|
Post by gkrown (Phoenix) on Apr 9, 2017 16:27:14 GMT -6
the top two tiers for every position should have an avg salary floor.
Example - to franchise an ultra elite tier WR in 2017 it'll cost you about 9m.
antonio brown, will be 9m dollars to franchise.
let that sink in.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Apr 10, 2017 12:39:48 GMT -6
I don't disagree, but slightly misleading example since the floor is already the salary of the previous year plus 20%. The issue is if you have someone with a low current salary despite performing at an elite level and there happens to be no one in the ultra elite tier (which does happen to be the case this year at WR). Definitely an opportunity for an exploit but a slim one.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on Apr 18, 2017 6:47:00 GMT -6
Your numbers aren't right with Brown. He would have been around $20m to franchise because his salary last year was $16.335M so you have to give him a 20% increase over that.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Apr 18, 2017 18:08:15 GMT -6
Thinking about this more I think rather than introducing tier salary floors or something we should maybe base franchise tag costs off the highest paid players at the position, not the ultra-elite tier. I may have suggested this before so apologies if it had already been ruled out, but it's more in line with how it works in the real NFL and I think fairer. If you're going to use a franchise tag it should be because you are willing to pay that player an exorbitant amount to keep him an extra year. With the current system a bunch of positions allow the franchise tag to basically be a one year extension in disguise.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas Cyclones on Apr 20, 2017 7:41:26 GMT -6
Do we have a flaw with this tier system/holdouts when it comes to guys on rookie contacts? Prime example I just notice. Odell Beckham and Brandin Cooks were drafted back to back in the 2014 draft starting their salary at $4M per year. Beckham has had 3 years where he has been in the Elite or higher tier. Cooks had a mediocre rookie year in 2014 but then was good in 2015 and 2016. Because Cooks took such a leap from rookie year to 2nd year it made him holdout which increased his salary significantly up to 9m. Beckham because he did so good his rookie year only went up 1 tier. So now going into 2017, Cooks is over $11m per year and Beckham will be $5m per year.
There is no arguing who has been better so far in their career but that guy is $6m cheaper. Doesn't that seem a little backwards? Do awesome your rookie year and no pay increase, do crappy but do good your 2nd year and your pay doubles? It makes me question whether the holdout rule should even apply to players on rookie contacts.
I'm guessing this isn't the first time a situation like this has happened either. Because it makes sense for a player to make a huge jump from year 1 to year 2. This example just really stuck out since Beckham and Cooks were drafted back to back in the same class and became RFA's in the same off-season.
Another example of this I just saw was David Johnson and Jay Ajai vs someone like Eskiel Elliot. Johnson and Ajai didn't do much their rookie years but had a breakout year last year so they are now holdouts. Johnson salary will be over $9M in 2017. Elliot was a stud out of the gate so his salary will remain $4.5M until it expires in 2020 or when ever. Wouldn't it make more sense for a guy like Elliot to hold out and not Johnson who had 1 bad year and 1 good year? Just definitely seems like a flaw in the system to me. I like the tier system and the holdouts but too me guys on rookie contacts shouldn't be affected by the holdout thing only other guys signed in free agency.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Jul 14, 2017 8:02:40 GMT -6
There’s been a lot of discussion around inflated free agent auction values this offseason. The following suggestion does not fully address the issue but I think is a simpler fix that really only serves to enforce the spirit of the existing rules than introduce anything new. Proposed rule: after being won at auction, players must be on a roster for a minimum of [3 weeks?] before they are eligible for tier 2 restructuring in a trade. For the sake of clarity, there is no limitation to their ability to be traded. I will let Chance jump in if I am wrong, but I do not believe tier 2 restructuring was written to facilitate behind the scenes handshake deals during free agency that allow a bidder (or bidders) to artificially increase their bidding power by 15% (technically by 17.6% for any math pedants) and yet that is what it has become (perfectly legally as the rules stand). I think the suggested rule “change” above simply closes a loophole of sorts in the existing system and does not constitute a significant change but will serve to take away one way in which auction values are inflated, potentially in addition to broader discussions around salary cap trading limits. As an aside this rule would also serve to eliminate at least some of the behind the scenes auction value manipulation discussions which are currently rife and while again I believe those to be legal under the current rules they certainly make me uneasy, I do not generally believe them to be in the spirit of the game and there is a thin line separating them from collusion. If it were up to me they would probably be made illegal too, but I appreciate that is a more complex discussion for another time. Thoughts and comments appreciated. P.S. For the newer members of the league this is not specifically targeted at the recent Lynch/Marshall trade, though clearly that would be affected by the suggestion. The loophole has been exploited before, most notably in another auction for Lynch interestingly enough. I expressed minor concerns at the time but now feel strongly enough to propose a formal rule adjustment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 8:16:39 GMT -6
I appreciate the intent behind the suggestion, but see unintended consequences. When someone is bidding on multiple players hoping to get one, and actually gets two, they may want to trade, but not be able to trade for three weeks, because their trade partner wants a t2, missing out on free agents while they wait...
I would suggest going at this problem from the other angle.
the T2 is a good rule intended to help players short at a position improve their teams at a discount. the problem is that it only applies in a trade context. If we allowed a 15% discount when a team with two less than the league average of players at a position signs a free agent, it would eliminate the need for any kind of backroom dealing to sign and trade players.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Jul 14, 2017 8:21:55 GMT -6
I think the example Josh raises is a great one for why the rule should be changed. If an owner is bidding in FA and goes too far on players that aren't best for his team, or adds more than he wanted, that's a mistake he has every right to try and fix through a trade, but he shouldn't have the benefit of an artificial discount on a player whose value he just set when he does so. If the contract isn't tradable without a T2 for the receiving owner then it must be an above market contract and the bidding owner shouldn't be bailed out of that immediately. Even without an agreement prior to the end of the auction the T2 can still be used to inflate bidding power in exactly the way Josh described above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 14:05:00 GMT -6
I'd like to see a vote on expanding the number of IR spots. I would appreciate unlimited IR spots, just like the NFL has. The number of injuries this year has been just brutal.
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Dec 28, 2017 17:27:54 GMT -6
Beckham Rule It doesn't make sense for Beckham to be cheaper because he was better in his first year. If anything wouldn't someone on a rookie contract in this situation be more likely to hold out?
T2 Restructuring This is 100% "abused" under the current system. I'd very much like to see the rules changed to prevent people from bidding by proxy
Compact Waiver Hits Is there any reason not to have this available all year round?
Trading Cap Space I think there should be limits on how much cap space someone can trade in a given year.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Dec 30, 2017 13:21:48 GMT -6
I have some further thoughts which I’ll get around to posting at some point in the next week or so but a few overlap with Joe’s suggestions above so I did have a follow up for clarity before I put together something myself:
Beckham rule - this was discussed a bit last year and there are arguments on both sides, but what is the suggested change or are you just flagging that it should be changed somehow?
On the compact waiver hit it was to stop people from sneaking out of contracts by compacting the hit in week 13 or something when their season was over, they maybe had some extra cap room from a big name on IR and could take a big cap hit for all of a week or so with no real cost whatsoever. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Dec 30, 2017 14:21:56 GMT -6
I have some further thoughts which I’ll get around to posting at some point in the next week or so but a few overlap with Joe’s suggestions above so I did have a follow up for clarity before I put together something myself: Beckham rule - this was discussed a bit last year and there are arguments on both sides, but what is the suggested change or are you just flagging that it should be changed somehow? On the compact waiver hit it was to stop people from sneaking out of contracts by compacting the hit in week 13 or something when their season was over, they maybe had some extra cap room from a big name on IR and could take a big cap hit for all of a week or so with no real cost whatsoever. Does that make sense? Beckham Rule - I don't have a proposed solution but I feel strongly that this "loophole" should be closed. Compact Waivers - There is a cap on the size of a players salary can be to allow a compact Waiver. Perhaps $1M or below could be compacted all year round.
|
|
|
Post by Julian (San Francisco) on Jan 10, 2018 16:09:52 GMT -6
Summarizing the above with a few new thoughts:
1) Franchise tag costs - to be based on average of top [3] salaries at the position. More similar to the NFL and ensures the tag will always be appropriately expensive, never weirdly cheap
2) Tier 2 discount limits - after being won at auction, players must be on a roster for a minimum of [3 weeks] before they are eligible for tier 2 restructuring in a trade. For the sake of clarity, there is no limitation to their ability to be traded
3) Cap space trading - to be limited to [15%] to a team's total cap, i.e. in total a team's cap can only be increased or decreased to a level 15% above or below whatever the annual cap is. The purist in me would quite like no cap trading so everyone is playing with the same, but I agree some trading is useful to aid player movement and help rebuilders etc. That said unlimited trading skews things and more importantly runs the risk of an unsustainably large cap roster with guaranteed contracts being screwed and a leaving owner putting a team in a hole
4) Multiple position IDP eligibility - rather than having players like Mack swing wildly in value depending on whether they happen to be classified as DE or LB that year can players be given multiple position eligibility by MFL with it automatically making them eligible at any position that was their official designation in the last [3] years? There may be some shifts over time still, but it would allow owners to price these players with at least some predictability
5) IR spots - don't think this needs to change and of course the proposer above is now gone so maybe it's moot. We do need a reminder that players have to be on IR or suspended in real life to qualify not just ruled out. With the rule changing last year there were at least a few that forgot at times this year
6) Agreed solution for playing a holdout player - something predefined to avoid the uncertainty of this year. My suggestion would be that playing anyone holding out automatically assumes you have accepted their demands and ended the hold out. No further penalty is required but assuming it was not the intention to end the hold out there will clearly be cap implications which will be penalty enough
7) "Beckham rule" - some way to ensure rookies that break out before they are classified in tiers are not artificially cheap vs. players that breakout in year 2/3. Personally don't have an issue here (reasons given in previous posts above), just including it to make this summary complete
8) Compact waivers to be available year round up to a max of $1m contracts - again not necessarily in favour of this, am including for completeness
|
|
|
Post by London Redcoats on Jan 13, 2018 11:16:41 GMT -6
Another suggestion:
If a player is suspended for a whole season then the owner has the option for the year to not count against that players contract length (in other words the owner can effectively extend the contract by a year for no increase in salary).
|
|