Hockey5djh Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 16 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. 32 minutes ago, Jlash said: 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. The wording of the rule was bad, leading people (Ted mostly I think) to think we kept track of dead cap. @SirA1 I would re-word proposal 8 a bit and then ask everyone to re-vote because I agree with what @Jlash is proposing (the bolded) but the way the proposal is worded I would probably vote no how the proposal is currently stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, Hockey5djh said: @SirA1 I would re-word proposal 8 a bit and then ask everyone to re-vote because I agree with what @Jlash is proposing (the bolded) but the way the proposal is worded I would probably vote no how the proposal is currently stated. Another option that would solve this is to make double and triple downs an all year and immediate transaction because essentially that would be the same thing and we could eliminate the other rule altogether. Edited August 7, 2019 by Hockey5djh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Hockey5djh said: Another option that would solve this is to make double and triple downs an all year and immediate transaction because essentially that would be the same thing and we could eliminate the other rule altogether. You can use double and triple downs whenever and the cap ramifications are immediate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 I'm likely just to allow Topic 8 to die and have us come up with a better version at the next meeting. I really think it's something the rules committee could arbitrate if things got out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 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 (9) - Whicker, Wwhickok, SirA, JLash, RuskieTitan, PR SwoleXmad, Hockey, Bcb No (3) - Ragnarok, MD4L, TedLavie @pheltzbahr @Counselor @WFLukic @bcb1213 Please someone either push this over the top or all vote no and lets try and wrap these meetings up. Thanks Edited August 7, 2019 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 28 minutes ago, SirA1 said: I'm likely just to allow Topic 8 to die and have us come up with a better version at the next meeting. I really think it's something the rules committee could arbitrate if things got out of hand. I mean we're still in the meetings. I don't think anyone has an issue with pay it all at once. Let's just put it as number nine and I think it'll pass quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 27 minutes ago, SirA1 said: @pheltzbahr @Counselor @WFLukic @bcb1213 Please someone either push this over the top or all vote no and lets try and wrap these meetings up. Thanks Sure. I'll vote yes. Idc either way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted August 7, 2019 Author Share Posted August 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: I mean we're still in the meetings. I don't think anyone has an issue with pay it all at once. Let's just put it as number nine and I think it'll pass quickly Come up with the phrasing and I'll put it up for discussion. Topic 8 wasn't mine so I was trying to convey what the intent was and it wasn't taken kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 When releasing a player(non 3 down/fa/sub 500 cut) , the team must pay the total duration of the contract money amount immediately 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 6 hours ago, Hockey5djh said: @SirA1 I would re-word proposal 8 a bit and then ask everyone to re-vote because I agree with what @Jlash is proposing (the bolded) but the way the proposal is worded I would probably vote no how the proposal is currently stated. I agree with this. If it is reworded to reflect what Jlash intended it to propose I will change my vote to yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 3 hours ago, SirA1 said: Come up with the phrasing and I'll put it up for discussion. Topic 8 wasn't mine so I was trying to convey what the intent was and it wasn't taken kindly. Who didn't take it kindly? I'm glad you even brought it up, after our initial messages you didn't seemed concerned about it, so I didn't even think id see it. I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 3 hours ago, bcb1213 said: When releasing a player(non 3 down/fa/sub 500 cut) , the team must pay the total duration of the contract money amount immediately Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 3 hours ago, bcb1213 said: When releasing a player(non 3 down/fa/sub 500 cut) , the team must pay the total duration of the contract money amount immediately I vote yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted August 8, 2019 Author Share Posted August 8, 2019 Topic 8 When releasing a player(non 3 down/fa/sub 500 cut) , the team must pay the total duration of the contract money amount immediately . Voting is now open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFLukic Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Lean towards no since it would induce tanking as you can get rid of a ton of bad contracts in one year using up all your space. I would propose some mechanism kind of like real life where if you had a guy on a two year deal, you could cut him and pay the full amount this year and 50% the next year as a penalty. Or 3 years could be 100% year one, 66% year two and 33% year 3 etc. Anyway I vote NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts