So the discussion in the other thread re:contracts gave me a thought. In its current incarnation, when resigning or restructuring an existing contract, there is zero incentive to give a player anything below a 75% guaranteed contract, from what I can tell. The only real decision making process is the length of the contract.

I have two thoughts on how to improve this.

1) Make it standardized. The player issues his base demand for his 'ideal' contract. The user then can adjust a slider for length of contract and % guaranteed. A player will accept lower guaranteed money in exchange for a conversely bloating non-guaranteed contract.

What does this improve? It removes the possibility of new players re-signing their players for far larger contracts than they needed. It allows more flexibility in re-signing fringe players whose future you're uncertain of.

What possible negatives are there? It makes it much easier to 'game' veterans by offering them bloated contracts you know they won't play out. Solutions: 1) Make veterans' base demand for guaranteed money higher. 2) Make veterans prefer guaranteed contracts, with a higher increase to their demand for non-guaranteed moneys. 3) Make all players prefer short-term contracts when offered contracts with a low guaranteed %, especially when older.

Edited to add: It also dumbs the process down, which can be seen as either a pro or a con. I should note that I'm not a particular fan of this solution, but it may be better overall for the game to be more streamlined in this regard.

2) This ties into my proposed morale system (see http://mfn2.myfootballnow.com/community/5/489?page=0#2558 for details). The more miserly your contract offer (that is, the closer it is to their 'base' demand) the more of a hit it is to their morale. Whereas offering significantly more than their lowest acceptable offer will show your commitment to that player in your system, thus effectively bolstering their team loyalty.

What does this improve? It would obviously not result in a significant impact overall, but it would offer some nice 'flair' and a humanizing touch to contract negotiations, with users more incentivized to appease some of their aging team leaders and up-and-coming stars with larger contracts. Larger contracts also means a more rapid realization of market value league-wide.

What possible negatives are there? None that I can see.

For veteran players I would like to be able to front load the contract with that guaranteed money.

There needs to be more emphasis on the total contract amount then the total bonus IMO and I had liked the idea that if you extend the contract past what the player wants it should increase more per season then it is currently set for which I believe is 5%. Specially for these stud players

If it is set at 5% in an increase.Would it hurt the overall of the contract settings if it was at 10% for the stud players?Would this solve part of the problem overall with contracts in all leagues?Then keep it more balanced as too where somone was not hording stud players.

I think it would, stacked teams would not continue to have backups that are 85+ anymore if those contracts increased more then a normal players at 5%. They wouldnt be able to afford 15 plus players that are pro bowl type players. No team should.

To me an average starter is probably in the low 70's range if you do it throughout the league. Those type of players and lower would be at the 5% increase range, once you start moving up in skill the contract increase should be greater.

This could also be done by the game itself setting the market price for that skilled player.

The problem with contracts is in resigning your own players as its to easy to manipulate because your not bidding against anyone so you can really set his value depending on the bonus money.

If you have a team and its starting RG is a 95 then it should somehow be harder to resign your backup 89 guard also. In that case it might not even be a money issue then it is a playing time issue and that should also be in effect when trying to sign a FA.

Contracts are just to easy to manipulate right now and new owners that dont understand this are the ones that mostly getting into that salary cap issue with average players and they have no out because they cant cut them or trade them because it would put them in an even worst situation for the next season.

There will be pro's and con's to all of it actually and not sure where the complete balance is going to be but the more people that put there opinions in the better it will be