The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 5:05 am
I'm not the greatest when it comes to how the real life NFL does contracts with players, but has been some very valid points surrounding the Cap situations (particularly the AI's handling of it)..and also some very good suggestions in the appropriate community forums, especially relating to franchise tagging players.

Here is a peach of a situation I came upon. Now, please understand that this was NOT the previous coaches fault...even though the player had 100 vol....it is just way too much of a drop-off in player skill with major Cap consequences.

So, this rookie was drafted in round 2, got the associated contract desired for a round 2 pick, then went MINUS 32 in training camp, and now has a trade score of TWO.

If I was to cut him, right now, the team would have to take almost $9 million in Cap hit for the next two seasons. I get the fact that it is a big risk in drafting a player in the high rounds with high vol...but I'd also like to imagine NFL GM's are not dumb either. If a player tanks downward (excessively) without even taken a snap (rookie), there should be some type of recompense for the team and their Cap !

As a solution(?) I would like to see the players contract rise/fall based on the +/- that he gets on the TC dice roll.....I think that is very fair.

I'm not ranting, I'm not livid over this. I'm just pointing out an extreme on a draft/contract related misnomer that I have never seen before, and trying to provide an alternative solution.
Last edited at 6/03/2019 5:16 am

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 5:12 am
Would love to hear others comments on similar type scenarios.
Last edited at 6/03/2019 5:14 am

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Lamba
6/03/2019 6:07 am
It's perfectly fine imo.

And as far as I know, it's how it works in the NFL too.

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 6:21 am
Lamba wrote:
It's perfectly fine imo.

And as far as I know, it's how it works in the NFL too.


Do NFL players/Pro players report to camp without contract ? I think I recall a few back in the day (don't follow NFL much these days)

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 6:33 am
Again, not a rant...just thinking of the logic on this. To walk into a camp and go minus 32 (granted on a dice roll on high vol)....is very much like a very good NCAA grad coming out to go Pro...gets his monies, and then sticks his fingers up the GM's jacksey!

I genuinely cannot think of a player "flopping" THAT much, on THAT much monies, before taking an honest snap.

I'd struggle to find an NFL example of that type scenario tbh.
Last edited at 6/03/2019 6:35 am

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By TarquinTheDark
6/03/2019 6:44 am
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Lions, Bengals, or Browns?

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By TarquinTheDark
6/03/2019 6:52 am
Seriously though, how about JaMarcus Russell, 2007 Raiders.

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By Kababmaster
6/03/2019 6:54 am
TarquinTheDark wrote:
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Lions, Bengals, or Browns?


Modern day has allowed me to watch Redzone.......it's not my fault that their games are less than interesting LOL. But yes, those teams are notorious for making poor picks to save monies.

Strange enough that you mention, I won a LC with the Bungels a few days ago (as minder of the team) vs a 15-1 team. (Bungels were 11-5 going into the WC game).

I digress, perhaps the best example I can come up with is with Ditka selling the house for Texas RB Williams....the contract was done very smart...almost incentive laden ( he had to have x carries x yards x fitness...etc).

Ricky Williams went on some drug/rehab episode outside ot the the USA, then returned to the Pro game. Once he returned, the Saints slapped a lawsuit on him for breech of contract.....and rightly so, a team/GM should have a legitimate expectation, along with rights. (injury aside).

Last edited at 6/03/2019 6:57 am

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By raymattison21
6/03/2019 7:48 am
TarquinTheDark wrote:
Seriously though, how about JaMarcus Russell, 2007 Raiders.


"Although the Raiders ended up paying Russell $36.4 million of the possible $68 million, the quarterback bust still was owed $3 million at the time of his release. "

32 mil of it was gaurnteed bonus money . Imo were lax incomparison for 1st round busts, but late 2nd, 3rd, and 4ths come with hefty bonuses compared to the nfl.

This guy was a 100 Volatility , no growth bust picked the late second . It's was a gamble . If he were under the nfls collective bargaining agreement of 2011 his cap hit is much less in comparison .

Picks 49-64 $5,932,210 to $4,578,946 total $2,334,334 to $1,350,142 bonus.

I am guessing but it like a 10 mil difference . I did some research months back and it was 3rd rounders that were the biggest finacial risk. In terms of a bust really hurting dead cap.

Imo, this part of the game is exploitable and could hurt any team who has busts . 1st rounders aren't that bad because contracts a less of a hit in comparison to the nfls model. Getting a bunch of 1st and 2nds is finacially safer, but I think the exploit there comes in cause you can then trade your players (who were those high picks) For more high picks. Using the future cap to maneuver the trades befor for the expensive renegotiation comes.

This is why I gamble with volatility early and actually picks safer as the draft progresses , but 5th and on come with no bonus so I definitely will gamble then too.

Re: Not a bug, but perhaps should be !?

By raymattison21
6/03/2019 7:55 am
Kababmaster wrote:
TarquinTheDark wrote:
I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Lions, Bengals, or Browns?


Modern day has allowed me to watch Redzone.......it's not my fault that their games are less than interesting LOL. But yes, those teams are notorious for making poor picks to save monies.

Strange enough that you mention, I won a LC with the Bungels a few days ago (as minder of the team) vs a 15-1 team. (Bungels were 11-5 going into the WC game).

I digress, perhaps the best example I can come up with is with Ditka selling the house for Texas RB Williams....the contract was done very smart...almost incentive laden ( he had to have x carries x yards x fitness...etc).

Ricky Williams went on some drug/rehab episode outside ot the the USA, then returned to the Pro game. Once he returned, the Saints slapped a lawsuit on him for breech of contract.....and rightly so, a team/GM should have a legitimate expectation, along with rights. (injury aside).



To me these senerios are alot more like early retirement . Barry Sanders had to pay back millions when he retired . 5.5 mil of 11mil. And wr Johnson just recently paid some back.

"Because Johnson retired four years after his last contract extension, the Lions could have recouped one-fifth of the $16-million signing bonus he received at the time, or $3.2 million. Bonus prorations are spread over up to five years of a player’s contract, for salary cap purposes"

We don't have this...I don't think it will help teams too much as Detroit got an extra 320,000 dollars . We need alot more, but I still think it would be a neat element to add to the game.

Especially if we had super early retirements, but I could envision busts fitting in some how.