|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 24, 2015 11:33:27 GMT -5
We currently have a zero cap hit for players that retire. Again, this creates an incentive for GM's to max offer contracts to veterans who we know most likely will not finish out those contracts. Many GM's hit the max year bid because there is no damage done because that GM will not be responsible for any of that players contract if he retires. In the NFL, many contracts are frontloaded, where players get allot of their money up front, especially with veteran players who could be cut at anytime so that NFL teams can avoid those punitive contracts on the back end of a diminishing career. I think we need to guarantee more of that money to players when they are signed, and Im thinking a cap hit for players that retire for the duration of that contract. Maybe not the 25% we do with a standard cap hit, but maybe splitting that number in half at around 12.5%.
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Apr 24, 2015 12:06:08 GMT -5
Like this rule
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Apr 24, 2015 12:08:10 GMT -5
I would agree in part and disagree in part.
The zero cap hit for retired players help foster an irresponsible habit of signing aged players with little to no consequential damage - Agreed.
I disagree however with the proposed waiver fee. Even taking into consideration the unexpected retirement of players, the signing of players to a team is a game of chance. Players are signed (or should be) with the expectation that they will play out their contracts. The mere fact that a GM would sign an aged player for the max number of years, should also entitle him/her to associated consequences.
Rather than decrease the waiver fee percentage, I'd rather see an increase, at least double the amount of the standard fee (50% or 1/2 the contract price for the term of the contract). My belief is that such signings should be highly discouraged.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jun 25, 2015 8:30:33 GMT -5
Darryl, I think you bring up a great point, I was simply trying to break the rule in slowly for those GM's that made signing decisions based the current rule. I'm all in favor of discouraging the signing of vets to such big contracts and would like to see a change. My only question is, should a GM be on the hook for a contract in its entirety, or should it be for only the current years?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chargers GM (Andrew) on Jun 27, 2015 10:08:36 GMT -5
thank god its about time this was addressed its crazy to see guys offering 4yr contracts to people who are 33
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jun 28, 2015 9:36:42 GMT -5
I am still learning this whole system but it would seem to me that part of the reason people are signing older vets to 4 year deals is because they almost have to in order to win the bidding war. Otherwise you would have to sign them to a 1 yr deal worth 12-15 mil. So to save cap and win these players we have to do 4 yr deals so the contracts equal higher points. I don't know if it's fair to penalize owners when it's necessary to do longer deals to win the player. You would really eat up cap space with high priced 2 yr deals then miss out on other players because you had to sign someone to a 15 mil 1 yr deal. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jul 25, 2015 3:05:26 GMT -5
Looks like we cannot get a consensus here, everyone has a different idea about retiring players.
At the very least we need to discourage the long term signing of older players to lucrative contracts that make no sense. How about we simplify this idea and simply hold accountable the current contract and its duration at what ever the current season cap penalty is?
Simply put, if you sign a player for 4 years, your on the hook for all 4 years at the current cap hit of 25%.
|
|
