Jump to content

BDL Owners Meeting 2019


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

How would allowing players to be cut (not traded) and lowering roster limit result in hoarding players?

Genuinely asking, trying to understand your point of view. 

People would overload to limit, knowing their claims have no true effect on their roster limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this is the discussion phase and not the voting phase here are my thoughts.

1a - Unlocking ERFA's would allow teams to hoard players during the previous season (Shark Tank/Waivers) and then have no consequences during the year they are signed since you could just freely cut them or then trade them for value (Draft Picks) instead of having to invest at least a year in their development. We've seen an owner do this before and that is why we voted in the rule not allowing any signed players to be cut.

1b - Again allowing the cutting of sub $500 locked players (Draft picks/Shark Tank/Waiver claims) would again create the same situation and even create stuff like catch and release of waiver claims which would not only allow teams to just sign up to the roster limit in the Shark tank diluting the Waiver pool for the year but then have no consequences for doing so. The NFL has stuff like dead cap space etc which we have already stated we don't want in the BDL.

1c - All this will do is allow people to get out of those 2 year $501 per deals they sign as speculation deals on in FA or guys drafted in the 5th round or later a year early. We have ways to get rid of those contracts now in things like Double Downs. As Pheltz has mentioned the Salary Cap will no longer be an issue do to the Huge increases we are implementing starting this year. A few more bottom end deals should be able to be weathered for a year.

1d - I'll throw my comments on this now as well. I think a reduction from 70-60 is too extreme in one year. 65 would be a nice first step for 2020. Again for all the new guys this is only active players on your roster so if a guy goes on IR or is a Free Agent/PS guy then they don't count. The only teams that are even close to the roster limit each year are the few old guard that like to Hoard players. And rules like the above would allow them to do so in a greater fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said:

People would overload to limit, knowing their claims have no true effect on their roster limit.

To expand...if these were approved, you could sign as many ERFAs as you wanted, turn around and trade any that panned out immediately for draft picks or players.  Any that didn't work out could be cut with no repercussions.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pheltzbahr said:

NO on 1a/b/c

Would encourage hoarding and shenanigans.  Cap shouldn't be an issue for anyone with the raising of the cap substantially and reduction of 3Up to 75%.

About the hoarding thing (and the argument has also been given by @SirA1. In itself I agree. That's why I want to couple those by a roster reduction and, potentially, a practice squad. If you come from 70 to 60 players on roster, heck maybe even 53 with a 7 person practice squad, you suddenly can't hoard players without hurting the quality of your lineups.

Altogether, 1a to 1d create flexibility for owners, add more decision making, but the roster reduction gives the right balance to it. And again, I'd like to point out that we have almost every year teams that can't field 5 OL or stuff like that because they're cash strapped. To say the cap increase will solve that is a just not true. Cap increased because the IRL contracts became too much for our current salary cap (though the increase was too much imho and I voted against the second one), and it will just lead to bigger UFA and RFA deals.

And even if we end up with a bunch of cap after FA, everyone will spend a ton on Shark Tank. I don't believe we'll see 85% of the teams with 5K+ of cap space at the start of the season.

3 hours ago, wwhickok said:

I am a no on 1a & 1 B, a yes on 1c 

Trading players for Value should not be what ERFA is for. This is my opinion whether it's the actual NFL or a mock lg. Is intended really to retain quality Prospect players. As for 1B if you need to cut sub 500 K players for cap purposes you have much bigger fish to fry. I think that doing this will allow teams eventually to avoid having to make tough decisions about bigger contracts.

Now for guys that are on one-year contracts even with low salaries I don't really have an issue with allowing teens to cut them not always but often a lot of these players are just role-players and nothing more so the significance a player on the roster is absolutely minimal. Having said that because of that I do feel that teams should be permitted to make these are releases.

No I'm not sure I have seen anyone with even close to 60 players on the roster should it come to that vote I would be in favor of reducing the roster to 60 in acquiring some more methodical decision-making should teams begin to start carrying that amount of players

Fair point on 1a

On 1b it happens every year. Once Shark Tank is over, you have a lot of teams with less than 2-3K of space. After 5 waiver claims this space is gone, and then you have the risk of not fielding a complete team because you had a flurry of injuries mid-season. 

Honestly, when I see teams that can't field a functional OL in the playoffs because they had 3 injuries the same week, while having on rosters a couple of ERFAs who were cut after training camp, that just makes me sad.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...