DingoLadd Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ragnarok said: Or just revert them to the original 85%. Look at it like this. Counselor for example, proposes a new change on contract caps (i.E from 6 to 4 years) and it would be retroactive. Meaning the guy in the 5th year of his deal is now a FA, the guy you had on a cheap contract because you signed him in FA as a gamble paid off. Oh whoops now he's a FA because reasons. That's not going to be popular once you start doing the math, especially once you realize (The rule has been in-effect for like 2 seasons I think) you have to backtrack for multiple years. That is not going to work, people can barely agree to simplify rules and now you want them to pay more for guys they already paid? Stick to a simple change and keep the retroactive part out of it otherwise no one will listen. Also I'd like to officially add "Bring Back Special teams' to the owners meeting docket. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingoLadd Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) . Edited May 2, 2019 by DingoLadd Doubles (Sigh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Ragnarok said: But hey, I'll give SirA his credit where it's due. He knew he had some big deals coming up...so he got yall to agree to reduce the 3Up amount and make sure that the 5 year rule didnt apply to 3Ups. Well played SirA. Well played. Yall fell for it hook, line, sinker, and rod. I am the Architect you know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Ragnarok said: That's a horse crap way to portray my concerns and you know it. All I'm saying is let the process play out before jumping to unfounded conclusions. We've done that with year round 3 ups which are shown to confuse people and be unpopular. We've done that with the pheltz rule which is an extra penalty that has literally come up like 3 times in 4-5 years so really doesn't make sense as a blanket rule. With rising contracts and rising salary giving something a chance for less than a year and discounting it's merit doesn't seem fair, Edited May 2, 2019 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFLukic Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 You should be able to 3up a player whenever you want provided their proposed salary is higher than their current. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFLukic Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Also you can't change the 3up rule halfway through the off-season when people's have already been approved. Bring it up again next meeting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Allow me to pose a question here. Maybe I don't really understand but hypothetically speaking how does increasing the cost of a 3 up hurt free agency? Whereas you're saying reducing that cost improves it. If you're talkin from the aspect of what a team loses or does not lose I am suppose I understand that but if you're talkin about the availability of players in free agency I completely disagree making it cheaper for me to resign my own free agent doesn't make free agency for everybody else better because they're really good free agents well they're not going to be free agent if you look at the actual free agency list right now almost everyone that has any relevance has been either sign on a restricted free agency tender or whatever or has gotten a three up. To say the free agency class that exists for this league is underwhelming would be an understatement. So I guess what I'm asking is what exactly are you saying in terms of how free agency is affected by the three up system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rackcs Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Ah yes, this is the BDL I know and love. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 6 hours ago, Ragnarok said: What if I made a proposition that made it retroactive if approved? I mean...75% is just ridiculous. Yea, you can't do that though. All the finger pointing and revisionist history by you is a great look too, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 6 hours ago, DingoLadd said: Also I'd like to officially add "Bring Back Special teams' to the owners meeting docket. .....but why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jlash said: .....but why? Oh let him have his moment. It'll be a quick vote 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 @Hockey5djh you got back to back picks here fool let's go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 7 hours ago, DingoLadd said: Look at it like this. Counselor for example, proposes a new change on contract caps (i.E from 6 to 4 years) and it would be retroactive. Meaning the guy in the 5th year of his deal is now a FA, the guy you had on a cheap contract because you signed him in FA as a gamble paid off. Oh whoops now he's a FA because reasons. That's not going to be popular once you start doing the math, especially once you realize (The rule has been in-effect for like 2 seasons I think) you have to backtrack for multiple years. That is not going to work, people can barely agree to simplify rules and now you want them to pay more for guys they already paid? Stick to a simple change and keep the retroactive part out of it otherwise no one will listen. Also I'd like to officially add "Bring Back Special teams' to the owners meeting docket. Don’t use me for your examples chump. I vote we add a 17th team so Dingo can muck it up 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 I’ll probably regret this because you’ll probably go law school on me but... Rags how is you telling everyone to not approve a contract that fits within the rule guidelines not the same or worse than some of us openly complaining about the fairness of a trade? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, Counselor said: Rags how is you telling everyone to not approve a contract that fits within the rule guidelines not the same or worse than some of us openly complaining about the fairness of a trade? It's pretty unacceptable IMO, and not like Rags at all. I'm hoping the rum was involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts