|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 4, 2014 4:08:08 GMT -5
I have gone through (going through) the ideas mentioned last season and grouping them in this thread. From here a bit of discussion and some likely additions, then a formal vote once we have a cohesive idea.
Taxi Squad Claims:
1. One taxi squad claim per day per team. This would eliminate the emails from multiple teams listing similar players in no particular order.
2. Limit teams to 1 open claim at a time.
3. I think we need an end date for TS claims and I think week 11, 12, or 13 would be fine.
I think the first one would be good enough and eliminate some minor book keeping issues.
Contract Extensions:
1. I think players extended from this year forward should not be eligible for a tax free cut for 4 years. Remember contract extensions are for 4-6 years and still if you do cut them you're still only looking at a 25% cap hit.
Yearly Cap Increase:
1. I think we should vote to continue the 7% cap increase while contracts increase by the current 10%. I'd say a 3 year extension on this policy is good.
We've done this for 2 years now and I think the tightening of cap space is a good thing.
Tax Free Cuts:
1. Lower it from 2 to 1
The last couple issues related to the Nerf Herder's overbidding on a lot of free agents and that was before he sussed it out and was able to field a fine team. There were concerns, which may still exist, that a team bidding like that could really wreck a team and decide to leave.
and
The extensions of excellent players to long term $8 deals. I do think owners should be rewarded for finding good players cheap but I think we'd all agree it's unrealistic.
I think the Nerf Herders thing was an anomaly and he actually got out of the jam with some work. Some probably thought he was long term screwed. I guess I will wait to hear current thoughts on this one.
On the extensions, what about something like a 25/25/25 rule, catchy title. Where if you want to extend anyone making under $25 who was in the top 25 in position scoring, they need to make the average of the top 25 players at their position in salary.
For example Jamaal Charles would make $177/4 instead of $6/4
I just sort of thought this out while writing this so the numbers could be tweak-able. We'd grandfather current players too for their remaining current contract. I'd also provide the 25/25/25 number for each position so your not doing math all day long. It could easily be the 30/40/50 rule, you get the idea.
If you have a player making $27, 30 bucks then you still get a good bargain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2014 10:43:45 GMT -5
I'm fine with these.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2014 19:48:42 GMT -5
1. Claims am fine with all stated by commish 2. Extensions think that non tax free is great. Would also be on board with the first 2 years of extension 100% guaranteed 3. Am fine with the 7 and 10 4. Tax free cuts am ok with lowering from 2 to 1 but I feel this should be implemented next year because owners may have auctioned last year planning for 2. Also maybe a 2 every 2 year rule. Team uses 2 this year gets 0 next year or you can save them perhaps 5. Whatever you were talking about at the end ok sounds good
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 4, 2014 20:34:05 GMT -5
There's only 2 ways, I'm Leavin! Me hitting you, you hitting the floor. Oh.. wait, wrong conversation, scratch that.
I think anyone that knows me, knows there's only 2 reasons I'd leave this league. #1 being Steve kicked me out or asked me to leave. While I can be a bit rough around the edges if you don't know me that well I find it hard to believe Steve would kick me out of the league. #2 I quite this league. I think I'll quite this league when I start wearing plaid pants, black socks with Sandals, and point my shaky finger at ppl telling them to turn their music down, or dang nabbit, what's all this ruckis!! So don't worry I'll go on another mad bidding spree and wreck the whole system. Though if you can figure out a way I can to do that with our current government or judicial system, please let me know, I'm happy to oblige.
I'm for leaving Tax Free week as is 2 players. Wait till you've herded a few retarted nerfs across the galaxy and you'll wish you had 100 tax free drops. I'm stuck with one that just walks in a giant circle, drools, and craps itself. It stopped being funny a few years back and now it's just sad. If we do change it, I think we should specify when the change takes place (ie: next year, the year after...) in case fellas made plans to do a couple tax free drops as part of their strat-egee.
I like the spirit of the 25/25/25 rule, but it still seems like whomever owns Jamal Charles gets screwed. I'm drawing a blank for a better way to wrangle this one, but I can't. I think the tier system solves this for the most part but to make an early extension, yeah, there's know way J. Charles would make an extended deal for $6. Even if that translated to $600k. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by ewoknroll on Mar 4, 2014 20:57:28 GMT -5
Taxi Squad Claims: The less the better. #1 is fine for simplicity. Contract Extensions: I like the idea of people being on the hook for 2 years 100%. 4 years sounds to be too much for me.
Yearly Cap Increase: 7% / 10% works for me.
Tax Free Cuts: Works for me as long as I still get the extra tax free cut this year.
Contract extensions: I'm not in favor of the 25/25/25 idea since it would really neutralize my strategy for building my team last year.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 7, 2014 5:27:30 GMT -5
Most importantly how awesome is it that "retarded" was misspelled?
Any rules we're discussing aren't necessarily about current owners but looking toward prevention of future problems with new or veteran owners.
A distant second, under any proposals being formed, no current player under contract would be required to change their salary. The Jamaal Charles owner still gets his services for 4 more years at numbers in the single digits.
Ewoks: Are these 1 year guys you plan to extend this year at cheap prices? I see where some players would get significant raises and that would not be fair. If you had, all of us had, one more year to lock them into extensions under the current system, would that be fair?
Perhaps the numbers are the issue.
Vincent Jackson wouldn't apply, he makes over $25 same for Larry Fitzgerald, you can extend them for the current 25% bump.
Moreno, yes that'd be a big bump. Under current rules you could pay him $15 for 4-6 years. Under the 25/25/25 rule it'd be $177.
But what if it was 25/15/32. Player making $25 or less, who last year was in the top 15 in scoring, IF you want to extend them, they'd need to earn the average of the top 32 at that position.
Moreno would get $152
The point and my question is, is there a 25/25/25 number combo, in conjunction with a start date of 2015 that would work?
And Ewoks, I'm using your roster as examples but it applies to and I'm talking to all.
I just believe it is silly for top 25 or 15 scoring players at their position to agree to forgo free agency for a 6 year contract at $180 less than other players.
Remember, to exclusively franchise Moreno would be $279 or $142 for tier 2 where he's up for bid still. So extensions will still be the way to go.
What were likely talking about especially if we settle on top 15 scoring for each position is 2 or 3 players making under $25 who aren't already locked up to long deals.
I don't think we need to adopt the 25/25 plan and 100% cap hit for "X" amount of years of an extended player AND no tax free cutting of extended player AND 1 tax free cut. That's a bit much.
I like the 100% cap hit for the first 2-4 (whatever we agree on) for extended players, some realization of the 25/25/25 rule and keeping tax free at 2 but not for the extended guys during the period we agree on.
Someone once mentioned a sliding scale for cutting extended player 2 years 100% 3rd year 75%, 4-6th 50%, great idea but I don't want to track that.
|
|
|
Post by RADL Commissioner on Mar 7, 2014 8:11:15 GMT -5
Also, let's keep in mind, if you find who you believe to be the next Alfred Morris or Zac Stacey and you sign them to $2 for 6 years, great for you. Nobody will ever take that away from you. That happens in the NFL all the time, players outplay their contracts. What doesn't happen, as I said and we all know, when the next contract comes due robotic signings for mathematical figured amounts don't happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 8:53:23 GMT -5
I agree that extensions should be relative to some sort of market value based on player performance. Maybe it doesn't even matter how much they make if a player is eligible for a extension the same rules should be set. If your paying a player the average of the top 20 players for example based on lets say a top 10 finish the owner is still receiving a savings IMO. So maybe it's like a top 10 finish = top 20 average, 11-20 finish top 30 salary, 21-30 finish top 30 salary and after that bumps of 25% or whatever it is applies.
|
|
|
Post by ewoknroll on Mar 8, 2014 14:19:19 GMT -5
From a realism standpoint, I understand the argument completely -- no actual NFL player would take a deal substantially lower than market value.
From a "one owner looking to preserve value" standpoint, I'm thinking long term with players like J Thomas, D Rogers, A Dalton, L Murray etc. who I have control over as low-cost assets for my team for many years to come based on the current contractual setup. Adding any elements of market-driven valuation of extensions removes a large portion of the value they have to me or potential trade partners. I know this impacts every team in the league, but it impacts some teams much more than others.
My choice, if it's up to a vote, would be to maintain the structure we have today. This has quickly become my favorite fantasy league and a large reason for it is the unique contract dynamic this league had adopted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 0:56:56 GMT -5
From a realism standpoint, I understand the argument completely -- no actual NFL player would take a deal substantially lower than market value. From a "one owner looking to preserve value" standpoint, I'm thinking long term with players like J Thomas, D Rogers, A Dalton, L Murray etc. who I have control over as low-cost assets for my team for many years to come based on the current contractual setup. Adding any elements of market-driven valuation of extensions removes a large portion of the value they have to me or potential trade partners. I know this impacts every team in the league, but it impacts some teams much more than others. My choice, if it's up to a vote, would be to maintain the structure we have today. This has quickly become my favorite fantasy league and a large reason for it is the unique contract dynamic this league had adopted. Regarding the 25/25/25 rule, the proposal stated, "We'd grandfather current players too for their remaining current contract"; therefore, no player would lose their value. Every team in the NFL struggles with cap decisions every season. If you extended a guy like Jamaal Charles for a very low price, you have less cap issues, but of course, it's a bit unrealistic. The idea here is to fix an arguable flaw in the current rules that don't take into account current market value. An alternative would be to not allow contract extensions at all, but I think having to pay market value to extend is a good idea.
|
|
Nerf Herders
Storm Trooper
1%
Who's scruffy looking?
Posts: 688
|
Post by Nerf Herders on Mar 9, 2014 5:21:21 GMT -5
I would like to rephrase.....mentally slower
|
|
|
Post by ewoknroll on Mar 9, 2014 15:14:14 GMT -5
Regarding the 25/25/25 rule, the proposal stated, "We'd grandfather current players too for their remaining current contract"; therefore, no player would lose their value. This is where I disagree. For example, Julius Thomas is worth much more to me and any trade partners at his current 2 year $2 contract with an extension option at ~ $5 @ 4 years than he is at 2 years @ $2 followed by a market value extension. This is the difference in having plus value for a player for 2 years vs. 6 years. The logic of market value extensions make complete sense to me again from a realism standpoint, so I'm fully on board with that argument. I'm in another league that has a similar market-value structure for extensions. However, the long term impact of this change to our league impacts some teams much more than others when you look at the way each team's rosters and contracts are structured for the future. I'll fully support any direction Steve takes this league in and, like Nerf, am in this league till I get kicked out. We all aren't going to agree on every decision and I won't take any decision personally. Just placing my one team vote in the "no" side for this one unless it is set up to more equally impact all teams.
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on Mar 14, 2014 18:41:35 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.
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom Menace on Mar 14, 2014 18:47:42 GMT -5
I'm okay with everything else but I would like hold to my Rookies at a low price until their Rookie contract is over. Then there's the 1st round rookies who we pay a lot for. When they under perform It really hurts after drafting them in the top 5 of the rookie draft. However unless we trade them we are in the same position as the NFL team that drafted them. Over paid under performing rookie. I think the CBA fixed some of this but Sam Bradford is still out there with 60 Mil while Cam and Luck got 20 Mil or around there. Let me keep my cheap Rookies while I over pay for my under performers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 20:56:09 GMT -5
Taxi squad claims: I'm ok with the changes in the original post.
Contract extensions (no tax free cuts for two years): Sounds fine.
Yearly cap increase: Fine.
Tax free cuts: I'm not sure there's a reason to lower it, but I don't feel too strongly against it.
Cheap long term extensions: I agree that it may be unrealistic - however, I can completely see Ewok's point as well. If he deliberately set up his team so that he could use the old rules to his advantage, I'd have a hard time changing the rules out from under him. A fair (but a pain to keep track of) way to get to the new rules might be to say it only applies to to all players entering the league starting this year and all players signed as free agents starting right now. Eventually that will be all players, but it doesn't affect players currently under contract.
|
|