bcb1213 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, wwhickok said: Nobody was talking about being able to fix it in one season and furthermore the proposals I need wouldn't even help me. So everybody thinking that I'm making this about me but I'm not Well don't be put off by it. A lot of things can happen but mostly it's timing. Bring cutting costs up during free agency, peoples thingy yours trying to to get an edge, right or wrong. Just human natured bud. Every team uses a the double down, competing, non competing in between is what we're trying to get across. If you want to unload a bunch of dudes, it's the most efficient way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 39 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: No, no he's not That's never how we've done it ever. We don't move cap hits to future seasons. If you'd like to bring that up in the next meetings feel free. I'm not even opposed to voting for it. But right now no 21 minutes ago, Jlash said: Thank you. I knew it wasnt a thing. At this point I'm used to being wrong on the rules of the league but can you guys please interpret the below rule for me, specifically the bolded? I fully recognize that we're arguing over something that will probably never happen just because of the cap ramifications but the rule as written is pretty clear IMO. Quote 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...
TedLavie Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 53 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: No, no he's not That's never how we've done it ever. We don't move cap hits to future seasons. If you'd like to bring that up in the next meetings feel free. I'm not even opposed to voting for it. But right now no Look I don't want to argue about a theorical case that we will never encounter but, the rule is written and pretty clear. We never done it because the case never presented itself. But if it were to happen, that's how we would act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 52 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said: At this point I'm used to being wrong on the rules of the league but can you guys please interpret the below rule for me, specifically the bolded? I fully recognize that we're arguing over something that will probably never happen just because of the cap ramifications but the rule as written is pretty clear IMO. Correct So if he has a 3 year 1000 salary you pay 3000,. Not 1000. Ie the "remaining time" left on his contract 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 17 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: Correct So if he has a 3 year 1000 salary you pay 3000,. Not 1000. Ie the "remaining time" left on his contract That's not how the rule is written when I read it. Just something that needs to be clarified in the rulebook @SirA1 once the correct process is determined. Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not arguing, I just want it to be clarified for someone that may choose that path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 Yea hopefully no one tries it, right-angle now we're just wasting time time talking about it til wr RB week starts lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: Yea hopefully no one tries it, right-angle now we're just wasting time time talking about it til wr RB week starts lol you wwhickok-ing your posts with voice to text now too? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD4L Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said: you wwhickok-ing your posts with voice to text now too? Next week is skill position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said: you wwhickok-ing your posts with voice to text now too? Naw. Apparantly my phone autocorrect feature likes right angles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 It was always my understanding that if I had someone under contract for 2 years at $1,000 per year and I cut them(without using a 3D or them retiring or me doubling down their contract), then I was on the hook for their $1,000 salary the next season. Basically our version of dead cap money in the NFL. I've never seen anything to the contrary. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted June 14, 2019 Author Share Posted June 14, 2019 51 minutes ago, Ragnarok said: It was always my understanding that if I had someone under contract for 2 years at $1,000 per year and I cut them(without using a 3D or them retiring or me doubling down their contract), then I was on the hook for their $1,000 salary the next season. Basically our version of dead cap money in the NFL. I've never seen anything to the contrary. We had talks plenty of times about keeping track of dead cap for future years and all agreed it's in the best interest of everyone to not do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 @Hockey5djh @wwhickok Hockey your situation was not the same as WW. So let’s not blindly walk into this discussion and say I was a new owner and I won it all and I did this and you can too... first of all from what I remember you wouldn’t take over until you were traded a good QB. Second of all you got your first Overall pick, ww didn’t his was traded away. And lastly you took over a much better roster. So drop the you took over a team and took them all the way shtick. Two completely different situations. Just please stop comparing the two. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 Patrick Peterson is officially a Black Rhino now, if I'm not mistaken. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Counselor said: @Hockey5djh @wwhickok Hockey your situation was not the same as WW. So let’s not blindly walk into this discussion and say I was a new owner and I won it all and I did this and you can too... first of all from what I remember you wouldn’t take over until you were traded a good QB. Second of all you got your first Overall pick, ww didn’t his was traded away. And lastly you took over a much better roster. So drop the you took over a team and took them all the way shtick. Two completely different situations. Just please stop comparing the two. Wait...so I didn't take over a new team last year? And we didn't follow the same pattern of trading away a bunch of players to clear cap? Yes, the team I took on was more talented, and yes I had the #1 overall pick but that's not to say wwhickok can't still make a quick turn around into a competitive team. ....and just so your memory is straight i'll remind you the full picture. A year ago I was the "Co GM" to Footy for Orlando, there was an opening for Compton and as the BDL does every year there is an opening is to try and get Co GMs to jump into a full time role. While I did initially balk at taking Compton it was because I wanted to stick with the Orlando team that I had "Co Gmed" (read: did all the work for throughout the season) rather than take on Compton. There was a concern that Footy wasn't even around enough to GM Orlando on his own so moving me from Orlando to Compton would just cause the need for another GM for Orlando. That started a large argument in the league over "should we kick Footy out" and it almost went to a vote. To keep his team and avoid a vote Footy offered to trade me Wilson if I took Compton (note: despite many people's feelings otherwise this wasn't just a "player giveaway" as it took 3 different attempts and a full trade comparison write-up to get the value to a level that the trade committee would allow, including multiple picks and players). I completed the trade for Wilson and subsequently took Saquon #1 overall. While I fully understand that they were two HUGE moves for my team I also made a lot of other moves in the offseason to clear cap, fill gaps in the roster, and secure the decent players on the team to deals which are similar to what wwhickok is doing now. Note to this story: Footy quit the league that offseason anyway, so kudos to those of you in the "kick Footy out group". Hopefully all is well with him as there was a post here a few months back that he had a prominent role at LSU or one of those schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted June 14, 2019 Author Share Posted June 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said: prominent role at LSU or one of those schools. UCLA with ol Chip. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts