PR Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Jlash said: I think he's asking if you're 3 upping a guy for one year or trying to base a brand new long term 3 up off a guy whose contract is about to be up IRL. If he doesn't have a current contract we are restricted by contract committee from actually creating a contract. Sometimes that happens during the season following FA so you can't use the past years 3UP because no contract was created, but sometimes they are pushed further out to the following season so you miss out on the previous years 3Ups. This comes into play when players are already on 1 year BDL deals (not the ones that automatically turn into the extension) So you can't 3Up the guy during that offseason, can't 3up during sesson if this rule goes into play to reflect all the years of the current contract and then when the following season comes about there is one less year of salary to average out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 I'm going to vote no on props 1 and 2. Those rules were implemented to prevent loopholes. And it worked as I don't believe that we had loopholes in 3ups the last two years. More simplicity can be good but if we don't have any replacement for the pheltz rule I think it will only lead to contract disputes. And prop 1 and prop 2 work together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 On 7/30/2019 at 4:05 PM, SirA1 said: Topic 1 Vote Count - Return 3 Ups to the off season. Yes (7) - Whicker, JLash, Bcb1213, Hockey, RuskieTitan, SirA1, wwhickock No (4) - Pheltz, MD4L, XMad, Ted Lavie Abstain (1) - PR Updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) On 7/30/2019 at 7:52 PM, SirA1 said: Topic 2 - Remove they Pheltz Rule. Yes (7) - WWhickok, Whicker, SirA, Counselor, JLash, Hockey, RuskieTitan No (1) - TedLavie Topic 4 - Remove this language as it really doesn’t apply anymore as 3 ups will be pretty standard after being based off of the Avg Salary of a players contract and also all happening at the same time of the year. Players who are submitted to the contract committee as 3 Ups are not included in the free agent pool. However, if the contract committee and the team have not agreed on a 3 Up contract by the start of Shark Tank, then that player will be considered eligible for bidding in the Shark Tank Yes (6) - SirA, WWhickok, TedLavie, Hockey, Counselor, Whicker No (0) - Updated Edited August 1, 2019 by SirA1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 6 hours 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. Please take a look at the Google Doc for the topics. I have an example of what things will look like if everything passes at the bottom. I don't think that a complete discard of everything with a completely new replacement would fly for those super resistant to change like most of the old guard is. 5 hours 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 We're getting there but I believe it has to be done in steps line by line in this fashion. You've got the owners like PR who want the cheapest contracts possible even if they are in theory rather than based off of a current contract. We've jumped the Salary Cap massively and created more team friendly 3 Ups at 75% that people agree work. Those things in concert make this a perfect time to revamp the current system by removing older language that doesn't really apply any more like Topic 4 to removing rules like the Pheltz Rule that basically is the only rule in the BDL that makes you have to back pay a player if you ended up being lucky to having drafted a good player at a cheap BDL rate. Do we really need a rule like that if it only comes up every few years and in reality makes only a few owners butt hurt because they weren't away of it. It's pretty much been used as a gotcha moment every time it has been put into effect. Why even have to worry about the difference of $1K/yr here or there with the current system we have in place? It's just unnecessary complication for the sake of complication and isn't doing anything but penalizing an owner because it's been proiven that the players don't get signed and then go to FA and make even less than what the owner was originally going to 3 up them for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 hours ago, TedLavie said: I'm going to vote no on props 1 and 2. Those rules were implemented to prevent loopholes. And it worked as I don't believe that we had loopholes in 3ups the last two years. More simplicity can be good but if we don't have any replacement for the pheltz rule I think it will only lead to contract disputes. And prop 1 and prop 2 work together If you don't think certain people freaked out at the Danielle Hunter deal because I was able to add an extra year and get him at a cheaper rate even though I was taking an extra $8K in cap hit last year and called it completely unfair, I'm not sure if you were paying attention. There doesn't need to be a replacement for the Pheltz rule. It is the only rule that hurts the league as a whole because of making you pay reparations for rookies only. Why single out just a small percentage of players for that as we voted a long time ago to remove any sort of back pay. It was instituted as the best of a bunch of worse options at the time because of knee jerk reaction to I believe the Gronk contract because everyone thought it was too cheap. That was also back when we were doing things subjectively and giving AB contract like $7K/yr. We've completely gone away from using anything but Spotrac average to base contract off of and that should be it going forward that's the reason for little to no loopholes not something like year round 3 ups and the Pheltz rule. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 5 hours ago, PR said: If he doesn't have a current contract we are restricted by contract committee from actually creating a contract. Sometimes that happens during the season following FA so you can't use the past years 3UP because no contract was created, but sometimes they are pushed further out to the following season so you miss out on the previous years 3Ups. This comes into play when players are already on 1 year BDL deals (not the ones that automatically turn into the extension) So you can't 3Up the guy during that offseason, can't 3up during sesson if this rule goes into play to reflect all the years of the current contract and then when the following season comes about there is one less year of salary to average out. We haven't done that in literally about 4 years. We don't make any BDL only contract offers anymore except in RFA and FA now. There are no made up numbers it's all based off of Spotrac avg. The extra cap space and deeper discount is what is compensating you for whatever small savings you are trying to game out of the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted July 31, 2019 Author Share Posted July 31, 2019 6 hours 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. Are you trying to trade for Wentz specifically and is that why you want a definitive answer? Under current rules if Wentz was 3 upped next offseason (2020) this is how I would see it. 5 year deal $128K+$22K = $30K/yr *.75 = $22,5K/yr for 5 years If the contract was allowed to run out over the next two years in 2021 it would look like this. 4 year deal $128K+$22K = $37.5K/yr*.75 = $28.125/yr for 4 years. Basically the Pheltz rule doesn't allow you to play out the current contract without exacting a penalty for not 3 upping the player ASAP. What it should be once we remove this rule and implement the UFA portion of the change. in 2021 4 year deal $128K = $32K*.75 = $24K/yr for 4 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I'm YES to remove the Pheltz rule. No more back pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Jlash said: I'm YES to remove the Pheltz rule. No more back pay. I still don't fully understand it but I agree that there's no reason an owner should be forced to backpay a player. Yes to removing the Pheltz rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 12 hours ago, SirA1 said: Are you trying to trade for Wentz specifically and is that why you want a definitive answer? Under current rules if Wentz was 3 upped next offseason (2020) this is how I would see it. 5 year deal $128K+$22K = $30K/yr *.75 = $22,5K/yr for 5 years If the contract was allowed to run out over the next two years in 2021 it would look like this. 4 year deal $128K+$22K = $37.5K/yr*.75 = $28.125/yr for 4 years. Basically the Pheltz rule doesn't allow you to play out the current contract without exacting a penalty for not 3 upping the player ASAP. What it should be once we remove this rule and implement the UFA portion of the change. in 2021 4 year deal $128K = $32K*.75 = $24K/yr for 4 years. No he was the only player I knew off the top of my head who got an extension before his current deal ran out. I'm assuming the bolded above is the "Pheltz rule" so yes...get rid of that nonsense that makes you pay for his 5th year option even though he's in his 6th year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 14 hours ago, SirA1 said: If you don't think certain people freaked out at the Danielle Hunter deal because I was able to add an extra year and get him at a cheaper rate even though I was taking an extra $8K in cap hit last year and called it completely unfair, I'm not sure if you were paying attention. I'll fully admit I was someone who complained about the Hunter deal (well after it was all finalized), mostly because I didn't understand the fact that you could use a 2017 or 2018 3up in 2018*. *years may be off but subject matter is still the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Hockey5djh said: I still don't fully understand it but I agree that there's no reason an owner should be forced to backpay a player. Yes to removing the Pheltz rule. I would agree with this statement, assuming it is true. Vote Yes to remove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 On 7/28/2019 at 9:22 PM, Whicker said: Yes to all I am reading. I just agree with SirA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 I'm alive. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts