Post by Musesboy on Jan 26, 2007 15:53:12 GMT -5
The current rules state that a player can be franchised for ONE YEAR only, and then he must be traded or released.
The fees are huge and depend where the player ranked at his position in the previous season:
Top 12 at his position - 500 Breakneck Bucks and a first round rookie pick.
13-24 at his position - 250 breakneck Bucks and a second round rookie pick.
25 or lower at his position - 100 Breakneck Bucks and a third round rookie pick.
The reasons I made the fees so high are as follows:
Assigning the initial contract is a skill. I feel that those that do it well should benefit from their planning, and those that do it badly should pay the penalty.
We all assigned contracts when the league started, and these were the rules we were planning to play by.
Those that trade well can still get value back for players that have expiring contracts, but they would have to pay 20 Breakneck Bucks for each year they added to the contract. That means that they get a good player, but it costs them bucks, and they have to carry the dead cap weight. So eventually that will become too high a price, but it can be a useful short-term strategy to acquire a key player.
Then we added the option to franchise a player. To promote trading and player movement, we restricted the extension to one year.
So now we have to decide how to go from here. Yes, it is expensive to franchise a player. Do we want it to become easy and reduce the importance of assigning that initial contract? Do we want strong teams to be able to keep those players? Should we say that no rookie pick will be involved, and make it a simple Breakneck Bucks fee? Should players be able to be franchised again the following year if the owner so chooses? Should owners be able to franchise more than one player per year if they can pay the fee? Should there be some sort of Restricted Free Agency so that owners would have the chance to match the offer of an opponent for their player?
I feel that if we do some of these things, it will impact the trading and current free agency bidding, and both will be drastically reduced. By adding too many loopholes, we water down the skill factor in assigning the original contracts. We all played according to those rules to begin with and assigned contracts with that in mind.
So what do you want to do? I have added as many options as I can, but feel free to explain or expand upon your votes and wishes by posting in this thread.
The fees are huge and depend where the player ranked at his position in the previous season:
Top 12 at his position - 500 Breakneck Bucks and a first round rookie pick.
13-24 at his position - 250 breakneck Bucks and a second round rookie pick.
25 or lower at his position - 100 Breakneck Bucks and a third round rookie pick.
The reasons I made the fees so high are as follows:
Assigning the initial contract is a skill. I feel that those that do it well should benefit from their planning, and those that do it badly should pay the penalty.
We all assigned contracts when the league started, and these were the rules we were planning to play by.
Those that trade well can still get value back for players that have expiring contracts, but they would have to pay 20 Breakneck Bucks for each year they added to the contract. That means that they get a good player, but it costs them bucks, and they have to carry the dead cap weight. So eventually that will become too high a price, but it can be a useful short-term strategy to acquire a key player.
Then we added the option to franchise a player. To promote trading and player movement, we restricted the extension to one year.
So now we have to decide how to go from here. Yes, it is expensive to franchise a player. Do we want it to become easy and reduce the importance of assigning that initial contract? Do we want strong teams to be able to keep those players? Should we say that no rookie pick will be involved, and make it a simple Breakneck Bucks fee? Should players be able to be franchised again the following year if the owner so chooses? Should owners be able to franchise more than one player per year if they can pay the fee? Should there be some sort of Restricted Free Agency so that owners would have the chance to match the offer of an opponent for their player?
I feel that if we do some of these things, it will impact the trading and current free agency bidding, and both will be drastically reduced. By adding too many loopholes, we water down the skill factor in assigning the original contracts. We all played according to those rules to begin with and assigned contracts with that in mind.
So what do you want to do? I have added as many options as I can, but feel free to explain or expand upon your votes and wishes by posting in this thread.
