PR Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, WFLukic said: 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 We are trying to stay away from dead money. Not make it a feature. I vote yes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Lukic gets the "Not getting the point" award. Yes to 8. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Yes to 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 11 hours ago, SirA1 said: 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. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) No Edited August 8, 2019 by Whicker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 44 minutes ago, Whicker said: No Oooooo changing up the "yes to all" thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Big no for me for what Lukic has said Current rule is fine. Sure we would keep track of cap space but that's not a big deal. And nobody ever does that anyway because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Yes to 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD4L Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 45 minutes ago, TedLavie said: Big no for me for what Lukic has said Current rule is fine. Sure we would keep track of cap space but that's not a big deal. And nobody ever does that anyway because of it. Yup. I actually did cut people last year and for that reason avoided doing so to anyone who had over a year remaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD4L Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 Glad this was brought up. Feel good about a decision either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, TedLavie said: Big no for me for what Lukic has said Current rule is fine. Sure we would keep track of cap space but that's not a big deal. And nobody ever does that anyway because of it. Current rule is unclear, and we never agreed to have dead cap carry over. I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks having dead cap tracked and carried over is a good idea for a league who has had issues getting in its own way with complicating things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 46 minutes ago, MD4L said: Glad this was brought up. Feel good about a decision either way. You didn't vote though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 14 hours ago, WFLukic said: 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. So you think having less of a penalty than the proposed rule, spread out over a longer period of time is somehow more conducive to keeping people honest in regards to roster management? Your idea is the opposite of the first part of your post. If someone wants to cut a contract to open a roster spot, you should've have the foresight to save up cap space to make that move. The player still gets his full money. By not clearing up the current rule and thus deciding to carry over dead cap (and at a discount by your idea) we're not only complicating things, but also giving people an easier way out of an otherwise uncuttable roster spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 28 minutes ago, Jlash said: Current rule is unclear, and we never agreed to have dead cap carry over. I honestly don't understand how anyone thinks having dead cap tracked and carried over is a good idea for a league who has had issues getting in its own way with complicating things. It's actually not a hard thing to do. You just make dead money Martinez or whatever the guys name is in the sheets. But it's something I'd rather we not start doing for simplicity sakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 I prefer the status quo where this is not a viable tool and is hardly ever used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts