|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Feb 21, 2012 4:52:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 10, 2012 13:27:47 GMT -5
Is everyone still in vacation mode or are you baffled by these proposals. Happy to talk about them!
They really are simple...
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 11, 2012 20:53:38 GMT -5
#1 I like changing the salary cap to 7% or 5% for the next three years.
#2 I'm good with the veteran contract proposal ideas as well.
#3 confuses the shit out of me and I get lost every time I try to read it, perhaps I should clear my head and try again in a few days.
#4 I HATE the idea of charging teams a term cap hit I have enough trouble keeping my contracts to a minimum. Does the NFL even have a total term limit?
#5 I totally agree with, I think we should just make this a new rule rather than vote it in, and it makes sense.
#5 Yes to 5 IR slots.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 14:09:31 GMT -5
1. I have no problem with.
2. I don't like this one at all. I think we should get rid of vested veteran extensions altogether and they just become RFA's unless someone uses the franchise tag on them.
3. I think this rule is really a migraine to have to deal with.
4. ABSOLUTELY! I hoarde players and sign and drop them every single week because let's face it, there is a flaw in our current system that allows me to. Having this rule will prevent me from adding and dropping so easily.
5. I'm on the fence about this rule, but it makes total sense, so I'm for it.
6. Nah, I think we have too many players on our rosters as it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2012 8:33:20 GMT -5
1. 7% works for me
2. This rule seems crazy to administer and for me to plan my salary cap expenditures around
3. I just think it's too complicated and not sure what real value/enjoyment it adds to the game
4. Totally in favor of this, there needs to be penalties associated with dropping players
5. I don't understand -charge a 100% cap hit if you drop those players? That's fine. Charge it just to have those players? why?
6. I'm cool upping the IR players
I do have a general problem with looking to change the economics of the game. I've been very plannful in how I've spent my money, with an eye toward certain players in the future, and that included being very frugal and hording money during the IDP auction last year. If the rules change dramatically and my dollars become not as valuable I will be a bit perturbed.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 21, 2012 2:44:59 GMT -5
Please only judge the proposals on the merits of the rule, not the ease in which it can be tracked by me. I'm not proposing something that is going to make my life difficult. You will be provided with every option for every player. You won't need to search and search for the choices.
Second, any of these proposals I feel strongly enough they are important that I would delay their application by a season or two if owners felt that time was needed to adjust their plans. Assuming you like the rule but it flies against your strategy.
1. 7% from 10% cap increase: Nobody has spoken out against this. Looks good.
2. Guaranteed Vet extensions: Responses range from eliminate all together to implement new plan. The response that concerns me the most is the Sabers. I do not want to change something that will cripple or adversely effect a long term plan.
I'll accept that assertion at face value, I would appreciate an example though. You decide if and who to extend going forward. Any current players would not fall under this guaranteed contract, so cutting them this off season would not cost you a hit more then normal. I assume you aren't going to extend a guy with the intent of cutting him. The proposal doesn't change anything about the current rule until you cut a guy YOU decided to extend this year. Then you owe him more than the normal 25% cap hit.
We are certainly not going to eliminate it in the same vein as that would certainly affect owners plans and budgets with only two weeks notice.
3. Franchise tags. You will have all the info you need given to you. You will not be confused. You still have the exact same option you currently have. Except starting this year you cannot keep franchising the same guy, if approved. You can completely ignore options 2 and 3 if you like. They are valuable tools to use but you don't ever have to. Or you might not have players that make sense to use the other options on. You have no math to do or sorting of top scorers or top paid. It's already done.
Addressing a question: It will increase bidding on franchised players. It will allow owners three ways to keep players with an expired contract. It will increase that players salary to a realistic and commensurate level with other similar scoring players at their position. If not immediately then the following year.
4. Term Hit: Some for this some against. I don't even want 4 AND 5. I'd be happy with either or and neither if 1, 2, and 3 are approved. For now or 2013. 4 and 5 kinda do the same thing in different ways. Make it harder for owners to sign everyone under the sun with no pain.
5. People seem to like this one too.
Sabers: Yes 100% charge if you drop them.
I don't believe any of the proposals here make people's money less valuable. I think if you have frugal salaries you are in better shape than most. Especially if the salary cap only goes up 7% but the player raises remains at 10%. Which is the proposal everyone liked.
The cap room people have is going to tighten. So if you have more now you will remain ahead of the game. Same if you have several players making small amounts you are still better off. That gap tightens slower for you.
Do I want to push these through? YES. Will I? Of course not. I just want to make sure they are understood fully and if not liked for accurate reasons. So please ask some specific questions before you dismiss a proposal.
Again if you like one but think it should be pushed out a year that is something I can live with.
|
|
AA
Not the Droid I Seek
3%
2013 RADL Champion
Posts: 356
|
Post by AA on Mar 26, 2012 4:03:10 GMT -5
1. 7% sounds like a good start to me.
2. I'm okay with this. I figure if a team is extending someone on their team, the odds are they are not getting cut anyway, and it makes owners need to think carefully about their contract extensions. If this were to pass though, is there a way to see how such players are affecting the cap? I'd like to be able to see why I'm taking a cap hit so two years after I cut a player and have forgotten about him, I can see what his cap hit is and how many more years the hit will affect me.
3. Definitely like this. It gives us a way to extend a franchised player and brings their salary more in line with what players at that position should be.
4. I'm not crazy about term cap hits. Last year I felt like I couldn't sign IDP guys to more than one or two years as I replaced injured player because of how few year were available.
5. Yes to charging the cap hit to a one year bigger hit.
6. Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 26, 2012 16:22:25 GMT -5
If you click on "salary adjustments" at the bottom of your roster that info would be there. It used to be a huge list of every player you cut and their hit number. It was difficult to edit and add to so I consolidated it to years.
In other words you'll see $15 clears in 2013, $8 Clears in 2015, listed for each team.
I could absolutely leave guaranteed money listed by player. That list shouldn't be too long. As you said EXTENDED VETS aren't likely to be cut often.
|
|