VigilantZombie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, Counselor said: Because you are offering me three overpriced players for one cuttable player? It’s how you work the deal. Might not be exactly how you want at first but if you maneuver effectively you can get it done. And if I’m not the Gm it gets done with there are 14 others. I actually sent you a different trade but no that's not what I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, wwhickok said: I actually sent you a different trade but no that's not what I was referring to. But I will say you did inherit a disaster of a roster. So I understand your frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, TedLavie said: you also have 3 3 downs every year. You can also double down players to reduce the length of the contract. Honestly you have a lot of options in each offseason. I think most of us (and I know you're a weird case because what you came into with Sydney roster) have little complaints about it. But you're certainly entitled to make a proposal in Owner's meeting that we would discuss then With all due respect the Double Down is the exact opposite of what a new owner would consider a realistic option if their team has a bunch of high-dollar contracts. Most of you have a little complaints about it because you already have completely built teams and most of you are pretty stingy about trades which is your prerogative. Also sub 500 and free agent trades where if the guy hasn't played in a full year do very little to help anyone open cap space realistically speaking unless you are Oklahoma City or New Orleans how many teams actually have an onslaught of sub 500 players on the roster? If I die has his career ended by an injury and they were on a multi-year contract you have to wait an entire season for that player to be allowed to be cut without killing your cop or do a double down or three down. The only realistic option there is a three-down. The proposals I've made in the second one I'm actually on the fence about because I like the double down option actually more than my second proposal but I proposed it as an alternative to the double down but the other proposal I made the first proposal I made offers some flexibility without completely letting teams off the hook. I have been apart of more mock leagues like this then I can count on my fingers and the roster that I inherited is probably the worst roster I've ever seen in terms of cap cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: No, no we won't. We are not making up rules on the fly. If you all want to to propose it, then we can can vote for on it,l it passes then absolutely. But for now, no It is the rules though: Normal cut (all year long) : Any player can be cut at any time, but the owner will pay the salary of the player for the remaining time left on the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, Counselor said: But I will say you did inherit a disaster of a roster. So I understand your frustration. It is frustrating. And look I'm not trying to make this about me I think that the option and you guys will know what I'm talking about when the summer team owner meeting comes up but the initial option the first option I listed like I said offers some flexibility I'm not trying to make this about my one team. I'm sure that we can all say that at times we take risks on players who might be coming off a pretty significant year so we sign them to not even necessarily a huge contract but a contract. So then two seasons hypothetically into that contract you realize this is not the guy you signed on for but you still got two seasons left on it but then you've also got three other guys that you have a higher priority on using a three-down on. So my first proposal would allow you to cut a guy that is on a one-year contract he does not address guys on multi-year contracts my first proposal does not address guys on one-year contract that's something that's very important to keep in mind. It would allow you to cut that player you would still take on dead cap it just wouldn't be the full 100% of the cap hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Proposal being sent to SirA Eliminate Following Rule: Normal cut (all year long) : Any player can be cut at any time, but the owner will pay the salary of the player for the remaining time left on the contract. Escalate contract cost forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, wwhickok said: It is frustrating. And look I'm not trying to make this about me I think that the option and you guys will know what I'm talking about when the summer team owner meeting comes up but the initial option the first option I listed like I said offers some flexibility I'm not trying to make this about my one team. I'm sure that we can all say that at times we take risks on players who might be coming off a pretty significant year so we sign them to not even necessarily a huge contract but a contract. So then two seasons hypothetically into that contract you realize this is not the guy you signed on for but you still got two seasons left on it but then you've also got three other guys that you have a higher priority on using a three-down on. So my first proposal would allow you to cut a guy that is on a one-year contract he does not address guys on multi-year contracts my first proposal does not address guys on one-year contract that's something that's very important to keep in mind. It would allow you to cut that player you would still take on dead cap it just wouldn't be the full 100% of the cap hit I would have no problem and the only way I would vote this if it was just in play for a new gm in their first season. Other than that if gives too much rope for guys to take risks and be able to just back out of them at a cheap cost. I like the risk factor you take on currently and there is already a system in the shark tank that allows for one year deals on guys with high contracts. More breaks for vet gms is not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted June 13, 2019 Author Share Posted June 13, 2019 15 minutes ago, wwhickok said: options do not exist that allow you to efficiently build a team or even rebuild a team Like I've said before, not one single person was going to be able to rebuild that roster from the ground up in 1 offseason. I'll be against giving owners who have bad contracts breaks for cutting them early on. Because we can't just do it for new owners, then every owner would get it. Then we'd have another influx of horrible horrible contracts being handed out, and instead of owners regretting it the next year and putting controls in place (yes that happened) we'd be giving them an easier out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 Just now, Jlash said: Like I've said before, not one single person was going to be able to rebuild that roster from the ground up in 1 offseason. I'll be against giving owners who have bad contracts breaks for cutting them early on. Because we can't just do it for new owners, then every owner would get it. Then we'd have another influx of horrible horrible contracts being handed out, and instead of owners regretting it the next year and putting controls in place (yes that happened) we'd be giving them an easier out. I'm not expecting to end of The Proposal I'm making wouldn't even let me rebuild in one season. All it would have done would have saved me 40% of my cap on some players. Also another way to address this and I'm just pointing this out my first proposal specifically talks about one-year contract players. If you couple that with the suggestion someone made a few days ago about making all free agency signings three or four years in length that eliminates the ability of someone to do anything except use a three-down on that player next season. So the new proposal that I am making would not benefit players who want to go out and hand out dumb contract on multi-year length because it only is available for guys on one-year contracts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 When I took over London there were aspects I didn't like, but i had to wait until the offseason to make changes. And really, it's been two offseasons under my belt now before I've started to really shape the roster into what I want. 3 downs and double downs are a rebuilding owner's tools, along with trades. But it doesn't happen overnight. You 3 down the big deals, double down to shorten others, and clear the cap space over time. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Counselor said: I would have no problem and the only way I would vote this if it was just in play for a new gm in their first season. Other than that if gives too much rope for guys to take risks and be able to just back out of them at a cheap cost. I like the risk factor you take on currently and there is already a system in the shark tank that allows for one year deals on guys with high contracts. More breaks for vet gms is not necessary. Maybe you're not understanding me. Maybe I'm not making myself clear so basically use anybody on your roster as an example in the final year of their contract you would be able to based on my proposal cut that player but still have to pay a significant portion of their dead cap you just wouldn't have to pay the full 100% you wouldn't get away scot-free without having to pay for this guy at all you would just get a slight savings but it's only talkin about guys on one-year contracts also we have a rule about cutting guys that you just signed so guys that go sign a guy in the shark tank to a dumb contract and then realize all this was dumb you can't turn around and just cut that guy that violates a completely different rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said: When I took over London there were aspects I didn't like, but i had to wait until the offseason to make changes. And really, it's been two offseasons under my belt now before I've started to really shape the roster into what I want. 3 downs and double downs are a rebuilding owner's tools, along with trades. But it doesn't happen overnight. You 3 down the big deals, double down to shorten others, and clear the cap space over time. Again a double down is not a good option for a new owner that is coming in trying to rebuild it's just not and to pretend like it is I mean come on you're selling Rotten Tomatoes to a vegetable farmer. A guy who is rebuilding has no interest in increasing the cost of his cap immediately only to get rid of a guy one year sooner it doesn't make any sense at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, wwhickok said: Maybe you're not understanding me. Maybe I'm not making myself clear so basically use anybody on your roster as an example in the final year of their contract you would be able to based on my proposal cut that player but still have to pay a significant portion of their dead cap you just wouldn't have to pay the full 100% you wouldn't get away scot-free without having to pay for this guy at all you would just get a slight savings but it's only talkin about guys on one-year contracts also we have a rule about cutting guys that you just signed so guys that go sign a guy in the shark tank to a dumb contract and then realize all this was dumb you can't turn around and just cut that guy that violates a completely different rule What percentage of a break are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted June 13, 2019 Author Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 minute ago, wwhickok said: Again a double down is not a good option for a new owner that is coming in trying to rebuild it's just not and to pretend like it is I mean come on you're selling Rotten Tomatoes to a vegetable farmer. A guy who is rebuilding has no interest in increasing the cost of his cap immediately only to get rid of a guy one year sooner it doesn't make any sense at all You don't do it immediately. For someone who has never used the feature, I'd say it's more like guy who has been farming vegetables for a long time attempting to help someone who just started farming vegetables. Double downs are best utilized towards the end of a season with whatever free cap you have, or if you were able to clear some cap at the deadline to get players who have 2 year contracts down to 1, which then takes them off your roster that offseason. It's actually a great tool for someone rebuilding. Or farming. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jlash said: You don't do it immediately. For someone who has never used the feature, I'd say it's more like guy who has been farming vegetables for a long time attempting to help someone who just started farming vegetables. Double downs are best utilized towards the end of a season with whatever free cap you have, or if you were able to clear some cap at the deadline to get players who have 2 year contracts down to 1, which then takes them off your roster that offseason. It's actually a great tool for someone rebuilding. Or farming. That’s right there is no deadline for the double down right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts