Trading and the League Season

[Justin-Chicago]

if Rich is managing the entire EOS / retirement process then there is not as much of a need for owners to cut down to 53. Allow owners an opportunity to cut down if they want (expect cut players to likely disappear) and then let Rich run the whole process thereafter and expect to see anyone left on the PS as a UFA for the new season. It takes away the need for the unrealistic trading of unsigned players and keeps the FA pile the right amount of relevant even if all the filler drops out.

Thinking about it from players’ perspective, guys that had some interest from a team stick around to see if they get picked up on a new contract. Those that get cut often go on their merry way. I hear the PNFL Players Union likes it too.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I think we still have a game limitation where the game clears the IR(Practice Squad) when the button is pushed.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

The game won't let you carry more than 53 on the roster into the new season. Keeping the PS intact creates more work for Rich. I say we cut down to 53 and let the retirement chips fall regardless of age. If they were on the PS and didn't survive the cuts to 53, probably not worth keeping anyway.

Also, I vote YES on trading starting only when FA starts. All players on the roster must have contracts before FA, so only players with contracts get traded.

As for PS age restrictions, whole different matter. Needs its own thread or simple decision from the commishes after they do their research.

[Jerry-Redskins]

There is the 53 person software limit at SNS. It would have to be manual and work on Rich, but any PS players go to FA at SNS no matter what unless they were pulled up to the 53 before SNS. Rich would have to weight in on the work load. Other than trying to keep all of the the PS players in the game files in FA after SNS this is the effect of the proposal I have made.

[Justin-Chicago]

Mitch, I have your program and I have one that I also developed. Target for Draft Pool is Week 10-12

bump

[Mitch-Oilers]

Bump bump

[Rich-League Officer]

Well, he's on a boat right now

[James-Eagles]

I just skimming through this and Honestly I vote no.
1.Because it will do the opposite of what Jerry wants. It would just increase retirement of players that people actually want. It wouldn't really do anything to help Free Agency. In fact if you look in recent past people have just cut player to get them to retire if they couldn't trade them before the 53 man deadline.

2.Rich I believe is wrong it wouldn't move everything to the trade deadline. At the EOS you are cutting down to 53 and have more flexibility with roster spots. Week 12 you looking more towards rosters for week 12-19. Teams have more ability to move people because they can cut people on their last year before retirement.

3. it isn't realistic because we can simulate people coming out of retirement in Free Agency. We can't have players demand trades. We can't have players hold out for more money. It is pointless to try to simulate realistic NFL Off season schedule when we are missing most of the important part so it. Heck we don't even have illegal and legal tampering with free Agent period.

The facts that some coaches don't seem to understand is the only way to get realistic Free Agency is something I wouldn't support.
1. There is no restructuring of contracts
2. When a players contract expires they become a restrictive Free Agent with everyone being able to bid one year contracts and team they are on allowed to match
3. The winning team can set the contract to a set number of years after that at the rate per year.

example player A winning bid is 2. The winning team can sign him for 1 season at 2 points or 10 seasons at 20 points.

Realistic Free Agency is achievable in this game at this time. I would say chasing it is just making the game more complicated. We already have too many coaches struggling to compete on PPP level to make Roster Management harder.

[Dean-Atlanta]

We already have too many coaches struggling to compete on PPP level to make Roster Management harder.

That would include every single coach who has fewer than 10 wins right now. That is most of us, just keeping it real.

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Dean - I respectfully disagree. If you look over the past 10 seasons, there are 4 to 5 consistant winning teams.