|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Apr 12, 2019 3:23:17 GMT -5
We need to find a fair way to get everyone back to the same salary cap.
Most teams are normal, some more (me) others less.
We just can't take cap space away from teams that gave up commodities for it or give other teams more space when they got value for the cap space they traded. But we need to get everyone equal again now that cap space can't be traded anymore.
So
Do we let high cap teams reduce a players salary by that number and conversely teams that will get more cap space to have to increase a player's salary?
That player wouldn't dropable for obvious reasons.
The teams that reduce a salary, well if they drop that player, I guess too bad. Should have picked a different player.
OR
Do we give some teams a fake salary adjustment and the teams losing cap space a fake negative cap hit equal to the change? Then we might slowly adjust it +/- by 10% until everyone is equal again.
|
|
|
Post by Riding Solo on Apr 12, 2019 9:27:21 GMT -5
Why don't we just reduce/increase all players salaries by the percentage that that team's salary cap is adjusted. For example, if your salary cap needs to be moved up by 10%, then ALL of your players get an immediate 10% raise
|
|
|
Post by Renz' Rebel Scum on Apr 13, 2019 18:34:07 GMT -5
I like the percentage rise and fall plan to get to all salary caps the same
|
|
AA
Not the Droid I Seek
3%
2013 RADL Champion
Posts: 356
|
Post by AA on Apr 16, 2019 8:08:37 GMT -5
The percentage add/drop makes sense to me as well. The question is when. Pre-draft?
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Apr 19, 2019 2:30:40 GMT -5
Why don't we just reduce/increase all players salaries by the percentage that that team's salary cap is adjusted. For example, if your salary cap needs to be moved up by 10%, then ALL of your players get an immediate 10% raise The SLNH are about 5% under the cap, $138. So if I increase each player on their final roster by 5% it would equal $138? Simultaneously raising their cap number up to $2650 from $2512 a theoretical zero net? Conversely, dropping Deadwood, who is about 7% over, $221. We'd need to do this to the week one roster as doing it now might result in the biggest player increase being cut and netting that team a positive. If someone can confirm this is mathematically sound I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by ewoknroll on Apr 24, 2019 21:18:15 GMT -5
Why don't we just reduce/increase all players salaries by the percentage that that team's salary cap is adjusted. For example, if your salary cap needs to be moved up by 10%, then ALL of your players get an immediate 10% raise The SLNH are about 5% under the cap, $138. So if I increase each player on their final roster by 5% it would equal $138? Simultaneously raising their cap number up to $2650 from $2512 a theoretical zero net? Conversely, dropping Deadwood, who is about 7% over, $221. We'd need to do this to the week one roster as doing it now might result in the biggest player increase being cut and netting that team a positive. If someone can confirm this is mathematically sound I'm fine with it. This all seems logical to me. You might have some slight rounding errors, but should be close to 100% accurate. From a competitive standpoint, I'm not sure I like giving SLNH extra cap room and would prefer to drag out as long as possible...
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Apr 25, 2019 1:55:36 GMT -5
The SLNH are about 5% under the cap, $138. So if I increase each player on their final roster by 5% it would equal $138? Simultaneously raising their cap number up to $2650 from $2512 a theoretical zero net? Conversely, dropping Deadwood, who is about 7% over, $221. We'd need to do this to the week one roster as doing it now might result in the biggest player increase being cut and netting that team a positive. If someone can confirm this is mathematically sound I'm fine with it. This all seems logical to me. You might have some slight rounding errors, but should be close to 100% accurate. From a competitive standpoint, I'm not sure I like giving SLNH extra cap room and would prefer to drag out as long as possible... Agreed, f the SLNH as long as possible. Always a good policy. Should be a net wash though, his player's salaries would increase by the % he is under the cap.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Apr 26, 2019 18:03:03 GMT -5
Glad you guys are looking out for me. And Steve, I only like women, so f'ing me is off the table. Thanks for the offer though. Pete likes redheads way more than I do. Maybe see if he needs a good f'ing.
|
|