Will a FA always prefer the deal worth more Total Value?

Before the flamers start, please think about the question, because the answer (in real life, anyway) is not as obvious as it may seem. A real life player in his prime (say age 26) might very well prefer a 4-year deal worth $90M ($10M bonus and 4 years max) rather than a 5-year deal worth $100M (5 years at max). Does the value per year factor into HBD player decision making, or is it simply that the higher total value contract is always preferred?

I've had agents say "My client is only seeking a 3 year deal" when I've offered more years at the same per year value.

Not sure if that answers your question but the engine prevents, at least in a couple of cases, an owner from locking a player down for 5 seasons.

I've seen that too Mike, but in my experience it's been primarily with Int'l FA (can't lock them up for league min for 5 seasons) or younger prospect FA.

In this case, it is someone who may command a big $ deal based on his current skills, so I'm not sure whether similar logic applies.

from everything i've seen, a 5/31 deal will top a 3/30 deal.

a bit more than a month ago i was offering a player 5/22, and at the last second i was outbid with a 3/23 offer.

i could be missing some details, but i assume that if 3/20 was good, he wouldn't have gone all the way up to 3/23.

I've had it happen with regular FA.

And I'm almost 99% certain that deano is wrong. I think it's year-based. 3/30 would top 5/49.

Looks like Zack Damon will get a max deal

i believe last time you were 100% certain that i was wrong, i was right.

so if you're only 99% certain, that means you're definitely wrong.

I don't recall any time I was wrong and you were right. I stand by my "year-based" comment.

Max per season or Max Total Value is the only question. Still ****** off that jclarkbaker gave him a mutual option on his prior contract, so I didn't even get the chance to extend him.

Plus, he's been rubbing it in during contract negotiations -

"You could have signed me cheap last season - now I'm heading for free agency. I'll enjoy the bidding war."

"You should have signed me when you had the chance! Now I'm filing for free agency. You can't offer me enough money to change my mind."

I know they aren't generated based on actual past dealings, but it still ****** me off a bit. I want to explain to him that I didn't have that chance!

Well, maybe this will answer your question.

If he wants 3 years at 10m, you aren't getting him for 3/29 or 4/39 or 5/49. As I said, I've tried to offer additional years at the same yearly price and have been rejected. I don't know if the player asking 3/30 would have accepted 4/48 but I do know some will not accept 4/40.

there's no way in f*ck that 3/30 beats 5/49.

i have not seen any evidence that suggests 3/30 beats 5/31. but i'm not 100% certain about this.

3/30 beats 5/31 every time

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 12/28/2009
Well, maybe this will answer your question.

If he wants 3 years at 10m, you aren't getting him for 3/29 or 4/39 or 5/49.

this is true.

but once the minimum AAV is met, max value is all that really matters. there have been many times where i have been trailing in the bidding and have won the player by adding an extra year to the deal.

Thanks, Mike, but this is a bit of a different situation, because Damon is going to generate a heated bidding war. No one is getting him for anywhere near what he's asking (2 years, $14.5M).

My question is really more whether my 2-year $50M offer ($25M per) will land him over the people that don't mind handing out 5-year big deals like candy (since they cannot possibly offer a 5-year contract worth more per year than my 2-year contract).