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

  • #16
    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.
    I threw something like this out there in another thread last week. I had added that a player would be a RFA around the age of 27 which for most would be 4-5 years before they become an UFA. Maybe it doesnt go by age and it goes by years in the league or games played or a combination of everything.

    To me something needs to be done to slow the movement of some of these guys and if a team wants to match the contract then they should be able to keep the player, especially Canadian drafted players.

    Comment


    • #17
      I don't think the players would go for it, since they get true free agency a lot faster than most leagues, but I wouldn't be opposed to the League going with a 4-5 year restricted free agency set up. Other teams could always offer sheet, so the players could still end up getting some added money.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post

        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.
        I think you misunderstood me, I am 100% for guaranteed contracts... I am just against the idea of guaranteeing a contract and allowing 1 year contracts.... I am not a fan of seeing anyone "released" prior to some sort of bonus or monetary gain, whether it is football or just someone is general... this happens a lot in the public sector as well, with people being laid off, or let go prior to reaching milestones at companies that would see them receive some sort of gain.


        I guess I am thinking maybe allow the guarantee to be a bargaining chip for players and teams...

        "You can make X, and we will guaranteed Y, but to get the guarantee you need to sign for 3 years, as you are one of our pillars." - Team
        "I'll sign for X years, but I want to have Y guaranteed each season, and incentives pushing me to a possible of Z each season if reached." - Player/Agent

        I think 1 year contracts will end up being the death (too dramatic?? a detriment to perhaps) of casual fan engagement, and unfortunately this league relies heavily on the casual fan being engaged.

        I would actually be okay with the idea of guaranteed contracts (minimum length of 1+ option) and having it be if the current team matches the best offer in in Restricted FA, which aligns with what the player/agent are wanting, the team retains the players right automatically. almost like a forced loyalty option lol. otherwise, i don't see how this is different then offers coming to the agent, and if the current team is interested, I am sure they can find out what the current offer is and match/beat it if they choose.

        I also think salaries and contract details should be public knowledge, I think it would keep the contracts more honest, and also keep fans more interested.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Itzgodzilla View Post

          I think you misunderstood me, I am 100% for guaranteed contracts... I am just against the idea of guaranteeing a contract and allowing 1 year contracts.... I am not a fan of seeing anyone "released" prior to some sort of bonus or monetary gain, whether it is football or just someone is general... this happens a lot in the public sector as well, with people being laid off, or let go prior to reaching milestones at companies that would see them receive some sort of gain.


          I guess I am thinking maybe allow the guarantee to be a bargaining chip for players and teams...

          "You can make X, and we will guaranteed Y, but to get the guarantee you need to sign for 3 years, as you are one of our pillars." - Team
          "I'll sign for X years, but I want to have Y guaranteed each season, and incentives pushing me to a possible of Z each season if reached." - Player/Agent

          I think 1 year contracts will end up being the death (too dramatic?? a detriment to perhaps) of casual fan engagement, and unfortunately this league relies heavily on the casual fan being engaged.

          I would actually be okay with the idea of guaranteed contracts (minimum length of 1+ option) and having it be if the current team matches the best offer in in Restricted FA, which aligns with what the player/agent are wanting, the team retains the players right automatically. almost like a forced loyalty option lol. otherwise, i don't see how this is different then offers coming to the agent, and if the current team is interested, I am sure they can find out what the current offer is and match/beat it if they choose.

          I also think salaries and contract details should be public knowledge, I think it would keep the contracts more honest, and also keep fans more interested.
          Not sure it is. Lot's of people seem very very turned off by the extreme player movement and uncertainty. It certainly has to hurt merchandise sales.
          #keepthepromise

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

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post

            Not sure it is. Lot's of people seem very very turned off by the extreme player movement and uncertainty. It certainly has to hurt merchandise sales.
            I know the modern CFL and NFL has me not buying jerseys anymore because you can't rely on anyone sticking with your team more than a few years. If I do buy a jersey, it will be a retro player from a previous generation. I can wear that jersey for years and years instead of bucking up every season or two because the player you have on your jersey is now playing for someone else. The only jerseys I own now are Joey Walters and Ken McEachern. I'm not wasting my money on buying new jerseys anymore.
            Waiting for the big ole splash...actually there was no big splash, just a peaceful ripple. Dammit, there was supposed to be a big ole splash!!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Beacon.x View Post

              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.
              By "Low ball" i didn't mean the player, I meant the offer.. like the player coming off their rookie contract is making let's say 60k, he want to be around 100k on his new contracts, but perhaps teams aren't totally sold on that... I am not a fan of having a RFA period acting as just an earlier FA period... by that I mean, for the marquise or elite players that teams will be fighting over or building their team on they can offer their "Competitive offer" in RFA... that is like their only shot... which the current team can choose to match. if the player feels that is the best offer they will get, the winner gets their rights, and the deal is finalized either right away if current team, or at FA launch if new team. If the player doesn't like the offers they can test FA, but there is no guarantee they will get as good of offers once FA hits.

              Basically teams might be willing to give a premium to sign before FA, so they know what they have available to chase other FA's that might not be as integral to the teams plans.

              I really like the idea of not offering a guy 80k, when you are willing to go to 100k, just because you think the other team won't match the 80K... that is the gamble you take. If the player feels they could get better than the 100k on the open market, then wait until FA... but be prepared to maybe only make 70-75k if teams decide to lock down a different option. Basically it is a "Show me the money" kind of deal, and if you want to play conservative on your offer, you are risking not getting him.

              Last edited by Itzgodzilla; 03-13-2019, 10:08 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                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 the CFL doesn't do 6 year contracts. On shorter contracts it doesn't make sense to have a Franchise player. Additionally, putting that type of label on the player means they will want guarantees. Looking at it from both sides, it doesn't make sense.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Rock Preston #1 View Post

                  I know the modern CFL and NFL has me not buying jerseys anymore because you can't rely on anyone sticking with your team more than a few years. If I do buy a jersey, it will be a retro player from a previous generation. I can wear that jersey for years and years instead of bucking up every season or two because the player you have on your jersey is now playing for someone else. The only jerseys I own now are Joey Walters and Ken McEachern. I'm not wasting my money on buying new jerseys anymore.
                  anybody want to buy a Rider Willie Jeffersom avy???

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.
                    I like it.

                    Comment

                    Announcement

                    Collapse
                    No announcement yet.

                    Announcement

                    Collapse
                    No announcement yet.
                    Working...
                    X