Document

From Joe:

Some comments on the recent rule change proposals:

Yearly Schedule Change- I've been pretty vocal about this change for awhile. I don't think it makes sense for teams to be able to add/drop players with cap money/space after the league playoffs/superbowl. 100% support this change.

    Glad we could come to a compromise here. We want to tip toe the line of making sure no game breaking drops/adds occur while also allowing playoff teams to be able to make transactions for their run.

Taxi Rules- I know there are a lot of people not a big fan of this change. My biggest reasoning behind this or a similar change that prevents rookies/sophomores who are producing on the taxi is that I don't like any rule that forces an owner to not submit its best lineup. I know people say " well you dont have to do it" but then if the rules allow it, why wouldn't you, if you weren't competing. The easy fix would be for taxi to count towards PP, but i dont believe you can do that with MFL. Perhaps this becomes less of an issue if we change the rookie structure, so that rookie contracts aren't so insanely underpriced.

    Rookie contracts are under market price with the high bust rate baked in. This past year was an exceptional group of rookies that produced at a high level. Not all rookie classes come out and have multiple players are instantly top 10 at their position. I do understand though that some do, and could potentially effect league standings if they were tucked away on taxi squads. I believe the submission below from Arlen (this addition is already paying dividends) would suffice the hang up on blocking Potential Points. If in MFL we had no taxi then we could calculate PP for all rostered players. We would also keep the Taxi Squad in place in the Spread Sheet so the benefits of having cap relief on developmental players would remain. 

    Also note with some of the other proposals in place to address the market price of rookies once they come off their entry level deal, we have some potential long term market re-calibration checks in place to address young producers. The beauty of a salary cap league is we are our own market, in a sense. If a team believed in a no namer like Alex Collins or second round rookie pick like Juju Smith Schuster (2.08 in our league) and those players go on to become NFL producers but were undervalued by everyone else, then that owner deserves the low price they are paying. This league was developed with that in mind. Not everything needs to be to NFL scale. 

Rookies Coming Off Deals (1): I really like this rule, because it makes RFA relevant. As it stands, there is basically no reason for any rookie to receive fewer than 4 years, since they are so underpriced and if they "bust" you can just cut them for free/minimal cost depending if they were on your taxi or not. Big fan of this change, and perhaps even going a step further, which I'll outline in a moment.

    I am also a fan of this deal and I touched on it a little bit above without calling it by name. I agree it would give more significance to the RFA off season feature.

Rookies Coming Off Deals (2): Definitely prefer the 1st change to this. I think this type of fix basically makes RFA not a thing, and has a less "realistic" feel to it that we like in a cap league. Wouldn't be 100% opposed to it if the above rule doesnt pass, but then I just feel this is an inferior option to option 1.

     This was developed along with the one above to give options. 


Ideas worth adding to the doc:

1. Contract Extension Rule. I think we ought to adjust this rule so that you can only give an extension to players with at least 1 year left on their deal. It doesnt make sense that a player would finish his contract, become a free agent, then take a contract extension from their original team without exploring the open market. If we use the RFA rules with rookies, then I like this change even more, since most players eligible for extension would be older vets or undrafted FA. Though I'm not sure if undrafted FA rookies owuld be categorized here or as rookies drafted, that is to the commish team to decide.

    The current way we have is makes things much cleaner and easy to view for all league owners and admin. It makes sense in the fact that when their contract is expired, you extend them. You only get 1 extension per off season (as well as 1 franchise tag per off-season), so there is some strategy involved in not just handing out your one extension per year, but also signing players. If you sign someone new, you have to think about if you might want to extend them down the road - which year their contract expires and who else might be coming off contract that year. Its really really straightforward in that sense, which i think is the most appealing thing about it. I think you are getting hung up on the language here of becoming a free agent but then getting extended. One, it does happen in the NFL like that, so its not like it never happens. Two, my goal was never to have a cap league that exactly mimicked the NFL and I created a league that had settings you thought were the most fun as well as easy for owners to learn and commish's to implement. The way it is set now accomplishes that. 

    Also many teams have constructed their teams with this in mind. It would be very messy to adjust something like this now. I have no interest in it, and it likely wont be on proposal list when we vote. Standing firm here.

    

2. Set # of years for rookies (with year extension options?) What if we made rookie contracts set to a # of years like they have a fixed contract amount? 1st/2nd rounders get 4 years, 3rd/4th get 3? Or even 2nd/3rd/4th get 3, idk. Then to compensate for this, owners can give players on a rookie deal an extension, either 1 year if they had 4 years, or 1-2 if they had 5 years using standard extension rules, and ideally the above extension rule, where you give it to the player before their final year. This would be similar to a rookie getting a slight raise after 2-3 years when teams take the 4th / 5th year option on a player. After these contracts expire, the player could still go to RFA, or even if a player isn't extended they could go to RFA. The specifics could be ironed out, just an idea that may make rookie deals more "concrete" and less variable, to pair with other rule changes to rookies.


    I believe the Rookies Coming Off Deals (1) would accomplish adjusting the market price for the career of rookies that "hit". I don't want to over complicate things. Like i mentioned in my doc to the league earlier, we all really like this league and I am not ready to start tinkering with things just for the sake of tinkering with it. Rookies have inherit risk and should be rewarded for hits. If we pass the motion to adjust their 2nd contract like we've mentioned here that is enough for me and i think for most to keep things simple, but also fair. I also stand firm on this. 

My suggestion is a restructure tag. It mixes an idea I had with an idea Joe had. Under the Restructure Tag there can be either a contract extension or reduction. The extension would almost the same as the extension tag we have now but under the umbrella of Restructure Tag. The only difference is an extension could not be used on a player with an expiring contract (Joe's idea). The reduction is totaling up the remanding cost of a contract and dividing it by a shorter length of seasons. I know the argument is that it punishes teams with good cap management but I feel it is also a realistic option, NFL teams negotiate pay cuts and such all the time.Every team would only be allowed one restructure tag so not everyone would be reducing contracts, plus if they do it will hurt their cap for at least the upcoming year so it is a wash there. And the current extension rules are relatively cheep so almost every team will be doing that now instead of using the franchise tag. But with mandating they can't be on expiring contracts, and teams choosing reductions instead of extensions it will create more turn over with not every team extending someone.