SirA1 Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) I can give a more detailed explanation later tonight Hockey but basically if Wents played out his current BDL contract when he was due to sign in 2 years you couldn't just use the extension you would have to add back in the 5th year and make up that movey as well spread out over only 4 years instead of 5. And only because he's on a rookie deal. If he was a regular FA then you wouldn't have to par the reparations. If you signed him next offseason then you would be able to use the 5 years to divide the total contract by but have to pay a lot more next year. Edited July 31, 2019 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Jlash said: How about we just keep trying to work on what we're currently working on before changing discussions. A wise man once said never half *** two things, whole *** one thing. It was a joke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 6 hours ago, TedLavie said: @pheltzbahrwhy should we keep the pheltz rule and year round 3ups? Yes to prop 4 I like the flexibilty of year round 3 ups to manage my cap. I dont see the point of pheltz rule repeal, it probably opens up a scenario where we dont know how to treat certain contracts, but thats purely speculation/scepticism on my part. Personally, I think if we are reforming 3 Ups, we should ditch all the current language and re write the entire thing to cover all potential scenarios, rather than take away parts without replacing them with other language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, SirA1 said: I can give a more detailed explanation later tonight Hockey but basically if Wents played out his current BDL contract when he was due to sign in 2 years you couldn't just use the extension you would have to add back in the 5th year and make up that movey as well spread out over only 4 years instead of 5. And only because he's on a rookie deal. If he was a regular FA then you wouldn't have to par the reparations. If you signed him next offseason then you would be able to use the 5 years to divide the total contract by but have to pay a lot more next year. I dont think this actually right under the current rules, but I don't think it matters. Lets just figure out what its going to be going forward. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I think the easiest way to start is to use 3 ups if you we are not doing it year round is to use it on "players not currently under BDL contract, using 75% of the stated average per year contract on Spotrac." Building off that would cover every contract outside of holdouts or players that are current FAs IRL. $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Jlash said: How about we just keep trying to work on what we're currently working on before changing discussions. A wise man once said never half *** two things, whole *** one thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 hour ago, SirA1 said: I can give a more detailed explanation later tonight Hockey but basically if Wents played out his current BDL contract when he was due to sign in 2 years you couldn't just use the extension you would have to add back in the 5th year and make up that movey as well spread out over only 4 years instead of 5. And only because he's on a rookie deal. If he was a regular FA then you wouldn't have to par the reparations. If you signed him next offseason then you would be able to use the 5 years to divide the total contract by but have to pay a lot more next year. Well....lets start with the simple question. Is this considered the Pheltz rule? Kinda? Either way I think we should have some language in the rules documenting how this is handled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said: I think the easiest way to start is to use 3 ups if you we are not doing it year round is to use it on "players not currently under BDL contract, using 75% of the stated average per year contract on Spotrac." Building off that would cover every contract outside of holdouts or players that are current FAs IRL. $.02 Doesn't work in the case of Wentz. Spotrac's average is just based on the last contract signed, not anything previously signed but still applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 34 minutes ago, Counselor said: It was a joke For the record I'm actually for removing 3 ups eventually, seeing as how they're the root source of almost all of our issues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 minutes ago, Hockey5djh said: Well....lets start with the simple question. Is this considered the Pheltz rule? Kinda? Either way I think we should have some language in the rules documenting how this is handled. You're going down a rabbit hole, we don't want to go down. Again, lets figure out what we want it to be rather than what we think it is currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 1 minute ago, Hockey5djh said: Doesn't work in the case of Wentz. Spotrac's average is just based on the last contract signed, not anything previously signed but still applicable. Wentz is currently under BDL contract, so yes, I can't 3 up him right now under that method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 Just now, pheltzbahr said: You're going down a rabbit hole, we don't want to go down. Again, lets figure out what we want it to be rather than what we think it is currently. I'm with ya on the whole "lets move forward" mindset, the problem is that i'm currently being tasked to vote on what we currently have. I'd like to understand what we have before voting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jlash said: For the record I'm actually for removing 3 ups eventually, seeing as how they're the root source of almost all of our issues. One **** at a time bro. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 35 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said: I like the flexibilty of year round 3 ups to manage my cap. I dont see the point of pheltz rule repeal, it probably opens up a scenario where we dont know how to treat certain contracts, but thats purely speculation/scepticism on my part. Personally, I think if we are reforming 3 Ups, we should ditch all the current language and re write the entire thing to cover all potential scenarios, rather than take away parts without replacing them with other language. You know the current language was written exactly to cover all possible scenarios? And I don't recall a recent instance where it didn't actually. @Jlash @SirA1 can you give me concrete example in the last year where one of the current 3up rules were not applicable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TedLavie said: You know the current language was written exactly to cover all possible scenarios? And I don't recall a recent instance where it didn't actually. @Jlash @SirA1 can you give me concrete example in the last year where one of the current 3up rules were not applicable? There was a question this past year about "Upcoming Free Agent." That comes to mind. Edit: And I'm pretty certain we just added language along the way to close loopholes. I think we see all the loopholes with our expereinece over the years. We could make it very simple as above. Edited July 31, 2019 by pheltzbahr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts