SirA1 Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 Topic 8 - Only allow non signed players above $500 salaries with 1 year left on their contracts to be cut to prevent having to keep track of potential dead cap space. Now open for discussion. This is pretty much never done in practice but there isn't currently a rule preventing it. Basically if you've got a guy on a 2+ year deal that isn't locked on your roster you can't just cut them to open up a roster spot and then have to track the dead money into future years. This would not apply to Sub $500 cuts obviously since they are removed from the roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 21 hours ago, SirA1 said: On 8/3/2019 at 5:31 PM, SirA1 said: Topic 6 - 5th Year Options - Mirror 3 Ups in timing and value.Currently this. 5th Year Options (all year long) Option 1 - If a real life NFL 1st round player is tendered their 5th year option a team can match it at 100% without using one of their 3 Ups for the year if the player is a BDL UFA. Option 2 - If a team wants the can average the higher of BDL players Salary or their NFL Rookie Average with the total of the 5th year option and spread it over 2 years to satisfy the 5th year contract. This has confused a lot of owners as well, as to the timing and value. Mostly it’s used by owners to save money on the back end and to get around having to free 3 up a player at 100%. The change I propose is to remove Option 2 and just make the 5th year Option value 75% instead of 100%. This still gives you savings but it’s easier to implement. I would be fine with a rider with a contract matching option like 1 year 3 ups now have. This would compensate for originally giving up the 5th year you used to get from the BDL draft on BDL 1st rounders. Yes (8) - Whicker, Wwhickok, SirA, JLash, RuskieTitan, PR SwoleXmad, Hockey No (3) - Ragnarok, MD4L, TedLavie @Counselor @pheltzbahr @bcb1213 @WFLukic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 I'm a billion percent against number 8. I'd rather you cut em you pay the contract all at once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 Say for instance one of your dudes gets hurt near the end of last year. He's on a three year deal. You hold onto him to see how he recovers. It doesn't go well, he's lost his explosiveness or some rookie outplayed him and now he's on the bench. You now are locking that player on the team basically. No Bueno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: I'm a billion percent against number 8. I'd rather you cut em you pay the contract all at once There are still Double Downs/Triple Downs/FA Cuts etc. This is not trying to lock players on the roster. Maybe change the language to say Active Player. So FA/Injured guys can be cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 6, 2019 Share Posted August 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, SirA1 said: There are still Double Downs/Triple Downs/FA Cuts etc. This is not trying to lock players on the roster. Maybe change the language to say Active Player. So FA/Injured guys can be cut. No it locks them. If you can't cut them. They are locked. Double down still leaves him on your team til the end of the year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted August 6, 2019 Author Share Posted August 6, 2019 Just now, bcb1213 said: No it locks them. If you can't cut them. They are locked. Double down still leaves him on your team til the end of the year I'll let @Jlash explain since he's the one that wanted it added. His worry I believe is an owner cutting multiple players with more than 1 year left on their deals and leaving a massive dead cap hole into the next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 I think I am also against #8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 39 minutes ago, SirA1 said: I'll let @Jlash explain since he's the one that wanted it added. His worry I believe is an owner cutting multiple players with more than 1 year left on their deals and leaving a massive dead cap hole into the next year. Id rather just say if you want to cut em you pay it all at once. Kinda solves all the issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 If you're going to cut someone you pay the entire contract in that year. Restrictions for newer owners/it can't take up more than like 10% of your cap space etc. would be what i would add to 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 I'll say this I dont like the idea of adding stipulations for "newer owners". First of all, it sends an implied message that veterans are attempting to keep an advantage. It needs to be the same for everyone regardless across the board. I would be no on adding something to restrict newer owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 6 minutes ago, wwhickok said: I'll say this I dont like the idea of adding stipulations for "newer owners". First of all, it sends an implied message that veterans are attempting to keep an advantage. It needs to be the same for everyone regardless across the board. I would be no on adding something to restrict newer owners. The only advantage in this situation is experience in BDL. If you've been in BDL for 3 months or more do whatever you want but this is more or less a "hey are you sure you realize you're stuck with that cap this year?" kinda thing. I get the whole "learning experience thing we more or less have with new owners. But that system kinda sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 No to 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 4 hours ago, bcb1213 said: Id rather just say if you want to cut em you pay it all at once. Kinda solves all the issues I honestly thought this was how it was done anyways 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 15 hours ago, SirA1 said: Topic 8 - Only allow non signed players above $500 salaries with 1 year left on their contracts to be cut to prevent having to keep track of potential dead cap space. Now open for discussion. This is pretty much never done in practice but there isn't currently a rule preventing it. Basically if you've got a guy on a 2+ year deal that isn't locked on your roster you can't just cut them to open up a roster spot and then have to track the dead money into future years. This would not apply to Sub $500 cuts obviously since they are removed from the roster. 14 hours ago, bcb1213 said: Id rather just say if you want to cut em you pay it all at once. Kinda solves all the issues Yes, what bcb said is what I'm proposing. If you're going to cut a multi year player, you pay it all at once. Keeping track of multiple years of dead cap is a nightmare whether the sheet makes it easy or not, you have to look at owner turnover and hard it would be to get someone to take a team that not only needs work, but has ugly cap hits for years going forward. 9 hours ago, PR said: I honestly thought this was how it was done anyways The wording of the rule was bad, leading people (Ted mostly I think) to think we kept track of dead cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts