+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: FA Changes? (/showthread.php?tid=23192)
Pages:
1
2
FA Changes? - mattynokes - 01-03-2014
No FA Tool? That's fine, but the fact is that simply tacking on years with a lesser salary isn't realistic. Three things that could help add realism; automatic NTC on 5+ year deals, option years no longer accepted, and increased bid minimums on longer contracts. I mean what does a player gain from signing a 2M/3 deal? Realistically a player is either going to want more money for that kind of length or opt for a shorter deal in order to prove themselves:
1 Year: 600K
2 Years: 1M
3 Years: 5M
4 Years: 8M
5 Years: 10M
6 Years: 12M
7 Years: 15M
Realistically players don't sign 3+ year deals unless there's some quality cash involved and they definitely don't sign 5+ year deals unless there's some very serious cash. Admittedly forcing NTCs isn't realistic but in a way it's our own version of 10 and 5 rights. As well as keeping teams honest in their bids. And if they aren't, it's going to cost them a good chunk of change to buy it out.
RE: FA Changes? - mike - 01-03-2014
I'm on board 100% with this.
RE: FA Changes? - Vertigo - 01-03-2014
I like all but the NTCs.
RE: FA Changes? - Corey - 01-04-2014
Not a huge fan of the NTC, but can accept it more at 5 years than the 3 Mike was originally suggesting. All for the higher bid minimums.
One other suggestion I would like to propose is the idea of a signing bonus that would count towards the value. So say a team is sitting on cash or has a ton of cap room for the first year of a FA contract, they can add a signing bonus that would count towards the total value of the contract. It would be paid instantly after the player signing and would be taken from the team's cash.
Player gets a bonus, gets cash out of the game easily. Win win. Perhaps to make it fair make it so the bonus has a maximum just so a team couldn't "buy" a player by offering a huge bonus with minimal salary. Something like 10% of the total value can be in the form of a signing bonus but the rest must be standard salary.
Just a thought.
RE: FA Changes? - Steal Third - 01-04-2014
For what its worth.....I think we should use the FA tool for bidding on players. Basing the awarding of a player by total contract value makes no sense. For example, a player would not accept, say 5 years at $10M, when he could get 2 years at even $20M. Clearly the shorter deal is much better.
RE: FA Changes? - hickoxb2 - 01-05-2014
I would be on board with this idea, and I like Corey's suggestion too.
RE: FA Changes? - mattynokes - 01-05-2014
(01-04-2014, 01:05 AM)CoreyMetsGM Wrote: Not a huge fan of the NTC, but can accept it more at 5 years than the 3 Mike was originally suggesting. All for the higher bid minimums.
One other suggestion I would like to propose is the idea of a signing bonus that would count towards the value. So say a team is sitting on cash or has a ton of cap room for the first year of a FA contract, they can add a signing bonus that would count towards the total value of the contract. It would be paid instantly after the player signing and would be taken from the team's cash.
Player gets a bonus, gets cash out of the game easily. Win win. Perhaps to make it fair make it so the bonus has a maximum just so a team couldn't "buy" a player by offering a huge bonus with minimal salary. Something like 10% of the total value can be in the form of a signing bonus but the rest must be standard salary.
Just a thought.
I'm ok with the signing bonus, but it'd be more on Andy, JHC, and Hokey. Doing this would could more editing of the file.
RE: FA Changes? - warpriest - 01-06-2014
Can support any previously stated suggestion EXCEPT tacking on an NTC to all offers of 5 years and over. Forcing NTC's isn't realistic, really wouldn't serve as our version of a 10 an 5 rule (which isn't performance-based, but service time based, IRL) and no GM in real life would offer a NTC without also seeking to suppress the overall monetary value of a contract.
RE: FA Changes? - mike - 01-06-2014
The NTC sin't for realism purpose in that aspect. It's more for realism in the contract length. With the NTC you will have people fighting for that 4 year deal unless they truly wanted to lock them up for the whole time rather than just bid more years so they can stretch out the money. Raising the min bids will help that but accompanied by an NTC will make longer term deals much less valuable. As far as money goes this also allows the player to make more money as they will still get paid a lot and then hit FA more times.
RE: FA Changes? - mattynokes - 01-06-2014
(01-06-2014, 03:10 PM)warpriest Wrote: Can support any previously stated suggestion EXCEPT tacking on an NTC to all offers of 5 years and over. Forcing NTC's isn't realistic, really wouldn't serve as our version of a 10 an 5 rule (which isn't performance-based, but service time based, IRL) and no GM in real life would offer a NTC without also seeking to suppress the overall monetary value of a contract.
The GM can seek all he wants, but if the player is good enough, he'll get his demands since the player will get it elsewhere if the GM balks. Maybe saying this instead of a 10 and 5 rule would've been better.
Guys like Cano and Ellsbury have full no-trade protection. Was SEA or NYY going to ask for a reduction in salary? Either would laugh at the GM if he tried this angle. If a player is worth five years in FCM, then they'd probably be demanding some sort of no-trade clause in real life.