Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Restricted Free Agency idea

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Restricted Free Agency idea

    Was chatting with a friend about tampering, in light of the Popp interview:
    http://www.riderfans.com/forum/forum...nterview-today

    I think most agree that some period of time prior to free agency opening where negotiations could take place, but no deals signed, would be a good idea. Other leagues have it. But we also thought of something else that might be worth consideration, and it helps with these one year deals.

    Should a player be on a one year contract and become a FA, why not make it a restricted free agency? If a team makes an offer to the player, the previous team can match it. If they elect not to, then the new contract becomes guaranteed and it can not be negotiated down. It stems teams from making the outlandish offers that everyone knows is not going to see the end, just to get the prized free agent. It also makes it possible for a team to extend that player for continuity, something the fans are having an issue with in the one year deals.
    #keepthepromise

    Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

  • #2
    Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post
    Was chatting with a friend about tampering, in light of the Popp interview:
    http://www.riderfans.com/forum/forum...nterview-today

    I think most agree that some period of time prior to free agency opening where negotiations could take place, but no deals signed, would be a good idea. Other leagues have it. But we also thought of something else that might be worth consideration, and it helps with these one year deals.

    Should a player be on a one year contract and become a FA, why not make it a restricted free agency? If a team makes an offer to the player, the previous team can match it. If they elect not to, then the new contract becomes guaranteed and it can not be negotiated down. It stems teams from making the outlandish offers that everyone knows is not going to see the end, just to get the prized free agent. It also makes it possible for a team to extend that player for continuity, something the fans are having an issue with in the one year deals.
    Question... how it works right now, if the player is in talk with his current team, and there is an offer from another team, would that player's agent not want to divulge the offer (if greater) to the current team that is still bidding for him? I know this would mean FA basically starts a week of two early, officially, but other than that, what do we gain?

    So this would also require the addition of guaranteed contracts, would it not? I like the idea of teams being able to match, but my question then goes to, if the team is given the chance to match and does so, does it fall back to the player to decide to stay or go? or does the team willing to match the offer retain the rights? Obviously this would work very similar to the way it is now, with the exception that the player has the power to choose where to go with the offer being guaranteed.

    Also is the offer/retention working like bets in poker? when you raise, if someone calls you, you cannot re-raise it. basically, make your best offer now, as you get 1 shot? I like that idea, gets rid of a lot of bidding wars and farting around with low ball offers.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Itzgodzilla View Post

      Question... how it works right now, if the player is in talk with his current team, and there is an offer from another team, would that player's agent not want to divulge the offer (if greater) to the current team that is still bidding for him? I know this would mean FA basically starts a week of two early, officially, but other than that, what do we gain?

      So this would also require the addition of guaranteed contracts, would it not? I like the idea of teams being able to match, but my question then goes to, if the team is given the chance to match and does so, does it fall back to the player to decide to stay or go? or does the team willing to match the offer retain the rights? Obviously this would work very similar to the way it is now, with the exception that the player has the power to choose where to go with the offer being guaranteed.

      Also is the offer/retention working like bets in poker? when you raise, if someone calls you, you cannot re-raise it. basically, make your best offer now, as you get 1 shot? I like that idea, gets rid of a lot of bidding wars and farting around with low ball offers.
      not sure what you are saying in the first point. I would suspect that an agent generally indicates what the highest bid is to all interested parties, which would normally include the team most recently played for.

      Yup, the guarantee would be new. If the existing team matches, the other team can continue bidding or let the existing team hold his rights. This isn't how it works at all right now. If the player is a free agent, they go where they want, and it doesn't matter if the existing team offers double.

      Either way, but I would say that you could keep going up with new offers. Something to think about for sure.


      I just think it works well for a few reasons:
      - a player soon realizes that the downside of a one year deal is that there is no assurance he gets to choose his team once it is up. Keep signing the one year deals and the team can match offers. the plus side is that he can still chase the best offer with a one year deal.
      - teams can't lure a FA away with fake back end loaded contracts. there is no signing then asking for a renegotiation a month later. You are paying it. Barring medical reasons, that money IS hitting your SMS. There is no cutting a day before a roster bonus.
      - those signing longer term contracts are not caught up in this once they become a FA.
      - it inches the idea of player continuity forward. Fans bring it up as an issue, staff talks about it, even players talk about it. Hervey's presser touched on it hard. Anything that helps with that is a bonus.
      #keepthepromise

      Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

      Comment


      • #4
        Anything that potentially forces a player to stay with their old team once their contract ends is wrong. Why shouldn't a player get to choose what city they live in once their contract is expired? Or which coach they want to play for? Why should the team have any control over a player that they do not have under contract?

        Comment


        • #5
          Restricted Free agency works when you have careers that are 10 to 15 years in length not when the average is closer to 4. Also creating a restricted free agent isn't that much different then doing marque player in the NFL. Given 1 year contracts that doesn't really work. Also add to the equation is the difference between bonus money and salary

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by footballisgood View Post
            Anything that potentially forces a player to stay with their old team once their contract ends is wrong. Why shouldn't a player get to choose what city they live in once their contract is expired? Or which coach they want to play for? Why should the team have any control over a player that they do not have under contract?
            Never sign a 1 year deal and it is never a concern. You come in on a 2 year + anyways, so if you are signing a 1 year deal after that, it was your choice to walk into it. The team should have control because fans are sick of the high turnover and it is difficult to grow your team with one year deals. There would still be zip stopping them from going elsewhere on a higher offer, and they actually get protection from a team giving them a beefy contract that they know damned well they likely can't honor down the road.
            Last edited by Beacon.x; 03-12-2019, 01:39 PM.
            #keepthepromise

            Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mikejth View Post
              Restricted Free agency works when you have careers that are 10 to 15 years in length not when the average is closer to 4. Also creating a restricted free agent isn't that much different then doing marque player in the NFL. Given 1 year contracts that doesn't really work. Also add to the equation is the difference between bonus money and salary
              Why? A contract is a contract.

              How is it at all the same as the marquee (franchise) player aspect? You only get one of those in the NFL and it actually locks a guy in if you pay them the average of the top 5 (?) piers or give a 20% raise. it is not the same thing.
              #keepthepromise

              Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post

                Never sign a 1 year deal and it is never a concern. You come in on a 2 year + anyways, so if you are signing a 1 year deal after that, it was your choice to walk into it. The team should have control because fans are sick of the high turnover and it is difficult to grow your team with one year deals. There would still be zip stopping them from going elsewhere on a higher offer, and they actually get protection from a team giving them a beefy contract that they know damned well they likely can't honor down the road.
                I'm pretty sure the players are sick of being treated like chattel. Anything that restricts their ability to make a living is wrong and that includes forcing them to give the team the option on their second year of the contract. What if a player signs a one year, has it matched, forcing him to stay with his original team and then gets cut in training camp? Players owe loyalty to absolutely no one but themselves and their families. Fans are not entitled to dictate where players live, nor should they be.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post

                  Why? A contract is a contract.

                  How is it at all the same as the marquee (franchise) player aspect? You only get one of those in the NFL and it actually locks a guy in if you pay them the average of the top 5 (?) piers or give a 20% raise. it is not the same thing.
                  Because if you are the best player at your position, you are getting underpaid if you are franchise tagged. It also keeps salaries artificially low for the elite players of each position.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by footballisgood View Post

                    Because if you are the best player at your position, you are getting underpaid if you are franchise tagged. It also keeps salaries artificially low for the elite players of each position.
                    And how doesdoes RFA keep salary so down for that player. If you are being paid 150k and a team offers you 300k in RFA you are getting that top dollar. It makes zero difference in how much the player's new contract will be, except a team can match it. In fact, it could drive it up if it is matched and a new team keeps going up.
                    #keepthepromise

                    Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by footballisgood View Post

                      I'm pretty sure the players are sick of being treated like chattel. Anything that restricts their ability to make a living is wrong and that includes forcing them to give the team the option on their second year of the contract. What if a player signs a one year, has it matched, forcing him to stay with his original team and then gets cut in training camp? Players owe loyalty to absolutely no one but themselves and their families. Fans are not entitled to dictate where players live, nor should they be.
                      What is preventing them from making a living with RFA? It wouldn't take a dime from their potential salary.

                      what if he gets cut now? He gets nothing. At least if the salary isn't matched they ARE assured full payment, which would, at present, be the only thing that does.

                      Sure, play where he wants. Zero preventing that. Don't sign a one year deal. They don't cone into the league on a one year deal so if they go to one it is on them. This is the exact point of doing this, to motivate longer contracts.
                      #keepthepromise

                      Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post

                        not sure what you are saying in the first point. I would suspect that an agent generally indicates what the highest bid is to all interested parties, which would normally include the team most recently played for.

                        Yup, the guarantee would be new. If the existing team matches, the other team can continue bidding or let the existing team hold his rights. This isn't how it works at all right now. If the player is a free agent, they go where they want, and it doesn't matter if the existing team offers double.

                        Either way, but I would say that you could keep going up with new offers. Something to think about for sure.


                        I just think it works well for a few reasons:
                        - a player soon realizes that the downside of a one year deal is that there is no assurance he gets to choose his team once it is up. Keep signing the one year deals and the team can match offers. the plus side is that he can still chase the best offer with a one year deal.
                        - teams can't lure a FA away with fake back end loaded contracts. there is no signing then asking for a renegotiation a month later. You are paying it. Barring medical reasons, that money IS hitting your SMS. There is no cutting a day before a roster bonus.
                        - those signing longer term contracts are not caught up in this once they become a FA.
                        - it inches the idea of player continuity forward. Fans bring it up as an issue, staff talks about it, even players talk about it. Hervey's presser touched on it hard. Anything that helps with that is a bonus.
                        See my feeling would be, if you are going to make contracts guaranteed, then scrap the 1 year contract and go to 1 year + option minimum or a 1 year + 2 option years, with NFL out's between each season. I very much dislike the idea of guaranteeing a contract, and still having as much turn over year to year as we are seeing.

                        I like the idea of if your current team matches the best offer presented that the team keeps your rights by default. I am not sure players would like that, as some moves are based on geography and not $, but for 90% of cases it would work i'd think.. I guess you could always have an exception clause, that if the coach and player have a falling out, the player can opt to waive the offer. but then I don't see how that is different then the Bo Levi bid we saw this year.... 2 teams made better offers then CGY and Bo still decided ot pick CGY over more money. I guess in the proposed way, CGY could have guaranteed they got Bo by matching the best offer and locking it down??


                        My worry about allowing team to submit bids over and over and over, is that teams can just waste that time by starting out low, and working your way up, holding the whole process up and dragging it right to FA as the agent and player are likely going to wait for the best offer.... I feel, personally, it would be nicer to have a "final offer" type deal.... atleast in the restricted FA period.... if the FA feels he can get a better offer waiting until FA hits and teams can continue bidding then allow them to take that route.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post

                          What is preventing them from making a living with RFA? It wouldn't take a dime from their potential salary.

                          what if he gets cut now? He gets nothing. At least if the salary isn't matched they ARE assured full payment, which would, at present, be the only thing that does.

                          Sure, play where he wants. Zero preventing that. Don't sign a one year deal. They don't cone into the league on a one year deal so if they go to one it is on them. This is the exact point of doing this, to motivate longer contracts.
                          Well then you are going to see players not come up here. The 75 cent dollar is a hindrance. Having no say in where you play in your first year in a foreign country is a hindrance. This year, having the AAFL and next year the XFL is another hindrance. You keep putting up restrictions and you will lower the numbers of American players coming up here.

                          There is no good reason to restrict players movement after their contract has ended. And instead of you placing the onus on players to be restricted if they sign one year contracts, why not put the onus on teams to say, I'm not going to sign you to a one year contract???

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by footballisgood View Post

                            Well then you are going to see players not come up here. The 75 cent dollar is a hindrance. Having no say in where you play in your first year in a foreign country is a hindrance. This year, having the AAFL and next year the XFL is another hindrance. You keep putting up restrictions and you will lower the numbers of American players coming up here.

                            There is no good reason to restrict players movement after their contract has ended. And instead of you placing the onus on players to be restricted if they sign one year contracts, why not put the onus on teams to say, I'm not going to sign you to a one year contract???
                            75 cents on the dollar is moot, as it exists now and under any contract

                            Why do you have no say in where you play? You come up on a 2 year contract, so after your first contract you would be an unrestricted free agent. I fail to see how this argument has any merit. If after 2 seasons you really feel one more and you will be in the NFL, then sign a 1 year deal wherever you want, but know that if the NFL doesn't work out, that that team can bring you back via matching offers. But hey, you chose it right? Otherwise, do a multi-year deal.

                            You can't put that multi-year onus on the teams because a team somewhere will offer it. You are automatically out on that player. Meanwhile, there is no reason for a player to sign a multi-year deal, and that is bad for everyone except the player, fans feeling like they can commit and connect included. This gives them the choice, they are happy enough there that they feel if they explore FA and the team matches they will come back, or they want their options and sign a couple seasons. That is their choice from the day their first contract ends.
                            #keepthepromise

                            Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Itzgodzilla View Post

                              See my feeling would be, if you are going to make contracts guaranteed, then scrap the 1 year contract and go to 1 year + option minimum or a 1 year + 2 option years, with NFL out's between each season. I very much dislike the idea of guaranteeing a contract, and still having as much turn over year to year as we are seeing.

                              I like the idea of if your current team matches the best offer presented that the team keeps your rights by default. I am not sure players would like that, as some moves are based on geography and not $, but for 90% of cases it would work i'd think.. I guess you could always have an exception clause, that if the coach and player have a falling out, the player can opt to waive the offer. but then I don't see how that is different then the Bo Levi bid we saw this year.... 2 teams made better offers then CGY and Bo still decided ot pick CGY over more money. I guess in the proposed way, CGY could have guaranteed they got Bo by matching the best offer and locking it down??


                              My worry about allowing team to submit bids over and over and over, is that teams can just waste that time by starting out low, and working your way up, holding the whole process up and dragging it right to FA as the agent and player are likely going to wait for the best offer.... I feel, personally, it would be nicer to have a "final offer" type deal.... atleast in the restricted FA period.... if the FA feels he can get a better offer waiting until FA hits and teams can continue bidding then allow them to take that route.
                              Why do you dislike guaranteeing contracts? You are a fan of a team promising a player a significant contract that builds on the backend just to lure them in during free agency only to see them get released before that real money kicks in?

                              As far as some moves being based on geography and such, absolutely agree 100%. But again, their first contract is multi-year, so they are never bound to that unless they choose to be in future contracts. First one is done, go where you want. As far as the player waiving it, yeah, I see no reason you couldn't add that in there.

                              BLM's situation wouldn't matter, for 2 reasons:
                              1 - he chose to stay for less money, not leave for less
                              2 - He wasn't coming off of a 1 year contract

                              As far as starting low, if they lowball a player they are going to say no anyways. That is really no different than now. if he feels he is a 250k player, and they offer him 100k, he is going to keep looking, unless he REALLY want;s to play there. Really, the worst case scenario is that that 250k value is offered and the existing team matches it and the new team decides to up the offer and the player gets more. I don't see how it would ever be less than what the offer would be under the current format.
                              #keepthepromise

                              Onward with escaping the hopeless fantasy of an artificial freedom and darkened picket fences the disillusioned front of friendly foes

                              Comment

                              Announcement

                              Collapse
                              No announcement yet.

                              Announcement

                              Collapse
                              No announcement yet.
                              Working...
                              X