NDL Forum

I propose the maximum # of years you can sign (or extend) a player be lowered from 10 to 5

Here are the reasons I think this would be good for the league:

1) GM Turnover

Let's get this one out of the way, I would bet that maybe 50% of the GMs who sign a guy to a 10 yr deal will still be around to see the end of that deal.

2) Incentive spending

If you've ever wondered why Free Agents ask for insane amounts of money it's because there is a ton of money sitting in this league unused. If you ever look at the Finance Report you will see overall there are quite a few teams sitting on a lot of disposable income. The game uses a formula based on how much "free floating" money there is to determine a demand co-efficient to add to all players demands. Having less money sitting around will help reign in demands.

This would also mean the pool of potential Free Agents every year would be bigger = more people spending = more realistic demands.

Long story short. I, personally, would rather sign a guy to a 5y/40M deal than a 10y/30M and I feel others would agree.

3) Incentive trading

Easy correlation here. Shorter contracts = more "rental" players on their last year = more trading.

4) Un-realistic long term signings

I get it, it's a game. But for me, the idea is to simulate as close to real life as possible. No chance in hell a mid 20 something who put up 5+ WAR in his breakout season is going to agree to a 10 year deal for $15M per. ESPECIALLY paired with the overall high demands in this game. It's just not realistic and is part of the reason we have a period of "mega dynasties", then a period of awesome parity. One team just puts it all together and lines it up.

5) Balancing team's "windows"
This could have probably gone under 4 but I wanted to highlight it. I'm sure everyone knows what I mean when I say "window" - your team has usually a 2-5 year window where your specs (piss off Philly) have reached their potential and your team has a chance to win it all.

In an online league those windows can last up to a year in real-life time. That can feel like forever when rebuilding and watching other teams destroy. I feel with a 5 year max, more teams can move through their windows quicker. Essentially, rebuilding should be quicker. However, YOUR window will be more dynamic as you should have more financial flexibility, theoretically.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't pointing to any team at all. I've said this for many seasons but never put it up at Winter Meetings because I'm lazy but I think this would beneficial to the long term health of the league. The amount of parity is proportional to the amount of fun in this league......

All this is my opinion of course and I welcome counter arguments.

First thing, if this does pass it will go in to effect next offseason since we are 1 sim from free agency. Give everyone a year to adjust to the new rule if there is one.

The biggest problem here is when you want to extend your guys many will simply not agree to a shorter deal unless you go to an absurd amount. You will just not be able to extend your own players in many cases. Some guys you can offer 5 years at 40 per year and they still say no and want 8 years.

I do not like restricting things because some guys give bad deals, I'd prefer everyone have their own free will to do what they think is best.

Lastly, the 50% owner thing is extremely high. Our league turnover the last few seasons is extremely low since we brought in new owners that are active.

Another thing with this is it gives an even larger advantage to the bigger market/budget teams. If all things are equal and we can all only go 5 years Richmond, OCD, Washington, and Bama will pretty much always just be able to offer more money. The flexibility for guys to go longer and assume the risk or for the Omaha's to be able to lock in a guy like Yang is very important to rebuilding and smaller budget teams as well.

After reading what Billy wrote, If this one doesn't pass, maybe we can find something between the current and Ryan's idea? Say 7 years?

No thanks. Rich get richer here and this hurts small market teams.

And I don't think we have had a 50% turnover rate since the 2021 season I started in.

The_Niddler wrote:After reading what Billy wrote, If this one doesn't pass, maybe we can find something between the current and Ryan's idea? Say 7 years?

I think the only positive is that we would have FA sooner.

I like the idea of shortening the length but not all the way to 5.

I agree with the theory not sure I agree w the execution... 5 will be too short imo and prevent certain guys from consideration for a resign unless there is a way in our settings where we can set 5 as max and it alters the algo for player demands

I’m saying no to current proposal but do think we should consider making it harder to lock up great players to long deals

my problem with this is the same as a lot of guys... there doesn't seem to be a way for the game to limit the years. if we could put a setting in game to lower it to 7 or 8 i would be all for that. But there are times where guys won't take any deal that isnt 10 years... which is super dumb.

Billy, is there a setting in game where you can limit max contract length to something other than 10?

Another option: Auto-add player opt out options after year X. So you can give a 10 year deal but either you must have a player opt clause by year 7 or so. or billy will manually add one. Players are almost always receptive to player opt outs in deal from my experience so this could be a good compromise. Also I don't know how hard it is for billy to change contracts but it seems like it could be pretty easy?

Uuaww wrote:Billy, is there a setting in game where you can limit max contract length to something other than 10?

Almost certain there is.

1) There is 100% a setting to hard limit a guys contract years.

2) I agree 5 might be too short. I started off with 5-7 but thought it was too flaky for guys to vote on.

3) I actually really like the idea of if you have a longer contract you must have a player opt-out in there somewhere. Obviously more details needed and it requires more policing but I do actually like that idea.

5 is way too short. I'd say 7 is a good number of years.

I do not see any setting to change max contract length but maybe one of the guys in the league who are a commish can tell me if there is one.

At the end of the day I just think we are making up rules here just to do. Those super long deals rarely work out but if someone is willing to do it to add to their team and willing to pay the consequences if it does not work out then that is fine. I did it with Noda and had to eat money for years and I would still do it again if I thought it was the difference in a title.

I also do not think it adds parity. The guys who win now mostly win due to how much effort they put in to the game and to understand the game. Never miss drafts, put effort in to trade talks, scouting reports, searching minors, and learning finances.

We have also had 7 different teams win the last 10 titles, that is parity

TheGobOne wrote:1) There is 100% a setting to hard limit a guys contract years.

and by using this i would assume it alters the AI so the players ask for more over shorter period?

if this is the case, i'm all for it on like 7 years max type timeframes

DRiccio21 wrote:

TheGobOne wrote:1) There is 100% a setting to hard limit a guys contract years.

and by using this i would assume it alters the AI so the players ask for more over shorter period?

if this is the case, i'm all for it on like 7 years max type timeframes

I couldn't say 100% but from experience it doesn't affect demands too much.