|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 18, 2014 2:18:24 GMT -5
Perhaps we should implement this rule once the player's rookie contract is over. If I pick up a good deal and he is performing well then I would hope I could keep him at that low rate while he is still under the rookie contract. Much like Russell Wilson. Super Bowl Champ but he does not even make 1 million as a 3rd round draft pick. His time will come after next season. As for Jamaal Charles. Yes he is no longer on his rookie contact and yes he got paid and he should also get paid here. I think this is reasonable. To be clear we aren't ending any contracts and no rookies contracts would be ended early for a higher salary no matter how well they might do. Also if you sign a guy several different ways to a $2 6 year deal he won't be holding out if he outplays his contract. Any RFA's aren't subject to this rule either, most likely because they aren't in the top ten in scoring but also because they aren't eligible for extensions. They can be bid on and matched. A 3rd round rookie assigned a $10 contract who, maybe like a Russell Wilson, finishes in the top 10 in scoring as a rookie IS NOT renegotiating his deal. The proposal is for CONTRACT EXTENSIONS. Which as we know only happen to 4 year veterans who have 1 year left on their deals. My latest thinking is a 25/10/25 or 32 format. Meaning a player who meets ALL the following criteria would fall into this category. 1. Makes $25 or less 2. Finished the previous year in top 10 scoring for position 3. Has been in the league 4 years 4. Has 1 year left on contract Would only accept a contract extension offer making him paid the average 25 or 32 at his position. I'm fine with either. Another thing, maybe a Jamaal Charles type player is injured or has a slightly off year and finishes at 12th in RB scoring. You get lucky and can extend him at the normal 25% I appreciate everyone seems to agree with the logic of the proposal and the debate is elsewhere. There would be inequities, but realistically if you feel like you have all these players who you signed on the cheap are going to be top 10 scorers every year...you probably have the ability to overcome any slight set backs you suffer. Sliding scales and the like make perfect sense but would be awful to track and I can't do that. I'd like to just pull the band-aid off but I am willing to ease the pain somehow to get a deal done. We can vote it in for 2015 or we could allow each team to give up 2 or 3 raises to players they choose IF THEY HAVE CAP SPACE to bring these "value players" up to $26 and therefore not in the 25/25/10 category, this year and one time only. You couldn't extend their contract unless they were at 1 year remaining but. Basically you might spend $15 now to avoid spending $150 next year.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 18, 2014 8:24:48 GMT -5
On the tax free drop to 1 player. I think it's fine just where it is at 2. If we do go to one, I concur with someone (can't find at moment) who says we should institute it next year, 2015, because I'm sure several teams were counting on x2 Tax Free drops this year.
It's so nice to see everyone worries about the future of my team. Maybe we could hold a pot luck or bake sale with the proceeds going to my under privileged players and their families.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 20, 2014 9:02:27 GMT -5
Just a thought.... and I've been up for nearly 40 hrs so maybe not a good one. What if we keep 2 TAX FREE drops, and we are allowed to trade 1 or both of them when trading. (anyone? anyone???)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 9:05:36 GMT -5
Just a thought.... and I've been up for nearly 40 hrs so maybe not a good one. What if we keep 2 TAX FREE drops, and we are allowed to trade 1 or both of them when trading. (anyone? anyone???) I'd be more interested if we drop it to 1 than make them a tradeable asset.
|
|
|
Post by ewoknroll on Mar 21, 2014 8:34:09 GMT -5
I'd like to just pull the band-aid off but I am willing to ease the pain somehow to get a deal done. We can vote it in for 2015 or we could allow each team to give up 2 or 3 raises to players they choose IF THEY HAVE CAP SPACE to bring these "value players" up to $26 and therefore not in the 25/25/10 category, this year and one time only. You couldn't extend their contract unless they were at 1 year remaining but. Basically you might spend $15 now to avoid spending $150 next year. Agree with this. Here are a couple of thoughts to make it even more fair / realistic: - Unlimited raises -- just going through my roster, I'd likely give a raise to about 6-10 of my players. I think the normal roster would be fine with 2-3 raises, but mine needs more based on how I've constructed my team last year. Adding a few-day window of unlimited raises would set us all even.
- Top 10 chosen by dynasty value rather than last year's fantasy performance -- Last year, Martellus Bennett had a top 10 full-year fantasy finish, but Gronk did not. Using last-years rules, the owner of Bennett would need to give him a raise, but the owner of Gronk gets lucky thanks to Gronk's injury. This would never happen in the real world due to contracts being signed based on future expectations rather than prior results. I understand that the risk is equal for all owners, but a more realistic way of approaching raises may be to use dynasty rankings rather than last year's performance.
If a period of unlimited raises is given, I'm all on board. Either way, I can't wait to get started.
|
|
|
Post by ewoknroll on Mar 21, 2014 8:38:27 GMT -5
Just a thought.... and I've been up for nearly 40 hrs so maybe not a good one. What if we keep 2 TAX FREE drops, and we are allowed to trade 1 or both of them when trading. (anyone? anyone???) I think this is a cool idea, but...can we already do this today? For example, I have more tax free waivers than I need this year -- I could work out a trade with you to take on your deadweight and cut the player on my side if you give me something in return. What I'm not sure about is if we could do a straight up trade of a player + an asset for nothing, but we could do a player + an asset for a throw away on my end. And this isn't just an example. If you need an extra free cut, reach out to me -- I'm open to using one of mine on one of your players if I get something in return.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 22:40:30 GMT -5
Perhaps we should implement this rule once the player's rookie contract is over. If I pick up a good deal and he is performing well then I would hope I could keep him at that low rate while he is still under the rookie contract. Much like Russell Wilson. Super Bowl Champ but he does not even make 1 million as a 3rd round draft pick. His time will come after next season. As for Jamaal Charles. Yes he is no longer on his rookie contact and yes he got paid and he should also get paid here. I think this is reasonable. Jamaal Charles loves the team he's on. He will never ask for the big money cause he's been grandfathered in suckas!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 22:47:04 GMT -5
I'd like to just pull the band-aid off but I am willing to ease the pain somehow to get a deal done. Just pull the band-aid off. I think delaying it will just drag things out.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 24, 2014 23:54:38 GMT -5
Pugs, you're reading my original post correctly? Perhaps not the true meaning of grandfathered. I did say for the remaining of the current contract. Charles, would certainly ask for a big raise if offered an extension in 3 years.
You'd likely be in favor of the "give them a raise now to get him to the $25 threshold" proposal
So when I said grandfathered I was trying to stress no players under contract were going to get bumped up automatically or more so, instantly.
You quoted it a couple times so I assume you do...
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 25, 2014 2:33:59 GMT -5
We also need to address "locked" players somehow but there is time for that in the off season...
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 25, 2014 18:28:58 GMT -5
I'm still formulating a proposal for the last big vote but before I do I want to run some numbers to see how it might shake out. Look for something late tonight or tomorrow.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 25, 2014 22:00:29 GMT -5
I'm still formulating a proposal for the last big vote but before I do I want to run some numbers to see how it might shake out. Look for something late tonight or tomorrow. So your saying the deathstar will be fully operational then?
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 26, 2014 5:13:16 GMT -5
When posting this morning an error occurred and I will need to redo a lot of work.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 26, 2014 20:01:58 GMT -5
When posting this morning an error occurred and I will need to redo a lot of work. So the death star is still not fully operational?
|
|