|
Post by KingsGM_Anthony on Oct 1, 2009 15:06:39 GMT -5
Pretty much If you sign a UFA (weather it be extension, or Loyalty, or UFA in off-season)
would you prefer to have ALL UFA's get a NTC with their contract or No NTC and if you trade this player prior to 41 game mark, you get a 1 year ban and pay his contract as a fine from your finances.
Your call league!
|
|
|
Post by selftyrant on Oct 1, 2009 15:09:50 GMT -5
even tho i fell victom to this rule, i bel;evie we shuld keep it as is. a ntc shuld be something u can add to tip a player to maybe joining ur team, they shuldnt be automatic, i like the 41 game rule, now that we have cleared it all up.
|
|
|
Post by montrealcanadiens on Oct 1, 2009 15:23:06 GMT -5
keep the rule as it is, its gona make GMs think twice about throwing big money at UFAs if they have to stick with em for half the season... makes for a much better UFA period in the offseason.
just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by KingsGM_Anthony on Oct 1, 2009 15:39:42 GMT -5
MTL - then make your vote heard, and pick a box. LoL but i like the feedback thus far
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Oct 1, 2009 16:04:34 GMT -5
Yeh, im with Simon on this one. I think it will definetly make GM's think more about offering huge contracts to UFA's and stealing them from under other teams in doing so.
|
|
|
Post by rawbo on Oct 1, 2009 17:36:52 GMT -5
a ntc gives you the option if under some bad circumstances that you want to move a player in this situation, while the other way gives you no options. It is a ntc just for the 1st year also so ntc's would stil hold value if offered for later years. We wouldn't be letting guys move for no good reason.
I choose this way, it's easier to deal with and less threatening (1 year ban uh oh)
|
|
|
Post by stlouisgm on Oct 1, 2009 21:11:50 GMT -5
NTC makes it more authentic
|
|
|
Post by coloradogm on Oct 2, 2009 14:24:17 GMT -5
I went with the NTC easiest way about it.
|
|
|
Post by mikeyevil on Oct 2, 2009 14:59:45 GMT -5
not all UFAs get an NTC, but I think that if a person trades someone they sign as a UFA before 41 games, it should be hard for them to sign new ones in the upcoming year. This should not apply to resigning your own players that are scheduled for UFA as sign and trades are not unrealistic...
|
|
|
Post by calgarygm on Oct 3, 2009 17:13:36 GMT -5
not all UFAs get an NTC, but I think that if a person trades someone they sign as a UFA before 41 games, it should be hard for them to sign new ones in the upcoming year. This should not apply to resigning your own players that are scheduled for UFA as sign and trades are not unrealistic... agree but when it comes to NTC's I don't think we should have them at all. To me there is no point to it in a sim league.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Oct 12, 2009 13:40:04 GMT -5
It is stupid to have NTCs in a sim league. They just get confusing and annoying.
|
|
|
Post by rawbo on Oct 12, 2009 14:02:01 GMT -5
I agree in a sense overall, but like the idea of one years instead of bans.
|
|