from trading with one another.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 4:09:17 PM #256:	Well there are still ways around it like you said but I feel quite a few sign and trades are a case of people finding out their cap space and FA salary requests and then realizing they have to shift someone. I know I plan my cap ahead of time but I have to guesstimate what players will request and then that changes after ratings changes too. And yeah you could extend someone and then still trade them to circumvent it but it will cost you more dead money. If you extend someone early I believe their old signing bonus is rolled into the new contract too. So if you signed them go a 2 year deal at season end to leave them with 1 year remaining in the new offseason you would be paying half of their old remaining signing bonus and then their new signing bonus too. So maybe instead of costing you 1.5m in dead money it might now cost you 2.25m or something. And KCF could simply say you can't trade someone you extending in the previous season. I mean really how many people do early extensions anyway? And if they do how many do it for 2 years? The intent would be obvious. I think the only time I ever extended someone early was to avoid them hitting RFA and having to match a pricier deal <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924371186] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Well there are still ways around it like you said but I feel quite a few sign and trades are a case of people finding out their cap space and FA salary requests and then realizing they have to shift someone. I know I plan my cap ahead of time but I have to guesstimate what players will request and then that changes after ratings changes too. And yeah you could extend someone and then still trade them to circumvent it but it will cost you more dead money. If you extend someone early I believe their old signing bonus is rolled into the new contract too. So if you signed them go a 2 year deal at season end to leave them with 1 year remaining in the new offseason you would be paying half of their old remaining signing bonus and then their new signing bonus too. So maybe instead of costing you 1.5m in dead money it might now cost you 2.25m or something. And KCF could simply say you can't trade someone you extending in the previous season. I mean really how many people do early extensions anyway? And if they do how many do it for 2 years? The intent would be obvious. I think the only time I ever extended someone early was to avoid them hitting RFA and having to match a pricier deal</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/07/19 6:37:26 PM #257:	I want to talk about this before I forget, but it appears that people are still confused on how player development works. I probably didn't explain it properly and people got the wrong idea. It is overwhelmingly determined by playing time and individual performance and impact. Your unit doing well and playoff performance can give it a little boost, but it seems people are overstating how much it is. The two Super Bowl participants from last season actually had more people regress than progress during the entire playoffs (In the Super Bowl alone, the Dolphins saw one player improve and six deteriorate). The Wildcats are a prime example on the reality of player development. They have been a losing team for five straight seasons with an overall record of 24-55-1 during that span. Their defense has been below average to poor every season. Yet, they have been developing players nicely across the board (DL, LB, and DB). Because their defenders haven't collectively made the impact to produce an average or better defense, the rise to reaching an elite overall rating is not as fast as it could be, but they are seeing a lot of development even in the face of losing and sucking (sorry to bring that up prof lol) because that is how player development works. Using the opposite end of the spectrum, let's use a team that has done very well over the past several seasons in the Dolphins. Shattered pointed out their OL that entered RFA, but it didn't tell the whole story. All of those OL had a great amount of playing time as my OL usually faces plenty of injuries each year. With the exception of Jonathan Fletcher (and I want to emphasize that he is an exception to the rule), all also had great block:sacks allowed ratios in their playing time, and the offense as a whole was just as great. This past season, they only suffered injuries at the C position. What was the result? Those that were on the C depth chart played quite a bit, performed great, and developed. My backups at the G and OT positions hardly saw the field and didn't develop (maybe a couple saw a 1 point rise due to youth) despite having an obscene offensive season. Their defense has been elite or great for most of the careers of former 1st round picks CB Kareem Jackson and OLB DeAndre Levy. Jackson almost never saw the field, so despite the Dolphins owning an elite pass D, his rating only went up I believe 1 point in his four years in Miami. Levy saw a little more action and might have started a few games due to injuries, and he only went up 2 points at most from where he started as a rookie. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924376595] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I want to talk about this before I forget, but it appears that people are still confused on how player development works. I probably didn't explain it properly and people got the wrong idea. It is overwhelmingly determined by playing time and individual performance and impact. Your unit doing well and playoff performance can give it a little boost, but it seems people are overstating how much it is. The two Super Bowl participants from last season actually had more people regress than progress during the entire playoffs (In the Super Bowl alone, the Dolphins saw one player improve and six deteriorate). The Wildcats are a prime example on the reality of player development. They have been a losing team for five straight seasons with an overall record of 24-55-1 during that span. Their defense has been below average to poor every season. Yet, they have been developing players nicely across the board (DL, LB, and DB). Because their defenders haven't collectively made the impact to produce an average or better defense, the rise to reaching an elite overall rating is not as fast as it could be, but they are seeing a lot of development even in the face of losing and sucking (sorry to bring that up prof lol) because that is how player development works. Using the opposite end of the spectrum, let's use a team that has done very well over the past several seasons in the Dolphins. Shattered pointed out their OL that entered RFA, but it didn't tell the whole story. All of those OL had a great amount of playing time as my OL usually faces plenty of injuries each year. With the exception of Jonathan Fletcher (and I want to emphasize that he is an exception to the rule), all also had great block:sacks allowed ratios in their playing time, and the offense as a whole was just as great. This past season, they only suffered injuries at the C position. What was the result? Those that were on the C depth chart played quite a bit, performed great, and developed. My backups at the G and OT positions hardly saw the field and didn't develop (maybe a couple saw a 1 point rise due to youth) despite having an obscene offensive season. Their defense has been elite or great for most of the careers of former 1st round picks CB Kareem Jackson and OLB DeAndre Levy. Jackson almost never saw the field, so despite the Dolphins owning an elite pass D, his rating only went up I believe 1 point in his four years in Miami. Levy saw a little more action and might have started a few games due to injuries, and he only went up 2 points at most from where he started as a rookie.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/07/19 7:02:22 PM #258:	Back to the topic at hand, I want to reiterate that the sole purpose of my introduction of the sign-and-trade was as an alternative to the absence of the compensatory pick (which doesn't offer 1st round picks or even 2nd round picks). Much like other things that had to be changed due to said things spiraling out of control, sign-and-trades have turned into something that they were not intended to be. As someone who should have had the foresight to place limitations and is one of the biggest users of sign-and-trades, this is on me, and I'm sorry. I think that my proposed rules reflect the spirit of the concept's inclusion. As mentioned several times in the past, 90+% of all the users who have been involved in B8NFLL have never made an attempt to game the system or operate in any way that is morally dubious to gain an unfair edge. I can count the amount of active users that I can see trying to game the system and pull a fast one on me on one hand, and if you believe that people can fool me and succeed in doing so, then I believe the best course of action to take is to fully eliminate sign-and-trades. I would like to begin the UFA period with something in place, and I would like to begin signing UFAs tonight, so I will hear any final thoughts before making a decision. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924377546] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Back to the topic at hand, I want to reiterate that the sole purpose of my introduction of the sign-and-trade was as an alternative to the absence of the compensatory pick (which doesn't offer 1st round picks or even 2nd round picks). Much like other things that had to be changed due to said things spiraling out of control, sign-and-trades have turned into something that they were not intended to be. As someone who should have had the foresight to place limitations and is one of the biggest users of sign-and-trades, this is on me, and I'm sorry. I think that my proposed rules reflect the spirit of the concept's inclusion. As mentioned several times in the past, 90+% of all the users who have been involved in B8NFLL have never made an attempt to game the system or operate in any way that is morally dubious to gain an unfair edge. I can count the amount of active users that I can see trying to game the system and pull a fast one on me on one hand, and if you believe that people can fool me and succeed in doing so, then I believe the best course of action to take is to fully eliminate sign-and-trades. I would like to begin the UFA period with something in place, and I would like to begin signing UFAs tonight, so I will hear any final thoughts before making a decision.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 7:40:44 PM #259:	I also want to add that just because a player is older does not mean they can't still develop at a decent clip. I can give 2 examples from my own teams progression of players who have developed into starters from backup snaps due to injury/rotation whilst not on rookie contracts So Stephen Tulloch is one of those guys OLB Stephen Tulloch Age 26 > 27 - 74 > 76 (27 Tackles, 2 Sacks, 1 FF, 1 FR, 0 INT) Age 27 > 28 - 76 > 76 (19 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1) Age 28 > 29 - 76 > 78 (29 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 1) Age 29 > 30 - 78 > 80 (50 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0) Age 30 > 31 - 80 > 82 (88 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 0) Age 31 > 32 - 82 > 84 (89 / 8 / 2 / 1 / 1) Compared to 2 guys on rookie deals in a similar / same position over the same time OLB Adam Tufts Age 22 > 23 - 75 (82) > 84 (71 / 8 / 0 / 2 / 2) Age 23 > 24 - 84 > 86 (63 / 10 / 3 / 1 / 1) Age 24 > 25 - 86 > 87 (63 / 6 / 3 / 2 / 0) Age 25 > 26 - 87 > 86 (50 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 0) Age 26 > 27 - 86 > 87 (64 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 5) Age 27 > 28 - 87 > 87 (63 / 6 / 0 / 0 / 1) So his first season massive bump was due to a very fortunate position change where he was swapped from a 75 MLB to a 82 OLB. The rest of the time you can see that he has just kind of been a bit of everything playmaker across the board without being spectacular. So despite being on a rookie deal, his progression didn't outpace Tulloch (I suspect it's harder to increase in rating the higher the rating gets) and you can see Tulloch actually outperformed him the last 2 seasons and debatably 3 (Tulloch was backup in his 50 tackle year, Tufts was the starter but missed time, I forget how much though) MLB Rolando McClain Age 24 > 25 - 78 > 84 (34 Tackles / 6 Sacks / 3 FF / 3 FR / 1 INT) Age 25 > 26 - 84 > 87 (85 / 4 / 0 / 1 / 2) Age 26 > 27 - 87 > 88 (78 / 7 / 3 / 3 / 0) Age 27 > 28 - 88 > 91 (93 / 13 / 1 / 1 / 2) Age 28 > 29 - 91 > 92 (104 / 7 / 1 / 1 / 2) I suspect his rookie season may have had a bit of a preseason bump given his numbers and that he was injured half the season. Aside from that season his progression was similar to Tulloch despite better younger (Again I suspect it's harder to increase the higher rating you get) ------- Another guy who has been a backup and developer whilst being on a non rookie deal is Andy Christensen G Andy Christensen Age 27 > 28 - 83 > 85 (30 Blocks, 7 Sacks) Age 28 > 29 - 85 > 85 (9 Blocks, 3 Sacks) Age 29 > 30 - 85 > 86 (25 Blocks, 4 Sacks) Age 30 > 31 - 86 > 87 (20 Blocks, 3 Sacks) Compared to another O-line player on a rookie deal across the same timeframe OT Anthony Castonzo (but played at G) Age 22 > 23 - 82 > 83 (20 Blocks, 2 Sacks) Age 23 > 24 - 83 > 84 (31 Blocks, 7 Sacks) Age 24 > 25 - 84 > 86 (36 Blocks, 7 Sacks) Age 25 > 26 - 86 > 90 (56 Blocks, 7 Sacks, 1 FF) Part of that 86 > 90 bump is due to a position swap to G. But you can kinda see despite being a rookie contract guy, his progression wasn't any better than Christensen until he started in his fourth season. They both fulfilled a similar role as a backup O-lineman with similar stats and both progressed at the same rate. It was only when Castonzo became the starter he out developed Christensen (and that may have been partly due to position swap) <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924378991] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I also want to add that just because a player is older does not mean they can't still develop at a decent clip. I can give 2 examples from my own teams progression of players who have developed into starters from backup snaps due to injury/rotation whilst not on rookie contracts So Stephen Tulloch is one of those guys OLB Stephen Tulloch Age 26 > 27 - 74 > 76 (27 Tackles, 2 Sacks, 1 FF, 1 FR, 0 INT) Age 27 > 28 - 76 > 76 (19 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1) Age 28 > 29 - 76 > 78 (29 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 1) Age 29 > 30 - 78 > 80 (50 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0) Age 30 > 31 - 80 > 82 (88 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 0) Age 31 > 32 - 82 > 84 (89 / 8 / 2 / 1 / 1) Compared to 2 guys on rookie deals in a similar / same position over the same time OLB Adam Tufts Age 22 > 23 - 75 (82) > 84 (71 / 8 / 0 / 2 / 2) Age 23 > 24 - 84 > 86 (63 / 10 / 3 / 1 / 1) Age 24 > 25 - 86 > 87 (63 / 6 / 3 / 2 / 0) Age 25 > 26 - 87 > 86 (50 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 0) Age 26 > 27 - 86 > 87 (64 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 5) Age 27 > 28 - 87 > 87 (63 / 6 / 0 / 0 / 1) So his first season massive bump was due to a very fortunate position change where he was swapped from a 75 MLB to a 82 OLB. The rest of the time you can see that he has just kind of been a bit of everything playmaker across the board without being spectacular. So despite being on a rookie deal, his progression didn't outpace Tulloch (I suspect it's harder to increase in rating the higher the rating gets) and you can see Tulloch actually outperformed him the last 2 seasons and debatably 3 (Tulloch was backup in his 50 tackle year, Tufts was the starter but missed time, I forget how much though) MLB Rolando McClain Age 24 > 25 - 78 > 84 (34 Tackles / 6 Sacks / 3 FF / 3 FR / 1 INT) Age 25 > 26 - 84 > 87 (85 / 4 / 0 / 1 / 2) Age 26 > 27 - 87 > 88 (78 / 7 / 3 / 3 / 0) Age 27 > 28 - 88 > 91 (93 / 13 / 1 / 1 / 2) Age 28 > 29 - 91 > 92 (104 / 7 / 1 / 1 / 2) I suspect his rookie season may have had a bit of a preseason bump given his numbers and that he was injured half the season. Aside from that season his progression was similar to Tulloch despite better younger (Again I suspect it's harder to increase the higher rating you get) ------- Another guy who has been a backup and developer whilst being on a non rookie deal is Andy Christensen G Andy Christensen Age 27 > 28 - 83 > 85 (30 Blocks, 7 Sacks) Age 28 > 29 - 85 > 85 (9 Blocks, 3 Sacks) Age 29 > 30 - 85 > 86 (25 Blocks, 4 Sacks) Age 30 > 31 - 86 > 87 (20 Blocks, 3 Sacks) Compared to another O-line player on a rookie deal across the same timeframe OT Anthony Castonzo (but played at G) Age 22 > 23 - 82 > 83 (20 Blocks, 2 Sacks) Age 23 > 24 - 83 > 84 (31 Blocks, 7 Sacks) Age 24 > 25 - 84 > 86 (36 Blocks, 7 Sacks) Age 25 > 26 - 86 > 90 (56 Blocks, 7 Sacks, 1 FF) Part of that 86 > 90 bump is due to a position swap to G. But you can kinda see despite being a rookie contract guy, his progression wasn't any better than Christensen until he started in his fourth season. They both fulfilled a similar role as a backup O-lineman with similar stats and both progressed at the same rate. It was only when Castonzo became the starter he out developed Christensen (and that may have been partly due to position swap)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 8:04:10 PM #260:	in the middle of a response right now to new rule stuff, btw... <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924379826] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>in the middle of a response right now to new rule stuff, btw...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Emeraldegg 07/07/19 8:11:03 PM #261:	I am fine with your proposed rules should you choose to use them, but I think that the concept of there being no compensation for letting UFAs walk works just fine in real life and in here, and trying to force something to take its place isn't always going to work out for the better. If people want compensation for their impending UFAs, they should trade them when they have a year left. That's the risk they choose to take by hanging on to dudes when they may be better served trading them a year earlier. My main concern like it has been mentioned, is that it is yet another avenue for people to bypass having to pay a premium to get the players they want from other teams, and it unduly rewards the sending team for not having the foresight of when to get rid of players for compensation and when to keep them. It is a no-risk gambit for those involved, something which I would think clashes with your mindset about the project, given how you artificially lower the cap for user teams because things were too easy in the past. --- I'm a greener egg than the eggs from dr. seuss <cite>Emeraldegg posted [p:924380094] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I am fine with your proposed rules should you choose to use them, but I think that the concept of there being no compensation for letting UFAs walk works just fine in real life and in here, and trying to force something to take its place isn't always going to work out for the better. If people want compensation for their impending UFAs, they should trade them when they have a year left. That's the risk they choose to take by hanging on to dudes when they may be better served trading them a year earlier. My main concern like it has been mentioned, is that it is yet another avenue for people to bypass having to pay a premium to get the players they want from other teams, and it unduly rewards the sending team for not having the foresight of when to get rid of players for compensation and when to keep them. It is a no-risk gambit for those involved, something which I would think clashes with your mindset about the project, given how you artificially lower the cap for user teams because things were too easy in the past.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/07/19 8:16:48 PM #262:	So to be clear Emerald, you are in favor of the elimination of sign-and-trades correct? --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924380339] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>So to be clear Emerald, you are in favor of the elimination of sign-and-trades correct?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 8:34:06 PM #263:	ShatteredElysium posted... Well there are still ways around it like you said but I feel quite a few sign and trades are a case of people finding out their cap space and FA salary requests and then realizing they have to shift someone. If that's all it's intending to eliminate, then there would be no need for it once the season has started until the time the season has ended. KCF0107 posted... Much like other things that had to be changed due to said things spiraling out of control, sign-and-trades have turned into something that they were not intended to be. As someone who should have had the foresight to place limitations and is one of the biggest users of sign-and-trades, this is on me, and I'm sorry. I'm not really sure what this means as someone who hasn't kept track of how many sign-and-trades they've done, and as someone who trades way less frequently than the most active trade people. When you make rule changes it should be to eliminate a clear problem, and you should think all the way through what the repercussions of the rule are.* Then it would be nice to explain what the goal is and how the new rule eliminates the problem for those of us that aren't in the know. Like I said, I haven't thought this all the way through, but the one thing the new rule does that I don't like is further eliminate avenues for trading. Limiting it to 1 per year doesn't seem unreasonable, and I'm not against it in totality, but I would like someone to clearly explain what goal it's accomplishing, why the AI is restricted from it, and while I could probably guess, what the 1st round restriction is for. It's not acceptable to go witch-hunting users in lieu of making clearly defined rules - to be extremely clear, it's not ok for you to go around recklessly accusing people for something that was your fault to begin with by using your own arbitrary unwritten standards of conduct. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924380927] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>ShatteredElysium posted...</cite> <quote>Well there are still ways around it like you said but I feel quite a few sign and trades are a case of people finding out their cap space and FA salary requests and then realizing they have to shift someone. </quote> If that's all it's intending to eliminate, then there would be no need for it once the season has started until the time the season has ended. <cite>KCF0107 posted...</cite> <quote>Much like other things that had to be changed due to said things spiraling out of control, sign-and-trades have turned into something that they were not intended to be. As someone who should have had the foresight to place limitations and is one of the biggest users of sign-and-trades, this is on me, and I'm sorry.</quote> I'm not really sure what this means as someone who hasn't kept track of how many sign-and-trades they've done, and as someone who trades way less frequently than the most active trade people. When you make rule changes it should be to eliminate a clear problem, and you should think all the way through what the repercussions of the rule are. Then it would be nice to explain what the goal is and how the new rule eliminates the problem for those of us that aren't in the know. Like I said, I haven't thought this all the way through, but the one thing the new rule does that I don't like is further eliminate avenues for trading. Limiting it to 1 per year doesn't seem unreasonable, and I'm not against it in totality, but I would like someone to clearly explain what goal it's accomplishing, why the AI is restricted from it, and while I could probably guess, what the 1st round restriction is for. *It's not acceptable to go witch-hunting users in lieu of making clearly defined rules - to be extremely clear, it's not ok for you to go around recklessly accusing people for something that was your fault to begin with by using your own arbitrary unwritten standards of conduct.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Eddv 07/07/19 8:53:03 PM #264:	I very much oppose the elimination of sign and trade. As stevr has pointed out, the Free Agent market really isn't user friendly at all and if a team is willing to eat a players signing bonus to be sure there is an exchange of assets had in place of a more faith based system where you release a player to clear cap and then pray you land the player you were after, frankly it's an elegant solution to an annoying problem because the end result isnt in more elite players hitting free agency, it's in user teams resigning players they would rather part with but can't. --- Board 8's Voice of Reason https://imgur.com/chXIw06 <cite>Eddv posted [p:924381614] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I very much oppose the elimination of sign and trade. As stevr has pointed out, the Free Agent market really isn't user friendly at all and if a team is willing to eat a players signing bonus to be sure there is an exchange of assets had in place of a more faith based system where you release a player to clear cap and then pray you land the player you were after, frankly it's an elegant solution to an annoying problem because the end result isnt in more elite players hitting free agency, it's in user teams resigning players they would rather part with but can't.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 9:05:12 PM #265:	Like I said, I haven't thought this all the way through, but the one thing the new rule does that I don't like is further eliminate avenues for trading. Limiting it to 1 per year doesn't seem unreasonable, and I'm not against it in totality, but I would like someone to clearly explain what goal it's accomplishing, why the AI is restricted from it, and while I could probably guess, what the 1st round restriction is for. The AI would never intentionally do a sign and trade. The AI isn't going to think 'Well this guy has value but I can't afford to keep him so I am going to sign him purely to trade him'. If a player doesn't work into the AI plans for whatever reason and he's up for contract renewal then they would just let him walk. That's not to say the AI doesn't do sign and trades period. I'm sure if a user tried to trade them for a freshly signed player they could be forced into it. Likewise maybe it happens between AI and AI on draft day but it would never be signing a guy purely to trade him, it would just be coincidence <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924382020] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><quote>Like I said, I haven't thought this all the way through, but the one thing the new rule does that I don't like is further eliminate avenues for trading. Limiting it to 1 per year doesn't seem unreasonable, and I'm not against it in totality, but I would like someone to clearly explain what goal it's accomplishing, why the AI is restricted from it, and while I could probably guess, what the 1st round restriction is for. </quote> The AI would never intentionally do a sign and trade. The AI isn't going to think 'Well this guy has value but I can't afford to keep him so I am going to sign him purely to trade him'. If a player doesn't work into the AI plans for whatever reason and he's up for contract renewal then they would just let him walk. That's not to say the AI doesn't do sign and trades period. I'm sure if a user tried to trade them for a freshly signed player they could be forced into it. Likewise maybe it happens between AI and AI on draft day but it would never be signing a guy purely to trade him, it would just be coincidence</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 9:20:54 PM #266:	ShatteredElysium posted... The AI would never intentionally do a sign and trade. The AI isn't going to think 'Well this guy has value but I can't afford to keep him so I am going to sign him purely to trade him'. If a player doesn't work into the AI plans for whatever reason and he's up for contract renewal then they would just let him walk. That's not to say the AI doesn't do sign and trades period. I'm sure if a user tried to trade them for a freshly signed player they could be forced into it. Likewise maybe it happens between AI and AI on draft day but it would never be signing a guy purely to trade him, it would just be coincidence I'm not 100% following. If the argument is that it's unfair that the AI doesn't get to do sign-and-trades, I feel like the cap disparity between user and AI teams makes up for that. But either way that doesn't really explain why a user team couldn't trade with the AI. Sorry if I'm being slow here. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924382548] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>ShatteredElysium posted...</cite> <quote>The AI would never intentionally do a sign and trade. The AI isn't going to think 'Well this guy has value but I can't afford to keep him so I am going to sign him purely to trade him'. If a player doesn't work into the AI plans for whatever reason and he's up for contract renewal then they would just let him walk. That's not to say the AI doesn't do sign and trades period. I'm sure if a user tried to trade them for a freshly signed player they could be forced into it. Likewise maybe it happens between AI and AI on draft day but it would never be signing a guy purely to trade him, it would just be coincidence</quote> I'm not 100% following. If the argument is that it's unfair that the AI doesn't get to do sign-and-trades, I feel like the cap disparity between user and AI teams makes up for that. But either way that doesn't really explain why a user team couldn't trade with the AI. Sorry if I'm being slow here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 9:27:07 PM #267:	Oh I misread what you meant The reason that I feel AI should be restricted from sign and trades is that sign and trades reduce the free agency market for user teams. So if the player isn't going to hit free agency he should at least be heading to a user team rather than an AI team. <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924382780] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Oh I misread what you meant The reason that I feel AI should be restricted from sign and trades is that sign and trades reduce the free agency market for user teams. So if the player isn't going to hit free agency he should at least be heading to a user team rather than an AI team.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Emeraldegg 07/07/19 9:27:28 PM #268:	Consider me neutral, officially. I will go with either elimination or your modified ruleset Also, something I neglected to mention in my earlier post was that whatever ends up being changed, I am in general not a fan of mechanics-changing rules after the offseason has started unless it is a clear game-breaker that has been discovered. The trading rule changes don't affect the success or failure of making trades, so that is fine. But with something like this, I feel like it could seriously alter someone's game plan if they had focused on this as part of their long-term plan, and suddenly find themselves unable to execute it to the amount they had envisioned. Like I said, I will go along with whatever with no fuss, but in the interests of fairness my viewpoint is that this is not really a gigantic issue, despite the amount of discussion being had on it, and my suggestion would be to take feedback now, but institute a potential rule change following this season. That way everyone involved has plenty of time to ruminate on what the best course of action would be moving forward, especially since you (KCF) seem very pressed for time since you had planned to start UFA tonight. --- I'm a greener egg than the eggs from dr. seuss <cite>Emeraldegg posted [p:924382798] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Consider me neutral, officially. I will go with either elimination or your modified ruleset Also, something I neglected to mention in my earlier post was that whatever ends up being changed, I am in general not a fan of mechanics-changing rules after the offseason has started unless it is a clear game-breaker that has been discovered. The trading rule changes don't affect the success or failure of making trades, so that is fine. But with something like this, I feel like it could seriously alter someone's game plan if they had focused on this as part of their long-term plan, and suddenly find themselves unable to execute it to the amount they had envisioned. Like I said, I will go along with whatever with no fuss, but in the interests of fairness my viewpoint is that this is not really a gigantic issue, despite the amount of discussion being had on it, and my suggestion would be to take feedback now, but institute a potential rule change following this season. That way everyone involved has plenty of time to ruminate on what the best course of action would be moving forward, especially since you (KCF) seem very pressed for time since you had planned to start UFA tonight.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 9:34:43 PM #269:	ShatteredElysium posted... Oh I misread what you meant The reason that I feel AI should be restricted from sign and trades is that sign and trades reduce the free agency market for user teams. So if the player isn't going to hit free agency he should at least be heading to a user team rather than an AI team. Well, I can understand and appreciate this sentiment, and if there's reason to believe I'm wrong, by all means tell me, but my fear is that a few extra players hitting free agency isn't going to benefit user teams, but it'll instead provide more guys to get snapped up for market value by AI teams. I feel like your reasoning might be different than KCF's though based on his earlier post: KCF0107 posted... I too sometimes worry about the future of free agency, *but the markets thus far seem to have a healthy amount of quality players (whether that means overall rating, productive history, or both)*, if the not the most ideal positional distribution. which is why I wanted to know what goal we're trying to accomplish here. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924383039] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>ShatteredElysium posted...</cite> <quote>Oh I misread what you meant The reason that I feel AI should be restricted from sign and trades is that sign and trades reduce the free agency market for user teams. So if the player isn't going to hit free agency he should at least be heading to a user team rather than an AI team.</quote> Well, I can understand and appreciate this sentiment, and if there's reason to believe I'm wrong, by all means tell me, but my fear is that a few extra players hitting free agency isn't going to benefit user teams, but it'll instead provide more guys to get snapped up for market value by AI teams. I feel like your reasoning might be different than KCF's though based on his earlier post: <cite>KCF0107 posted...</cite> <quote>I too sometimes worry about the future of free agency, but the markets thus far seem to have a healthy amount of quality players (whether that means overall rating, productive history, or both), if the not the most ideal positional distribution.</quote> which is why I wanted to know what goal we're trying to accomplish here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 9:39:54 PM #270:	Emeraldegg posted... Also, something I neglected to mention in my earlier post was that whatever ends up being changed, I am in general not a fan of mechanics-changing rules after the offseason has started unless it is a clear game-breaker that has been discovered. The trading rule changes don't affect the success or failure of making trades, so that is fine. But with something like this, I feel like it could seriously alter someone's game plan if they had focused on this as part of their long-term plan, and suddenly find themselves unable to execute it to the amount they had envisioned. Like I said, I will go along with whatever with no fuss, but in the interests of fairness my viewpoint is that this is not really a gigantic issue, despite the amount of discussion being had on it, and my suggestion would be to take feedback now, but institute a potential rule change following this season. That way everyone involved has plenty of time to ruminate on what the best course of action would be moving forward. I also agree on this. The only exception, just as Emerald mentioned, imo would be if there was something really gamebreaking that needed to be resolved ASAP which is why I think it's important to clearly outline why a rule change is being made. If this actually rises to that level, then I would like that part of it explained, so that I and fellow users who haven't been keeping up as much with the issue understand. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924383205] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>Emeraldegg posted...</cite> <quote>Also, something I neglected to mention in my earlier post was that whatever ends up being changed, I am in general not a fan of mechanics-changing rules after the offseason has started unless it is a clear game-breaker that has been discovered. The trading rule changes don't affect the success or failure of making trades, so that is fine. But with something like this, I feel like it could seriously alter someone's game plan if they had focused on this as part of their long-term plan, and suddenly find themselves unable to execute it to the amount they had envisioned. Like I said, I will go along with whatever with no fuss, but in the interests of fairness my viewpoint is that this is not really a gigantic issue, despite the amount of discussion being had on it, and my suggestion would be to take feedback now, but institute a potential rule change following this season. That way everyone involved has plenty of time to ruminate on what the best course of action would be moving forward.</quote> I also agree on this. The only exception, just as Emerald mentioned, imo would be if there was something really gamebreaking that needed to be resolved ASAP which is why I think it's important to clearly outline why a rule change is being made. If this actually rises to that level, then I would like that part of it explained, so that I and fellow users who haven't been keeping up as much with the issue understand.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Emeraldegg 07/07/19 9:46:23 PM #271:	theawesomestevr posted... ShatteredElysium posted... Oh I misread what you meant The reason that I feel AI should be restricted from sign and trades is that sign and trades reduce the free agency market for user teams. So if the player isn't going to hit free agency he should at least be heading to a user team rather than an AI team. Well, I can understand and appreciate this sentiment, and if there's reason to believe I'm wrong, by all means tell me, but my fear is that a few extra players hitting free agency isn't going to benefit user teams, but it'll instead provide more guys to get snapped up for market value by AI teams. I feel like your reasoning might be different than KCF's though based on his earlier post (which I'll edit in a quote in a second) which is why I wanted to know what goal we're trying to accomplish here. Honestly, I don't even consider this a big deal because, while it is easy to lump all the AI teams together, let's not forget there are still more than a dozen AI teams all competing with each other as well, so it's not like all this juicy free agent talent is going to a select couple of teams. Even if all the big FAs went to AI teams, if they were reasonably distributed, it should not affect the power balance of the league that much. And if they weren't, then it means that the teams they did go to, way outspent their budgets and will be Dolphins level of cost cutting in a few years, but without the security of a gajillion first rounders to make up for it. Furthermore, it's not as if the AI having a higher cap than user teams makes it strictly impossible for users to land those free agents. It simply means that users need to be smart and pick their free agents wisely. Don't be like me a few years back and spend 9M a year on an OT when OTs are plentiful, and 8M a year on a HB when HBs are plentiful, and do both of these in the same year. It's harder, but not necessarily "hard" imo. --- I'm a greener egg than the eggs from dr. seuss <cite>Emeraldegg posted [p:924383429] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>theawesomestevr posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ShatteredElysium posted...</cite> <quote>Oh I misread what you meant The reason that I feel AI should be restricted from sign and trades is that sign and trades reduce the free agency market for user teams. So if the player isn't going to hit free agency he should at least be heading to a user team rather than an AI team.</quote> Well, I can understand and appreciate this sentiment, and if there's reason to believe I'm wrong, by all means tell me, but my fear is that a few extra players hitting free agency isn't going to benefit user teams, but it'll instead provide more guys to get snapped up for market value by AI teams. I feel like your reasoning might be different than KCF's though based on his earlier post (which I'll edit in a quote in a second) which is why I wanted to know what goal we're trying to accomplish here.</quote> Honestly, I don't even consider this a big deal because, while it is easy to lump all the AI teams together, let's not forget there are still more than a dozen AI teams all competing with each other as well, so it's not like all this juicy free agent talent is going to a select couple of teams. Even if all the big FAs went to AI teams, if they were reasonably distributed, it should not affect the power balance of the league that much. And if they weren't, then it means that the teams they did go to, way outspent their budgets and will be Dolphins level of cost cutting in a few years, but without the security of a gajillion first rounders to make up for it. Furthermore, it's not as if the AI having a higher cap than user teams makes it strictly impossible for users to land those free agents. It simply means that users need to be smart and pick their free agents wisely. Don't be like me a few years back and spend 9M a year on an OT when OTs are plentiful, and 8M a year on a HB when HBs are plentiful, and do both of these in the same year. It's harder, but not necessarily "hard" imo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/07/19 9:57:33 PM #272:	There will be changes to the sign-and-trade. That is 100% happening. Regardless of whether it is placing limits or eliminating it,, and I will look to see what everyone has said in full detail since then, I will grandfather in the one sign-and-trade deal that I was notified of. So the two who have voiced concerns will not have their sign-and-trade plan be shut down. I will say that from what I have skimmed, it seems people are concerned about the restrictions being exploitable or unclear rules (I personally think that each three rules are explicitly clear), it seems like the simpler route to take is the complete elimination of the sign-and-trade. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924383847] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>There will be changes to the sign-and-trade. That is 100% happening. Regardless of whether it is placing limits or eliminating it,, and I will look to see what everyone has said in full detail since then, I will grandfather in the one sign-and-trade deal that I was notified of. So the two who have voiced concerns will not have their sign-and-trade plan be shut down. I will say that from what I have skimmed, it seems people are concerned about the restrictions being exploitable or unclear rules (I personally think that each three rules are explicitly clear), it seems like the simpler route to take is the complete elimination of the sign-and-trade.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 10:15:46 PM #273:	Emeraldegg posted... Honestly, I don't even consider this a big deal because, while it is easy to lump all the AI teams together, let's not forget there are still more than a dozen AI teams all competing with each other as well, so it's not like all this juicy free agent talent is going to a select couple of teams. Even if all the big FAs went to AI teams, if they were reasonably distributed, it should not affect the power balance of the league that much. And if they weren't, then it means that the teams they did go to, way outspent their budgets and will be Dolphins level of cost cutting in a few years, but without the security of a gajillion first rounders to make up for it. Furthermore, it's not as if the AI having a higher cap than user teams makes it strictly impossible for users to land those free agents. It simply means that users need to be smart and pick their free agents wisely. Don't be like me a few years back and spend 9M a year on an OT when OTs are plentiful, and 8M a year on a HB when HBs are plentiful, and do both of these in the same year. It's harder, but not necessarily "hard" imo. Sometimes, it just comes down to luck though. I learned my lesson awhile ago about HBs and was really lucky you outbid me on Reggie Bush however many years back that was, but even so, you can never quite tell which users are going to be active and who they might go after. If my team needs, just for an example's sake, a MLB, and there are 2-3 sitting there that would be a starter on my team. Let's just say the top 2 are rated 87 and the 3rd is 85. Multiple users go after the lowest because they think everyone will go for a higher-rated MLB and multiple people go after one of the other two. By pure luck, an AI team signs the other 87 MLB on day 1 of free agency with a much closer to market value deal. No user would ever offer him as low of a deal because they rightfully fear being outbid, and if you were one of the user teams that lost out on all 3, being smart and going after FAs wisely didn't really play a factor. Anyway, that's all beside my point that I intended to make which is that if this is such a significant issue it needs a rule change, it shouldn't be one that ends up being detrimental to user teams, and if it is, it's not a rule worth having imo. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924384476] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>Emeraldegg posted...</cite> <quote>Honestly, I don't even consider this a big deal because, while it is easy to lump all the AI teams together, let's not forget there are still more than a dozen AI teams all competing with each other as well, so it's not like all this juicy free agent talent is going to a select couple of teams. Even if all the big FAs went to AI teams, if they were reasonably distributed, it should not affect the power balance of the league that much. And if they weren't, then it means that the teams they did go to, way outspent their budgets and will be Dolphins level of cost cutting in a few years, but without the security of a gajillion first rounders to make up for it. Furthermore, it's not as if the AI having a higher cap than user teams makes it strictly impossible for users to land those free agents. It simply means that users need to be smart and pick their free agents wisely. Don't be like me a few years back and spend 9M a year on an OT when OTs are plentiful, and 8M a year on a HB when HBs are plentiful, and do both of these in the same year. It's harder, but not necessarily "hard" imo.</quote> Sometimes, it just comes down to luck though. I learned my lesson awhile ago about HBs and was really lucky you outbid me on Reggie Bush however many years back that was, but even so, you can never quite tell which users are going to be active and who they might go after. If my team needs, just for an example's sake, a MLB, and there are 2-3 sitting there that would be a starter on my team. Let's just say the top 2 are rated 87 and the 3rd is 85. Multiple users go after the lowest because they think everyone will go for a higher-rated MLB and multiple people go after one of the other two. By pure luck, an AI team signs the other 87 MLB on day 1 of free agency with a much closer to market value deal. No user would ever offer him as low of a deal because they rightfully fear being outbid, and if you were one of the user teams that lost out on all 3, being smart and going after FAs wisely didn't really play a factor. Anyway, that's all beside my point that I intended to make which is that if this is such a significant issue it needs a rule change, it shouldn't be one that ends up being detrimental to user teams, and if it is, it's not a rule worth having imo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 10:16:58 PM #274:	I mean for what it's worth, I don't actually care whether we change the rules or not. The same applied for the change to the trade procedure My comments/suggestions are purely based on the past few seasons of KCF not being fond of a lot of trades and feeling there have been some unfair and/or questionable trades that he just hasn't spoken up about. KCF sees it as a potential problem so my suggestions have simply been potential ways of eliminating that problem. ------- Everyone takes part in the league because it is fun and a lot of us are invested in it. At the end of the day I would think most peoples goals are to improve their team and win. So whilst I am sure everyone wants all users to do well, ultimately the moves that users make are to improve their team. Nobody is trying to deliberately weaken other user teams and when trades are made I am sure everyone intends on trying to make their trade partner better too (or to give them what they requested) because in doing so, you are more likely to also get what you want. There are limited opportunities to make changes to teams. This is pretty much confined to offseason moves. We don't see as many in season moves and usually when we do it's either due to injuries or a team looking to get assets for the following season. We average a season every 6 months or so (which isn't a problem in itself), but I feel active users are more inclined to make sweeping changes rather than play the slow game because the slow game might not payoff until 2-3 seasons time which could be 12-18 months down the line The 4 places you can make changes are RFA, FA, the Draft and Trades. RFA is generally a good place to get proven players but you're limited by draft picks you possess so teams may try to acquire more via trades if they see multiple guys they like (or dont want to give away a high pick). RFA can also end up being costly as you likely have to overpay to get your player. Either way you are limited in the terms of the players you can get FA is a bit of a crapshoot. Maybe there will be players you want there and maybe you will get them. Or maybe there won't be or maybe you get outbid. You also likely have to overpay and cap space has seemed to be at more of a premium in recent years Trades are a surefire way to make the changes that you want if you can find a trade partner. Whether that's a player, a pick or offloading a player. So I feel trades are the route that users go for when they want to make sweeping change because it seems to be the route that users have the most control over. Sure there's the draft too but that's a slower impact and I feel like some people feel like only high round players can make immediate impacts. Ok so that leads to 3 problems. 1. Users don't want to let anything of value walk away in free agency because they are a trade asset. Hence sign and trades. 2. Users will typically look to trade with other users first for various reasons. Not being able to trade draft picks with AI is one reason. Lacking immediate information on AI players is another (I.e. Age, contract, etc), you have to request it from KCF. Having a limited number of AI trades in a season is another (i.e. fear of wasting your AI trade if you can deal with a user instead) 3. Some users aren't active which may deter people from trying to trade with them. Combined with the AI being seen as a last resort (and not being able to trade picks) this leads to a greatly reduced number of potential trade partners. This is likely what leads to some of the bad trades. Player A wants X or to trade away Y but now there might only be 1-3 teams who have X or where Y would make sense. So that's who they make the trade with. KCF then sees the trade and wonders why 1 team does it because he has more knowledge and can see 5 other ways to better accomplish that or thinks that the move won't accomplish what they thought. Probably another post to come but I'm on mobile so <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924384521] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I mean for what it's worth, I don't actually care whether we change the rules or not. The same applied for the change to the trade procedure My comments/suggestions are purely based on the past few seasons of KCF not being fond of a lot of trades and feeling there have been some unfair and/or questionable trades that he just hasn't spoken up about. KCF sees it as a potential problem so my suggestions have simply been potential ways of eliminating that problem. ------- Everyone takes part in the league because it is fun and a lot of us are invested in it. At the end of the day I would think most peoples goals are to improve their team and win. So whilst I am sure everyone wants all users to do well, ultimately the moves that users make are to improve their team. Nobody is trying to deliberately weaken other user teams and when trades are made I am sure everyone intends on trying to make their trade partner better too (or to give them what they requested) because in doing so, you are more likely to also get what you want. There are limited opportunities to make changes to teams. This is pretty much confined to offseason moves. We don't see as many in season moves and usually when we do it's either due to injuries or a team looking to get assets for the following season. We average a season every 6 months or so (which isn't a problem in itself), but I feel active users are more inclined to make sweeping changes rather than play the slow game because the slow game might not payoff until 2-3 seasons time which could be 12-18 months down the line The 4 places you can make changes are RFA, FA, the Draft and Trades. RFA is generally a good place to get proven players but you're limited by draft picks you possess so teams may try to acquire more via trades if they see multiple guys they like (or dont want to give away a high pick). RFA can also end up being costly as you likely have to overpay to get your player. Either way you are limited in the terms of the players you can get FA is a bit of a crapshoot. Maybe there will be players you want there and maybe you will get them. Or maybe there won't be or maybe you get outbid. You also likely have to overpay and cap space has seemed to be at more of a premium in recent years Trades are a surefire way to make the changes that you want if you can find a trade partner. Whether that's a player, a pick or offloading a player. So I feel trades are the route that users go for when they want to make sweeping change because it seems to be the route that users have the most control over. Sure there's the draft too but that's a slower impact and I feel like some people feel like only high round players can make immediate impacts. Ok so that leads to 3 problems. 1. Users don't want to let anything of value walk away in free agency because they are a trade asset. Hence sign and trades. 2. Users will typically look to trade with other users first for various reasons. Not being able to trade draft picks with AI is one reason. Lacking immediate information on AI players is another (I.e. Age, contract, etc), you have to request it from KCF. Having a limited number of AI trades in a season is another (i.e. fear of wasting your AI trade if you can deal with a user instead) 3. Some users aren't active which may deter people from trying to trade with them. Combined with the AI being seen as a last resort (and not being able to trade picks) this leads to a greatly reduced number of potential trade partners. This is likely what leads to some of the bad trades. Player A wants X or to trade away Y but now there might only be 1-3 teams who have X or where Y would make sense. So that's who they make the trade with. KCF then sees the trade and wonders why 1 team does it because he has more knowledge and can see 5 other ways to better accomplish that or thinks that the move won't accomplish what they thought. Probably another post to come but I'm on mobile so</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/07/19 10:25:47 PM #275:	KCF0107 posted... will grandfather in the one sign-and-trade deal that I was notified of. So the two who have voiced concerns will not have their sign-and-trade plan be shut down. I will say that I am pretty sure I am one of the two people being spoken of here, and want to make it clear that I hadn't made an official decision on that trade, but I'm certainly far, far closer at the present moment to the "I never want to make another trade for as long as I live so I don't have to deal with this nightmare" side of the spectrum than I am to making that trade. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924384838] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>KCF0107 posted...</cite> <quote> will grandfather in the one sign-and-trade deal that I was notified of. So the two who have voiced concerns will not have their sign-and-trade plan be shut down.</quote> I will say that I am pretty sure I am one of the two people being spoken of here, and want to make it clear that I hadn't made an official decision on that trade, but I'm certainly far, far closer at the present moment to the "I never want to make another trade for as long as I live so I don't have to deal with this nightmare" side of the spectrum than I am to making that trade.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 10:39:24 PM #276:	Basically I feel that A. Sign and trades happen because free agency is such a crap shoot and assets are at a premium. Nobody wants to lose assets for nothing and one of the most likely reasons for a sign and trade is cap issues so replacing them in free agency with a similar caliber player isn't possible. So teams usually want relief at another position or draft assets to get a cheap replacement who might develop. People are willing to take on sign and trades because again free agency is a crap shoot and trades are the best way to be certain of getting what you want. You also get a reduced contract compared to trying to fight for the player in free agency. B. Trades issues exist due to users trying to make sweeping changes or acquire/clear certain assets. As the AI and inactive users drastically reduces the available market, this can lead to bad trades as you are working with what is available to you. I don't think anyone is trying to screw anyone else over deliberately, they are just trying to work with what the partners they have available. I think a lot of trade issues wouldn't exist if users could acquire draft picks from AI (which I know isn't possible because of how AI values picks). I also think a lot of bad trades could be eliminated if users asked KCF to find them an AI team to accomplish whatever goal they had in mind player wise. However it seems that only happens as a last resort in most cases. And I know I am guilty of that too. I'll look at user teams first and then only look for potential AI trades if I don't think there's a user trade out there. I think the feeling of wasting KCFs time also plays into that. Users don't want to get KCF involved or to use his time unless they have to. Which should now be less of a concern when all trades have to run through him <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924385316] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Basically I feel that A. Sign and trades happen because free agency is such a crap shoot and assets are at a premium. Nobody wants to lose assets for nothing and one of the most likely reasons for a sign and trade is cap issues so replacing them in free agency with a similar caliber player isn't possible. So teams usually want relief at another position or draft assets to get a cheap replacement who might develop. People are willing to take on sign and trades because again free agency is a crap shoot and trades are the best way to be certain of getting what you want. You also get a reduced contract compared to trying to fight for the player in free agency. B. Trades issues exist due to users trying to make sweeping changes or acquire/clear certain assets. As the AI and inactive users drastically reduces the available market, this can lead to bad trades as you are working with what is available to you. I don't think anyone is trying to screw anyone else over deliberately, they are just trying to work with what the partners they have available. I think a lot of trade issues wouldn't exist if users could acquire draft picks from AI (which I know isn't possible because of how AI values picks). I also think a lot of bad trades could be eliminated if users asked KCF to find them an AI team to accomplish whatever goal they had in mind player wise. However it seems that only happens as a last resort in most cases. And I know I am guilty of that too. I'll look at user teams first and then only look for potential AI trades if I don't think there's a user trade out there. I think the feeling of wasting KCFs time also plays into that. Users don't want to get KCF involved or to use his time unless they have to. Which should now be less of a concern when all trades have to run through him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/07/19 10:52:36 PM #277:	Oh and the final thing to add. A lot of people probably only care about OVR and Age. People aren't looking at the productivity of a player or how that player might fit their system because for most people when they draft people or sign people in FA they are doing it blind and hoping it works out. So of course they do the same in trades too. A couple of seasons ago it was described how the simulation worked and it gave the impression that what seemed to matter was OVR across units as a whole and team strategy. At least that is what I took from it at the time. Now I would absolutely prefer a productive lower rated player over a less productive higher rated player but for multiple seasons that wasn't the case. I assume I just misinterpreted what was being said but I am 100% positive that I am not the only one out there who thought that and I am sure plenty of people still do (or at the very least think it's a crapshoot / luck as to whether a player works out / develops) So again that is another reason I think we see trades that KCF thinks are bad <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924385780] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Oh and the final thing to add. A lot of people probably only care about OVR and Age. People aren't looking at the productivity of a player or how that player might fit their system because for most people when they draft people or sign people in FA they are doing it blind and hoping it works out. So of course they do the same in trades too. A couple of seasons ago it was described how the simulation worked and it gave the impression that what seemed to matter was OVR across units as a whole and team strategy. At least that is what I took from it at the time. Now I would absolutely prefer a productive lower rated player over a less productive higher rated player but for multiple seasons that wasn't the case. I assume I just misinterpreted what was being said but I am 100% positive that I am not the only one out there who thought that and I am sure plenty of people still do (or at the very least think it's a crapshoot / luck as to whether a player works out / develops) So again that is another reason I think we see trades that KCF thinks are bad</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/09/19 7:36:28 PM #278:	In a nutshell, the implementation of the sign-and-trade, a juxtaposition of a soft-cap NBA mechanic into the hard-cap NFL, was built on a faulty premise to provide a flawed solution to an non-existent problem. Removing or placing limits on it doesn't cause legitimate issues. The "issue" of losing players for nothing is a non-issue. It is a natural part of operating a team and something that has to be accepted, not looked as a problem that needs to be fixed. As someone pointed out, I have made efforts to make this a healthier, more competitive league, and this runs counter to that. Remember that this didn't even use to be a thing until maybe five seasons ago. The league was perfectly fine (and better off) without it, and it will remain to do so if eliminated. I do not disagree that it has some benefits, but they are overstated and outnumbered by its unintended drawbacks that have made it a poor system. The biggest fallout has been that it has allowed the rich to get richer. The teams most likely to do the signing and trading are those that sit among the most talented teams. They can pry valuable assets away from other teams using players they can afford to lose and were not in their future plans, thus receiving something for nothing in a way. Some of the more extreme individual examples involve the Dolphins and Steelers. The Dolphins traded LT Travelle Wharton to the Titans for assets that became WR A.J. Green, LT David Bahktiari, SS Jacquiski Tartt, and whomever they select with the 8th overall pick. In Wharton's three years in Tennessee, he has 131 blocks against 14 sacks allowed (block:sack ratio only slightly lower than his career average before), but the Titans offense has ranked 28th or worse twice, indicating he hasn't made a great impact. The Steelers traded LT Eric Winston to the Pioneers for assets that became SS Ian Cox, CB Trumaine Banks, whomever the Steelers select with the 10th pick, and possibly more. Winston has been fine, if unspectacular. He's dealt with injuries and his sack rate has increased, but his block rate has increased (going from a moribund Rex Grossman/Jay Cutler-led offense to an explosive Russell Wilson-led one might have played a role). It's hard to determine his impact as the Pioneers already fielded an elite offense prior to his arrival. I can say that he has at least not allowed it to crater. The bottom line is that both players were not going to be re-signed by their teams, and instead of both entering free agency, the teams received what became substantial contributors in their bids to compete in the short and long-term. In a utopia, the sign-and-trade this could lead to a path of parity (obviously not as much as the standard system of sign or free agency you go), but it's clear that it has benefited better teams far more than it has lesser ones. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924469015] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>In a nutshell, the implementation of the sign-and-trade, a juxtaposition of a soft-cap NBA mechanic into the hard-cap NFL, was built on a faulty premise to provide a flawed solution to an non-existent problem. Removing or placing limits on it doesn't cause legitimate issues. The "issue" of losing players for nothing is a non-issue. It is a natural part of operating a team and something that has to be accepted, not looked as a problem that needs to be fixed. As someone pointed out, I have made efforts to make this a healthier, more competitive league, and this runs counter to that. Remember that this didn't even use to be a thing until maybe five seasons ago. The league was perfectly fine (and better off) without it, and it will remain to do so if eliminated. I do not disagree that it has some benefits, but they are overstated and outnumbered by its unintended drawbacks that have made it a poor system. The biggest fallout has been that it has allowed the rich to get richer. The teams most likely to do the signing and trading are those that sit among the most talented teams. They can pry valuable assets away from other teams using players they can afford to lose and were not in their future plans, thus receiving something for nothing in a way. Some of the more extreme individual examples involve the Dolphins and Steelers. The Dolphins traded LT Travelle Wharton to the Titans for assets that became WR A.J. Green, LT David Bahktiari, SS Jacquiski Tartt, and whomever they select with the 8th overall pick. In Wharton's three years in Tennessee, he has 131 blocks against 14 sacks allowed (block:sack ratio only slightly lower than his career average before), but the Titans offense has ranked 28th or worse twice, indicating he hasn't made a great impact. The Steelers traded LT Eric Winston to the Pioneers for assets that became SS Ian Cox, CB Trumaine Banks, whomever the Steelers select with the 10th pick, and possibly more. Winston has been fine, if unspectacular. He's dealt with injuries and his sack rate has increased, but his block rate has increased (going from a moribund Rex Grossman/Jay Cutler-led offense to an explosive Russell Wilson-led one might have played a role). It's hard to determine his impact as the Pioneers already fielded an elite offense prior to his arrival. I can say that he has at least not allowed it to crater. The bottom line is that both players were not going to be re-signed by their teams, and instead of both entering free agency, the teams received what became substantial contributors in their bids to compete in the short and long-term. In a utopia, the sign-and-trade this could lead to a path of parity (obviously not as much as the standard system of sign or free agency you go), but it's clear that it has benefited better teams far more than it has lesser ones.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/09/19 7:37:41 PM #279:	The vast majority of sign-and-trades have been players for draft picks, and these are almost always the better team giving up the player and the lesser giving up the pick(s). The evidence supports the claim that teams receiving the sign-and-trade players have not seen much of a positive impact on their unit, side of the ball, or what people are hoping for the most, the win column. The Bears, Lions, Pumpkins, Redskins, Titans, and Wildcats have been on the receiving end of multiple sign-and-trades in the past three seasons, and only the Titans have made the playoffs or produced a winning record during that span. The individual performances of said players have been a mixed bag with lots of injuries. With only few exceptions, the teams that received the picks or players already under contract have fared much better, including a plethora of winning records, playoff berths, Super Bowl championships, and new stars on their team. It has also significantly weakened free agency, an integral part of the league and a vital avenue to acquire talent for teams, especially low-talent ones that can't really afford to part with what few valuable assets they may have. I said there's a healthy amount of quality free agents, but do not confuse that with saying that free agency has been healthy or close to being in an ideal state. The quality (using the standards of considering overall ratings only) players that I spoke of are typically concentrated in bloated or unsexy positions (QB, HB, FB, G, FS, K, P) and/or trigger our seemingly ageist userbase's sensibilities. Will these changes suddenly make free agency a rich and vibrant landscape? Of course not, but it will unquestionably improve, if gradually. I want to reiterate that I am not blaming or shaming anyone but myself. There is no "witch hunt" unless I am hunting for myself. I think that all parties involved envisioned the sign and trade being a mutually beneficial aspect of the league, but that hasn't been close to being the case. I realize that this was a mistake, and I just needed someone else to bring it up for me to realize that I had erred. This is simply a problematic system without a point of existing. I originally thought that it could exist in a very limited capacity to lessen its impact. but it seems after reading what people have said, it should be an all or nothing affair, and I choose nothing without question. Out of fairness, things will operate normally (do not interpret that as an invitation for abuse) this season, but starting next season, sign-and-trades are eliminated. This does not apply to RFAs for what I hope are obvious reasons. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924469063] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>The vast majority of sign-and-trades have been players for draft picks, and these are almost always the better team giving up the player and the lesser giving up the pick(s). The evidence supports the claim that teams receiving the sign-and-trade players have not seen much of a positive impact on their unit, side of the ball, or what people are hoping for the most, the win column. The Bears, Lions, Pumpkins, Redskins, Titans, and Wildcats have been on the receiving end of multiple sign-and-trades in the past three seasons, and only the Titans have made the playoffs or produced a winning record during that span. The individual performances of said players have been a mixed bag with lots of injuries. With only few exceptions, the teams that received the picks or players already under contract have fared much better, including a plethora of winning records, playoff berths, Super Bowl championships, and new stars on their team. It has also significantly weakened free agency, an integral part of the league and a vital avenue to acquire talent for teams, especially low-talent ones that can't really afford to part with what few valuable assets they may have. I said there's a healthy amount of quality free agents, but do not confuse that with saying that free agency has been healthy or close to being in an ideal state. The quality (using the standards of considering overall ratings only) players that I spoke of are typically concentrated in bloated or unsexy positions (QB, HB, FB, G, FS, K, P) and/or trigger our seemingly ageist userbase's sensibilities. Will these changes suddenly make free agency a rich and vibrant landscape? Of course not, but it will unquestionably improve, if gradually. I want to reiterate that I am not blaming or shaming anyone but myself. There is no "witch hunt" unless I am hunting for myself. I think that all parties involved envisioned the sign and trade being a mutually beneficial aspect of the league, but that hasn't been close to being the case. I realize that this was a mistake, and I just needed someone else to bring it up for me to realize that I had erred. This is simply a problematic system without a point of existing. I originally thought that it could exist in a very limited capacity to lessen its impact. but it seems after reading what people have said, it should be an all or nothing affair, and I choose nothing without question. Out of fairness, things will operate normally (do not interpret that as an invitation for abuse) this season, but starting next season, sign-and-trades are eliminated. This does not apply to RFAs for what I hope are obvious reasons.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
theawesomestevr 07/09/19 10:32:43 PM #280:	Well, at the very least, thank you for explaining your perspective on the matter. I'm not sure I agree that the only avenue to eliminate the rich getting richer (by which we seem to mostly mean the Dolphins apparently) is to eliminate sign-and-trades, but I do agree with getting rid of them altogether as opposed to having some limited form of them assuming I'm understanding your goal correctly. That said, you really need to define what you consider to be a sign-and-trade so teams aren't making plans that involve trading certain players years down the line only to find out then that they can't trade them. If it's as simple as players can't be traded the year they are signed, then the examples I posed earlier in the thread aren't an issue and that's clear enough. Otherwise, it needs to be made clear what exactly we are and are not allowed to do. You have a tendency imo, to impute nefarious motives to users where there is none. That's what I was referring to by "witch hunt" earlier in the thread. If it's clear where we all stand under the rules, then there won't be an issue with that in the future which is what I was/still am looking to avoid. <cite>theawesomestevr posted [p:924476051] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Well, at the very least, thank you for explaining your perspective on the matter. I'm not sure I agree that the only avenue to eliminate the rich getting richer (by which we seem to mostly mean the Dolphins apparently) is to eliminate sign-and-trades, but I do agree with getting rid of them altogether as opposed to having some limited form of them assuming I'm understanding your goal correctly. That said, you really need to define what you consider to be a sign-and-trade so teams aren't making plans that involve trading certain players years down the line only to find out then that they can't trade them. If it's as simple as players can't be traded the year they are signed, then the examples I posed earlier in the thread aren't an issue and that's clear enough. Otherwise, it needs to be made clear what exactly we are and are not allowed to do. You have a tendency imo, to impute nefarious motives to users where there is none. That's what I was referring to by "witch hunt" earlier in the thread. If it's clear where we all stand under the rules, then there won't be an issue with that in the future which is what I was/still am looking to avoid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Emeraldegg 07/09/19 10:42:55 PM #281:	I am assuming that a sign and trade by definition is trading someone the same offseason that you signed them, no matter the length of contract they are signed to. --- I'm a greener egg than the eggs from dr. seuss <cite>Emeraldegg posted [p:924476484] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I am assuming that a sign and trade by definition is trading someone the same offseason that you signed them, no matter the length of contract they are signed to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 12:15:53 AM #282:	UFA will officially begin before I go to bed --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924479780] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>UFA will officially begin before I go to bed</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 4:50:00 AM #283:	Emeraldegg posted... I am assuming that a sign and trade by definition is trading someone the same offseason that you signed them, no matter the length of contract they are signed to. Very close. Seeing as someone could theoretically do a backdoor deal that would come my way as soon as the regular season is to begin, it makes more sense to not allow teams to trade a player signed during the season they were signed (RFA phase 1 players exempted). --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924485519] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>Emeraldegg posted...</cite> <quote>I am assuming that a sign and trade by definition is trading someone the same offseason that you signed them, no matter the length of contract they are signed to.</quote> Very close. Seeing as someone could theoretically do a backdoor deal that would come my way as soon as the regular season is to begin, it makes more sense to not allow teams to trade a player signed during the season they were signed (RFA phase 1 players exempted).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 4:55:24 AM #284:	Unrestricted Free Agents (AKA Signing Your Remaining Free Agents) Any player of yours whose contract expired and was not part of the previous event will be included here. This is an extremely straightforward event. You either sign or you do not sign players, Those you do stay on your team, those who don't enter the free agent pool. When you receive the PM with your slash lines, remember that those are not the deals you have to sign them to. With a few exceptions that I will lay out, you can sign anyone (pending the age/max length rule) to deals 1-7 years in length. If you wish to give a player a custom offer, I might be available to do live signings the new few days. Otherwise, we can bounce PMs off of each other for a while (remember that there is a deadline though and delay in response could be a day or longer). If you wish to offer someone a deal of a different length but do no want to bother with the financials, you can merely say you want to give X player the default deal for Y years. There are only two wrinkles for this event. One is that a few players might hold out for better deals. I can confirm that two users have a holdout. What happens is that I will isolate them in the PM and tell you their base deal. If you elect not to sign them, they will stay on your team without playing a down for you until you trade them, release them, or give into their contract demands. Keep in mind that any guaranteed money still left on their contract (annual bonus) is transferred over to the new contract. The second wrinkle is that some players hate your team to where they will only sign via the franchise tag, which is a one year deal that pays them the average of the Top 5 salaries at their position or 120% of what they made last season, whichever is higher. I will isolate those players and also tell you how much money that comes out to as of this moment. The franchise tag has rarely been used, so while I am not expecting anyone will use it, you never know. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924485607] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Unrestricted Free Agents (AKA Signing Your Remaining Free Agents) Any player of yours whose contract expired and was not part of the previous event will be included here. This is an extremely straightforward event. You either sign or you do not sign players, Those you do stay on your team, those who don't enter the free agent pool. When you receive the PM with your slash lines, remember that those are not the deals you have to sign them to. With a few exceptions that I will lay out, you can sign anyone (pending the age/max length rule) to deals 1-7 years in length. If you wish to give a player a custom offer, I might be available to do live signings the new few days. Otherwise, we can bounce PMs off of each other for a while (remember that there is a deadline though and delay in response could be a day or longer). If you wish to offer someone a deal of a different length but do no want to bother with the financials, you can merely say you want to give X player the default deal for Y years. There are only two wrinkles for this event. One is that a few players might hold out for better deals. I can confirm that two users have a holdout. What happens is that I will isolate them in the PM and tell you their base deal. If you elect not to sign them, they will stay on your team without playing a down for you until you trade them, release them, or give into their contract demands. Keep in mind that any guaranteed money still left on their contract (annual bonus) is transferred over to the new contract. The second wrinkle is that some players hate your team to where they will only sign via the franchise tag, which is a one year deal that pays them the average of the Top 5 salaries at their position or 120% of what they made last season, whichever is higher. I will isolate those players and also tell you how much money that comes out to as of this moment. The franchise tag has rarely been used, so while I am not expecting anyone will use it, you never know.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 4:57:35 AM #285:	Signing Your UFAs Rules 1. I will PM everyone their UFAs and the slash line (length/total/signing bonus) of their desired deal. I will also include and isolate any players who are either holding out or hate your team to where they will only sign with you if you place the franchise tag on them. 2. You will PM me back with the following format (using two players from my team as an example) Re-signing: TE Dennis Pitta - 4 / $7.28 mil / $1.08 mil or TE Dennis Pitta - 2 year default Franchise Tag: Nobody Not re-signing: CB Kareem Jackson The deadline for signing your UFAs will be Sunday, July 21st at 11:59 PM ET --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924485646] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Signing Your UFAs Rules 1. I will PM everyone their UFAs and the slash line (length/total/signing bonus) of their desired deal. I will also include and isolate any players who are either holding out or hate your team to where they will only sign with you if you place the franchise tag on them. 2. You will PM me back with the following format (using two players from my team as an example) Re-signing: TE Dennis Pitta - 4 / $7.28 mil / $1.08 mil or TE Dennis Pitta - 2 year default Franchise Tag: Nobody Not re-signing: CB Kareem Jackson The deadline for signing your UFAs will be Sunday, July 21st at 11:59 PM ET</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MysteriousStan 07/10/19 5:32:30 AM #286:	KCF0107 posted... Emeraldegg posted... I am assuming that a sign and trade by definition is trading someone the same offseason that you signed them, no matter the length of contract they are signed to. Very close. Seeing as someone could theoretically do a backdoor deal that would come my way as soon as the regular season is to begin, it makes more sense to not allow teams to trade a player signed during the season they were signed (RFA phase 1 players exempted). Wait so I have approximately 1/3rd of my roster set for free agency next year. Am I to believe that should I sign all of my free agents next year that 1/3rd of my roster will be off limits in trade discussions next year? Because unless I'm reading this wrong, that's what this sounds like to me. --- Brought to you by GameFlux Free GameFAQs app on Google Play! <cite>MysteriousStan posted [p:924486133] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>KCF0107 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Emeraldegg posted...</cite> <quote>I am assuming that a sign and trade by definition is trading someone the same offseason that you signed them, no matter the length of contract they are signed to.</quote> Very close. Seeing as someone could theoretically do a backdoor deal that would come my way as soon as the regular season is to begin, it makes more sense to not allow teams to trade a player signed during the season they were signed (RFA phase 1 players exempted).</quote> Wait so I have approximately 1/3rd of my roster set for free agency next year. Am I to believe that should I sign all of my free agents next year that 1/3rd of my roster will be off limits in trade discussions next year? Because unless I'm reading this wrong, that's what this sounds like to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 5:41:03 AM #287:	Players you sign during a season cannot be traded that same season with the exception of RFAs you gave tenders to that went unsigned in Phase 2. If the off-limits period was just the offseason, there's nothing stopping people from waiting until the preseason ends to execute trades that would have been considered sign-and-trades under Emerald's idea of the concept. While someone could sign a player to a multiyear deal with the intention to trade them the following season, I'm placing my faith that our userbase isn't that pathetic. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924486249] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Players you sign during a season cannot be traded that same season with the exception of RFAs you gave tenders to that went unsigned in Phase 2. If the off-limits period was just the offseason, there's nothing stopping people from waiting until the preseason ends to execute trades that would have been considered sign-and-trades under Emerald's idea of the concept. While someone could sign a player to a multiyear deal with the intention to trade them the following season, I'm placing my faith that our userbase isn't that pathetic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MysteriousStan 07/10/19 6:01:54 AM #288:	So I'm currently shopping a player from my team to other teams. If this were happening next year during the season I'd basically have to begin every negotiation with "who were your FAs that you signed this year" so that I know they are off limits because I'm definitely not going to pay attention to other team's free agents and they would fall under this new rule. Is that correct? --- Brought to you by GameFlux Free GameFAQs app on Google Play! <cite>MysteriousStan posted [p:924486503] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>So I'm currently shopping a player from my team to other teams. If this were happening next year during the season I'd basically have to begin every negotiation with "who were your FAs that you signed this year" so that I know they are off limits because I'm definitely not going to pay attention to other team's free agents and they would fall under this new rule. Is that correct?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 6:16:46 AM #289:	Since all trades have to go through me, you could always just ask me first as that info can easily be accessed through the game. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924486667] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Since all trades have to go through me, you could always just ask me first as that info can easily be accessed through the game.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 6:30:03 AM #290:	I tried to keep my eyes open as long as I could, but I don't think that I can any longer. Sorry to the half-dozen or so that will have to wait on receiving their PMs, but I will make sure to get to it shortly after getting up. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924486821] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I tried to keep my eyes open as long as I could, but I don't think that I can any longer. Sorry to the half-dozen or so that will have to wait on receiving their PMs, but I will make sure to get to it shortly after getting up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MysteriousStan 07/10/19 6:31:44 AM #291:	That sounds cumbersome but if you want to do that alrighty. To be clear I am in favor of eliminating the sign and trades. I was on the fence but your arguments were persuasive and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said. What I am not in favor of is when, in the middle of the season, Player X is put on the trading block and having my resources in acquiring that player limited because I didn't know Player X was going to be available. Thus altering the plans I had for Player Y who I just signed and who the user offering up Player X may be interested in. Yeah other people may be in the same boat but it feels to me like you gotta hope you have the assets to acquire Player X while getting lucky you didn't just sign the positions that the person is looking for. shrug --- Posted using GameFlux <cite>MysteriousStan posted [p:924486852] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>That sounds cumbersome but if you want to do that alrighty. To be clear I am in favor of eliminating the sign and trades. I was on the fence but your arguments were persuasive and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said. What I am not in favor of is when, in the middle of the season, Player X is put on the trading block and having my resources in acquiring that player limited because I didn't know Player X was going to be available. Thus altering the plans I had for Player Y who I just signed and who the user offering up Player X may be interested in. Yeah other people may be in the same boat but it feels to me like you gotta hope you have the assets to acquire Player X while getting lucky you didn't just sign the positions that the person is looking for. shrug</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 6:40:37 AM #292:	I'm willing to hear alternative suggestions, but this seems to be the most fair and logical to me. I thought about adding an in-season injury exemption (suffer an injury that has you not meeting the requirements at a position sort of thing), but doesn't deal with your concern. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924486986] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I'm willing to hear alternative suggestions, but this seems to be the most fair and logical to me. I thought about adding an in-season injury exemption (suffer an injury that has you not meeting the requirements at a position sort of thing), but doesn't deal with your concern.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/10/19 6:45:36 AM #293:	I thought there might be a cut off date like Week 8 or something where signed players could be then traded (kinda like what happens in NBA around December). Would allow people to make changes if things weren't working out or injuries happened or a player became available like Stan said. And you wouldn't be able to circumvent the cap by going over to sign them purely to trade them away as it would be mid season. But disqualifying them the full season is fine too. The number of in season trades we see istypically pretty small anyway. The vast majority of the trades happen during the offseason. So it's not actually as restrictive as it sounds as teams probably weren't likely to make trades during the season anyway <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924487050] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>I thought there might be a cut off date like Week 8 or something where signed players could be then traded (kinda like what happens in NBA around December). Would allow people to make changes if things weren't working out or injuries happened or a player became available like Stan said. And you wouldn't be able to circumvent the cap by going over to sign them purely to trade them away as it would be mid season. But disqualifying them the full season is fine too. The number of in season trades we see istypically pretty small anyway. The vast majority of the trades happen during the offseason. So it's not actually as restrictive as it sounds as teams probably weren't likely to make trades during the season anyway</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 3:26:43 PM #294:	All PMs have been sent out --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924505434] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>All PMs have been sent out</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 4:48:16 PM #295:	ShatteredElysium posted... I thought there might be a cut off date like Week 8 or something where signed players could be then traded (kinda like what happens in NBA around December). Would allow people to make changes if things weren't working out or injuries happened or a player became available like Stan said. And you wouldn't be able to circumvent the cap by going over to sign them purely to trade them away as it would be mid season. But disqualifying them the full season is fine too. The number of in season trades we see istypically pretty small anyway. The vast majority of the trades happen during the offseason. So it's not actually as restrictive as it sounds as teams probably weren't likely to make trades during the season anyway Would something like players signed to 1 year deals post-RFA be ineligible for trades but players signed to multi-year deals be eligible for trades after Week 8 seem like a better route to take? --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924509046] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>ShatteredElysium posted...</cite> <quote>I thought there might be a cut off date like Week 8 or something where signed players could be then traded (kinda like what happens in NBA around December). Would allow people to make changes if things weren't working out or injuries happened or a player became available like Stan said. And you wouldn't be able to circumvent the cap by going over to sign them purely to trade them away as it would be mid season. But disqualifying them the full season is fine too. The number of in season trades we see istypically pretty small anyway. The vast majority of the trades happen during the offseason. So it's not actually as restrictive as it sounds as teams probably weren't likely to make trades during the season anyway</quote> Would something like players signed to 1 year deals post-RFA be ineligible for trades but players signed to multi-year deals be eligible for trades after Week 8 seem like a better route to take?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SockoressKnight 07/10/19 5:04:04 PM #296:	Is there negotiating in UFA, or do I only get one shot to make an acceptable offer? --- http://imageshack.us/a/img339/6921/rinoa1d.jpg "Rinoa...Even if you end up as the world's enemy. I'll...I'll be your knight." <cite>SockoressKnight posted [p:924509728] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Is there negotiating in UFA, or do I only get one shot to make an acceptable offer?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 5:06:38 PM #297:	Nah, we can bounce stuff off of each other for awhile until there's a deal that both you and the player are satisfied with. --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924509834] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Nah, we can bounce stuff off of each other for awhile until there's a deal that both you and the player are satisfied with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ShatteredElysium 07/10/19 5:22:09 PM #298:	KCF0107 posted... ShatteredElysium posted... I thought there might be a cut off date like Week 8 or something where signed players could be then traded (kinda like what happens in NBA around December). Would allow people to make changes if things weren't working out or injuries happened or a player became available like Stan said. And you wouldn't be able to circumvent the cap by going over to sign them purely to trade them away as it would be mid season. But disqualifying them the full season is fine too. The number of in season trades we see istypically pretty small anyway. The vast majority of the trades happen during the offseason. So it's not actually as restrictive as it sounds as teams probably weren't likely to make trades during the season anyway Would something like players signed to 1 year deals post-RFA be ineligible for trades but players signed to multi-year deals be eligible for trades after Week 8 seem like a better route to take? That would seem a great compromise to me. <cite>ShatteredElysium posted [p:924510458] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote><cite>KCF0107 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ShatteredElysium posted...</cite> <quote>I thought there might be a cut off date like Week 8 or something where signed players could be then traded (kinda like what happens in NBA around December). Would allow people to make changes if things weren't working out or injuries happened or a player became available like Stan said. And you wouldn't be able to circumvent the cap by going over to sign them purely to trade them away as it would be mid season. But disqualifying them the full season is fine too. The number of in season trades we see istypically pretty small anyway. The vast majority of the trades happen during the offseason. So it's not actually as restrictive as it sounds as teams probably weren't likely to make trades during the season anyway</quote> Would something like players signed to 1 year deals post-RFA be ineligible for trades but players signed to multi-year deals be eligible for trades after Week 8 seem like a better route to take?</quote> That would seem a great compromise to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MysteriousStan 07/10/19 5:52:13 PM #299:	To me a sign and trade has always been a 1 year deal so it was surprising to me that you were including multi-year deals in that category. But if you're really worried about users trying to circumvent the sign+trade with multi year deals then that seems like a fair compromise to me. <cite>MysteriousStan posted [p:924511685] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>To me a sign and trade has always been a 1 year deal so it was surprising to me that you were including multi-year deals in that category. But if you're really worried about users trying to circumvent the sign+trade with multi year deals then that seems like a fair compromise to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KCF0107 07/10/19 6:06:39 PM #300:	Well, you yourself once did a sign-and-trade with the Panthers that included a three year deal (SS Japhus Brown) --- KCF can't actually be a real person but he is - greengravy https://imgur.com/VfpY7tg <cite>KCF0107 posted [p:924512281] in Board 8 Na... [t:77794671]...</cite> <quote>Well, you yourself once did a sign-and-trade with the Panthers that included a three year deal (SS Japhus Brown)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1 ... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Board 8 > Board 8 National Football League League (B8NFLL) Season 12: The Offseason (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Board 8 National Football League League (B8NFLL) Season 12: The Offseason