|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Feb 21, 2012 4:22:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 13:54:58 GMT -5
Has there been any feedback on these new proposals?
An alternative that I thought of to guaranteed veteran contract extensions is to not allow extensions at all. Right now, we allow vested veterans to be extended right before their final season begins. If we got rid of that, it would make more players available; however, the current owner should still have the first option to keep them, by simply making the expired contract players become Restricted Free Agents (RFA), where anyone can bid on them, and the owner can choose to match or not match the RFA offer.
I do think we should tighten up the screws a bit, but there is a downside. The more restrictive things become, the less activity there is in the league each week. If you made poor choices with guaranteed vet contracts, you become LOCKED INTO YOUR TEAM. You have less choices and therefore become withdrawn from the league because there is less and less that you can do to resolve the matter. It's difficult to trade large salaried players. Just my 2 cents.
I think getting rid of player extensions is the way to go. I realize that it's not what the NFL does, but doing all this math complicates the process. Let's face it. No one wants to have to cut Peyton Manning.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 16, 2012 1:27:35 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know how to do the box quote thing you guys do, but I agree with the Pugs, on the below statement. I like the idea of opening up RFA bids to the whole league, but owning team gets right to match with say a 20% pay raise to the matched offer. Adding to this I think that maybe a team gets 2-3 Franchise tags instead of 1. I think that would as pugs said, make more players available while still giving a team the ability to keep it's stars.
"An alternative that I thought of to guaranteed veteran contract extensions is to not allow extensions at all. Right now, we allow vested veterans to be extended right before their final season begins. If we got rid of that, it would make more players available; however, the current owner should still have the first option to keep them, by simply making the expired contract players become Restricted Free Agents (RFA), where anyone can bid on them, and the owner can choose to match or not match the RFA offer."
|
|
AA
Not the Droid I Seek
3%
2013 RADL Champion
Posts: 356
|
Post by AA on May 28, 2012 15:52:15 GMT -5
I'm wondering if the IDP players should have a different draft scale. Currently IDP players drafted in the first round will be making 3 or 4you times as much money in thier rookie year as veterans at the same position. The NFL varies draft salary by position. I'm thinking we should do the same.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on May 28, 2012 16:19:54 GMT -5
I don't think that is true. I could be wrong of course but I believe there is a rookie cap in place but the picks are slotted by position drafted. Not player positions...
I'd need to see the link you have...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 17:25:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on May 28, 2012 17:37:47 GMT -5
Hmmm, my office staff says that isn't happening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 18:05:58 GMT -5
So the 1st to 4th year are slotted and the 5th year option is based on the avg. at position. Thanks for the link. However, I feel the rookie pay scale slotting we have is fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 19:14:46 GMT -5
I agree, if you draft a IDP early, that's your call, I realized I'd be potentially over paying market for Barron, but I believe that market will continue to correct itself as we get more saavy in that space.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on May 29, 2012 2:54:30 GMT -5
So what did we decide on these two issues? Or are we still deciding?
4. Charge teams a TERM cap hit for waiving a player once the season starts. 1 year per waived player.
5. Charge teams a 100% cap hit for players making $20 and under.
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on May 29, 2012 7:11:59 GMT -5
This is the 1st time I've read this completely. So 1st I'd like to say thanks to the commish for the shout out for the Menace franchise. I put a lot of time in rebuilding this team much like Brock did this season. But that's the kind of commitment it takes if you expect to be successful in this league. What we did this season seemed to work. I didn't Franchise Mike Wallace so I lost him to Flash Sabers. There was a reason I didn't but I'll keep that to myself. At any rate my team with 125.00 remaining for the year is well in line with what I think the Commissioner is trying accomplish. In the end those who are trying to win the league will make the trades to make that happen. Trades are expensive! Not only do you have to pay more for the players in the top spots but you also lose some picks. I gave up a lot to lock down TB and Oak backfield Plus adding Forte. Why because the window is open for a Phantom Menace victory this season. So with that said if you're actually trying to win you're going to spend that cap space to make that happen.
Okay I'm still on vacation just wanted to check and see what the league is doing. So that's my 2 cents for what it's worth
Menace
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2012 8:42:36 GMT -5
So what did we decide on these two issues? Or are we still deciding? 4. Charge teams a TERM cap hit for waiving a player once the season starts. 1 year per waived player. 5. Charge teams a 100% cap hit for players making $20 and under. I think because 1,2 & 3 passed proposals 4 & 5 dropped.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on May 29, 2012 9:10:59 GMT -5
I'll address this tonight. Basically what ps and pm said. With some other stuff
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on May 31, 2012 0:31:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know how to do the box quote thing you guys do, but I agree with the Pugs, on the below statement. I like the idea of opening up RFA bids to the whole league, but owning team gets right to match with say a 20% pay raise to the matched offer. Adding to this I think that maybe a team gets 2-3 Franchise tags instead of 1. I think that would as pugs said, make more players available while still giving a team the ability to keep it's stars. "An alternative that I thought of to guaranteed veteran contract extensions is to not allow extensions at all. Right now, we allow vested veterans to be extended right before their final season begins. If we got rid of that, it would make more players available; however, the current owner should still have the first option to keep them, by simply making the expired contract players become Restricted Free Agents (RFA), where anyone can bid on them, and the owner can choose to match or not match the RFA offer." Look in the upper right hand conner of any post. There is a word there that says' "quote" Just hit that and it will create a quote link that you can type under like you see I just did. Not trying to put you on blast just trying to present a real example with explanation
|
|