RuskieTitan Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 17 hours ago, Jlash said: Well. Brandon Brooks can't bring his torn achilles home and give his wife a torn achilles, then give that to her parents, and one of them dies from that torn achilles. Suspensions don't do that either. Those things are consequences of a players decision to get on the field and the team assumes that risk with them. We sign players, we assume that risk with them as well. This is a situation more unique than any I can remember where teams are letting players decide to not risk the health and lives of not only themselves, but their family members, to the point where they aren't being punished, get a little bonus for deciding not to play, and their contract picks up right back where it left the previous year when this is all hopefully done. To me, that's the difference. Whether a 5 year old would get that or not, I don't know. I understand the difference in reality, but where I'm trying to understand the difference is in the context of this league, and the rules we have governing it. Are we proposing their salaries get adjusted to what the NFL is paying out if they opt-out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Basically, an example from my team is Myles Garrett deciding to try and put Mason Rudolph's helmet back on, resulting in an indefinite suspension. In this context, he would have been unavailable for the remainder of the year for me, which (if I'd made the playoffs) would have been a huge loss. There was nothing I could control with regards to Garrett's choice on the field, and the resulting situation. Likewise, an owner signs a player to a large contract, and then this player decides to opt-out of the 2020 NFL season. Neither decision is impacted by the owner; both players are unavailable, yet remain on the roster. Why would one scenario allow for removing cap impact vs the other requiring the cap hit to continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 18 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said: Basically, an example from my team is Myles Garrett deciding to try and put Mason Rudolph's helmet back on, resulting in an indefinite suspension. In this context, he would have been unavailable for the remainder of the year for me, which (if I'd made the playoffs) would have been a huge loss. There was nothing I could control with regards to Garrett's choice on the field, and the resulting situation. Likewise, an owner signs a player to a large contract, and then this player decides to opt-out of the 2020 NFL season. Neither decision is impacted by the owner; both players are unavailable, yet remain on the roster. Why would one scenario allow for removing cap impact vs the other requiring the cap hit to continue? This is why we are discussing Basically the options are pay all, pay half, pay a random min Once we get that part we can go to year accrual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said: Basically, an example from my team is Myles Garrett deciding to try and put Mason Rudolph's helmet back on, resulting in an indefinite suspension. In this context, he would have been unavailable for the remainder of the year for me, which (if I'd made the playoffs) would have been a huge loss. There was nothing I could control with regards to Garrett's choice on the field, and the resulting situation. Likewise, an owner signs a player to a large contract, and then this player decides to opt-out of the 2020 NFL season. Neither decision is impacted by the owner; both players are unavailable, yet remain on the roster. Why would one scenario allow for removing cap impact vs the other requiring the cap hit to continue? I view it more like Gronk, Witten and Lynch. They all left for a year, they returned and the team still retained their rights in the NFL. A player returns to the previously set contract from prior to when they left. In the NFL right now they just push that contract out one additional year and give them a 150 or 350 stipend. So I think the 150-350 stipend is adequate here. It doesn't penalize, the player returns to the contract the following year and all is fair. Signing bonuses vary. The majority of players opting out right now do not have signing bonuses so saying let's cut it in half because the 2 or 3 players that do doesn't really make sense. Now if more players do choose that path from an actual signing bonus pool of players then I would consider doing the 50% Edited July 31, 2020 by PR 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 2 hours ago, RuskieTitan said: Basically, an example from my team is Myles Garrett deciding to try and put Mason Rudolph's helmet back on, resulting in an indefinite suspension. In this context, he would have been unavailable for the remainder of the year for me, which (if I'd made the playoffs) would have been a huge loss. There was nothing I could control with regards to Garrett's choice on the field, and the resulting situation. Likewise, an owner signs a player to a large contract, and then this player decides to opt-out of the 2020 NFL season. Neither decision is impacted by the owner; both players are unavailable, yet remain on the roster. Why would one scenario allow for removing cap impact vs the other requiring the cap hit to continue? Because it’s punish culture. Punishing you for having a guy on your team who would do such awful things (sarcasm) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 8 hours ago, bcb1213 said: I mean worldwide pandemic rule would pretty much close the can of worms to be fair I think a rule needs to be more broad than pandemic and be in regards to 'special/unique circumstances in the future to cover bases should anything of the sort ever happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 Heree s the only thing that we really need to point out logically about the opt outs. We have made it a point to emulate exactly the contracts that players have in real life outside of free agentcy, where things wouldve been altered by knowing about opt outs. In the NFL when a player opts out that contract is going to toll they are not going to be paid for this season so why would we do it any different here? Enough said. Contracts should toll and carry a $0 2020 cap hit to BDL Teams and not count againsy the roster limit. Im not making the rules, im reminding you of thrm. / argument *mic dropped* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 1 hour ago, wwhickok said: Heree s the only thing that we really need to point out logically about the opt outs. We have made it a point to emulate exactly the contracts that players have in real life outside of free agentcy, where things wouldve been altered by knowing about opt outs. In the NFL when a player opts out that contract is going to toll they are not going to be paid for this season so why would we do it any different here? Enough said. Contracts should toll and carry a $0 2020 cap hit to BDL Teams and not count againsy the roster limit. Im not making the rules, im reminding you of thrm. / argument *mic dropped* Our draft salaries don’t emulate the nfl at all. Just wanted to point that out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 Just mirror what the NFL is doing, its the simplest and fairest solution. Takes each BDL owner's bias out of the equation. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Counselor said: Our draft salaries don’t emulate the nfl at all. Just wanted to point that out. Okay so 1 exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 54 minutes ago, wwhickok said: Okay so 1 exception. Shark tank you can offer one year deals at whatever value you want Waiver claims value much different than nfl contracts We can randomly cut three dudes every year without contractual obligations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 2 hours ago, pheltzbahr said: Just mirror what the NFL is doing, its the simplest and fairest solution. Takes each BDL owner's bias out of the equation. As an add on to this, I think the owner should have the right to refuse the tolling and suck up the cap hit for this year as an option. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 17 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: Shark tank you can offer one year deals at whatever value you want Waiver claims value much different than nfl contracts We can randomly cut three dudes every year without contractual obligations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said: As an add on to this, I think the owner should have the right to refuse the tolling and suck up the cap hit for this year as an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 1, 2020 Share Posted August 1, 2020 12 hours ago, pheltzbahr said: Just mirror what the NFL is doing, its the simplest and fairest solution. Takes each BDL owner's bias out of the equation. 9 hours ago, pheltzbahr said: As an add on to this, I think the owner should have the right to refuse the tolling and suck up the cap hit for this year as an option. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts