It's not that hard, you can easily offer a minimum salary 2-year deal to acquire a backup that won't break the bank if you have to cut him. If you're after someone who is in a bidding war, then you really should decide whether he's wirth what you're offering him.

Also, I do occasionally sign a 1-year deal for players who are really not very good but I need to round out my roster, rarely do these players see any action in the offseason and often I can find a better player to replace them.

I think that's my problem there.
The thing that originally attracted me to this game is the whole owner/GM realism slant but when you get an owner paying a roster filler way over the odds it detracts from the game.

I'll give you a 'For Instance'..... Say...I need a second string FS, I put a bid in on a 6 year vet 58/60, mediocre at best. 2 year deal with just over what he's asking, then along comes Owner 'X' and offers double the going rate, and he already has 2 stud FSs on board. Think that he may have seen something in that player where he may convert him to a CB or SS. Season starts and he has 3 x FSs on board.
This is fine and his prerogative, but in the interests of keeping the game 'REAL' maybe the deal should be weighted as with a trade, taking into consideration the amount of players already at that position.

I'm guessing that this is the way its going to stay, so thanks for hearing me out.

i agree that the game should be as realistic as possible, but it is also simplified just from a practical standpoint. One feature on the list that will probably solve some of what you are describing is an "Affinity" value for each GM and team. What this will do is lower the likelihood that a player will re-sign with a team if, among other things, the don't give him playing time and other players with similar ratings do.

Since a player really has no way of knowing why he is being signed and you can't make promises to him he has to base his decisions purely on the financial perspective. What if one of the other FS players are about to be traded, or are older and probably will retire? Or are asking too much for a renegotiation and won't be re-signed? Those are all valid reasons that a team might pick up and pay highly for an extra FS.

(Feel free to keep pushing back and offering suggestions, my responses are not intended to be the final word - I always love finding ways to make the game better)

Thanks, will do. After reading some of my other posts I really don't ant to come across as a malcontent, so will refrain for a while.

No worries, we all want this game to be the best it can be and everyone's perspective helps.

I like it the way it is now. I do agree that some people are willing to way over pay for players, but then they get in cap trouble. It all works out in the long run.

I agree, the current system for contracts is fine with me.

I agree with the agreement. If someone (among the 32 competing teams) is willing to pay double the minimum for a back-up safety then that is the going rate for a back-up quality safety. Teams in the NFL frequently will "overpay" mediocre back-ups. And if, say, the next best player after that 58/60 6-year vet is a 53/53 13-year player on the down slope of his career, maybe you should have offered more than the vet minimum to the other guy.

And always remember: If you miss out on the guys you want (as I have two years in a row now in MFN-2, haha), that just gives you more ammo for next off-season!