SirA1 Posted July 29, 2019 Author Share Posted July 29, 2019 5 hours ago, PR said: Will the one year contracts that upgrade to the new contract during midseason still be in play? I think everyone agrees that 1 year 3 ups that mirror the players RL contract if they sign a new deal are a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 29, 2019 Author Share Posted July 29, 2019 1 hour ago, SwoleXmad said: It's taking away options. Oh look X player on a 1 year deal signed an extension and I have the cap to pay them that deal. Oh no I can't pay them and save money. How many times has it been used. It's a rare occurrence and I don't see why we need to change it. It's simple people, if the player doesn't have a rookie deal it can be factored into the extension. Loop-holing 101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 29, 2019 Author Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) Topic 1 Vote Count - Return 3 Ups to the off season. Yes (6) - Whicker, JLash, Bcb1213, Hockey, RuskieTitan, SirA1 No (0) - Edited July 29, 2019 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 29, 2019 Author Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, wwhickok said: Cleaner and Simpler? I vote yes. Clarity? Is this for Topic 1? Edited July 29, 2019 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 29, 2019 Author Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, TedLavie said: I think the downside of this is that the pheltz rule wouldn't be applicable without yearly 3up. So I believe item 2 should be linked. Also I'm not sure why we would remove it anyway. Even is used once every 4 year, I don't see the downside of allowing owners to use 3ups year round There would be as many corner cases that it has applied to even without year round 3 ups. It mostly comes into effect on guys that sign deals 2 years earlier than their BDL rookie deals would be up. We can start discussing the Pheltz Rule now if you want though. Pretty much it's the only case of Reparations left in the BDL. Basically if your player signs a deal early and you don't or can't mirror it in the same year you get penalized. It boils down to making someone pay more than a normal 3 up and when the owner balks at that because they weren't planning on it because they didn't understand the rule in the first place the player normally goes to FA and makes less money than the normal 3 up would be. I will likely combine 2 and 4 though they both involve removing language rather than adding or modifying anything. Edited July 29, 2019 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 20 hours ago, SirA1 said: Topic 2 - Remove they Pheltz Rule. If a player is a free agent coming out of his BDL rookie contract and has signed a new deal IRL before the year of the 3up, then the owner has to pay 75% of the total IRL contract but end the contract the same year in BDL than IRL. For instance, player X has a BDL rookie contract from 2014 to 2019 at $2000 per year and signed a new deal IRL in 2018 at $10M per year for 6 years. You can either 3up him in 2018 at $7,500 per year for 6 years or in 2019 at $9,000 per year for 5 years. If we get rid of year round 3 ups then this is kind of a moot point and it has literally only applied to 3-4 FA in the time it has been in effect. Having such a narrow rule in place isn’t necessary IMO to balance against the minimal savings a team gets from these contracts. wouldn't the shortening of BDL contracts that happened in the last meeting combined with the limiting of year round 3 ups eliminate this loophole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 I'm a yes on Topic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 (edited) I don't mind removing "loopholes" just for simplicity and clarity but I want to make sure I understand what is going on. I'm going to give an example. Lets pretend Wentz' (using Wentz because I'm an eagles fan, not because he's on Pheltz' team) contract was up this season, what would he have to be 3upped for? He signed a 4 year extension this offseason on top of his 5 year option that kicks in in 2020 so.....Explain that one for me please. (and/or is this a different rule from the Pheltz rule?) Edited July 29, 2019 by Hockey5djh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 Honestly I will refer to the contract committee members on these ones. I don't have a strong opinion on those items either way and will adapt to whatever they feel is simpler and fairer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted July 29, 2019 Share Posted July 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Hockey5djh said: wouldn't the shortening of BDL contracts that happened in the last meeting combined with the limiting of year round 3 ups eliminate this loophole? The Pheltz rule penalized you for not 3 upping the player immediately in-season, and made you back pay a contract essentially if you waited until after the season. Like SirA said before, eliminating in season 3 ups sort of eliminates the Pheltz rule, but we should put it in writing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 No on 1, I like the flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 6 hours ago, Hockey5djh said: I don't mind removing "loopholes" just for simplicity and clarity but I want to make sure I understand what is going on. I'm going to give an example. Lets pretend Wentz' (using Wentz because I'm an eagles fan, not because he's on Pheltz' team) contract was up this season, what would he have to be 3upped for? He signed a 4 year extension this offseason on top of his 5 year option that kicks in in 2020 so.....Explain that one for me please. (and/or is this a different rule from the Pheltz rule?) I'm hoping it means you guys are voting for me to get him cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 On 7/28/2019 at 9:22 PM, Whicker said: Yes to all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 30, 2019 Author Share Posted July 30, 2019 I will tally votes once I get home in the afternoons. Work computer hates this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted July 30, 2019 Share Posted July 30, 2019 So far there are 4 yes votes on topic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts