|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jun 19, 2017 11:00:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jun 19, 2017 13:21:38 GMT -5
If the 50% cap hit clause is abolished, then the cap hit will go back down to the normal 30% cap hit for the Matthews contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jun 19, 2017 23:29:57 GMT -5
The highest contract offer in league history on record for a LB in free agency is Derrick Johnson at 8M per year and not Mark Barron at 7.1M, I stand corrected from what said on the podcast.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Jun 22, 2017 17:32:05 GMT -5
Voted No
No hard feelings, but I believe GM responsibility should be paramount. There are plenty of rebuilding teams that could take on this contract for proper compensation. Even if its a NBAesque/Brock Oshitwiller type of deal. There have been a lot of teams who drafted unreasonable contracts from sport trac and delt with it (ie: D.Revis, N. Suh)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 17:50:46 GMT -5
Same here Grem. He was extended and has been traded enough for all the receiving owners to know the deal on him and the rules on extensions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jun 23, 2017 0:15:02 GMT -5
Voted No No hard feelings, but I believe GM responsibility should be paramount. There are plenty of rebuilding teams that could take on this contract for proper compensation. Even if its a NBAesque/Brock Oshitwiller type of deal. There have been a lot of teams who drafted unreasonable contracts from sport trac and delt with it (ie: D.Revis, N. Suh) Gremlin, please understand that this proposition is not about giving anybody a break. Its about finally getting a market based value on the LB franchise tag that has been distorted since the inaugural draft. The proposition would simply drop the cap hit of 50% because of a restructure rule created AFTER the inaugural draft where Matthews was drafted, down to a normal 30% cap hit with the hopes that some GM will finally get rid of the contract, and we can finally get a franchise tag price on the LB position that makes sense. The pace we're on now, it would be a 6 year proposition where we would have had a distorted tag price on LB's. To me this is about the overall health of the league, so that we have every option on the table during the offseason, because as of now we really do not have the option to franchise an LB. |
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Jun 23, 2017 6:48:22 GMT -5
I understand that argument, but on the flip side its serving only the smallest of ratios. A good LB is going to earn an extension well before the contract expired, and the handful of others that might have qualified for the FT have largely passed as most contracts have already been signed for multi-year deals from the outset.
15.1m - 30% cap hit: 4.56m
15.1m - 50% cap hit: 7.55m
Is 3m the difference in making the cut on a useful player like Clay? Who ever cut Suh, Revis, Shaub, C.Johnson and the 10-15 other outrageous contracts from sporttrac didnt think so. I personally cut Suh when his bidding went to 10m after he was cut from his 1st contract and dealt with it for 4yrs because it was my decision to make that move.
The smart move is to find a rebuilding team that will agree to cut him so you can rebid on him in the open market. Even if you find a dirt bag that decided not to cut him after agreeing to do so, he basically has an untradeable player that wont throw off the balance of the power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jun 23, 2017 9:33:20 GMT -5
Grem, Suh's original contract did not come at a 50% cap hit. legacynfl.boards.net/thread/903/nndamukong-suh-processedIf you bid on Suh yourself that's fine, because that was the market based value in free agency that was determined by members of this league. Suh's original contract was a monster for 1 year in terms of cap hit, and not 6 like Clay's, and without a restructure. Again, if the plan is to finally have a relevant franchise tag on LB's after 7 years of league existence, fine we have lived with it this long and we can continue to live with it now. I was just hoping to free us from a distorted contract that nobody seems to want to get rid of because not even rebuilding teams want to carry a 7.55M cap hit for multiple years. This is why Matthews has been constantly traded, in the most funky of trades, but has never been cut. |
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jun 23, 2017 13:35:16 GMT -5
Being the current owner of Clay Matthews, I'd just like to briefly weigh in on this discussion. As is with most discussions, the issue, that which is attempted to be addressed and resolved, is often met with a different and competing issue. What has been presented here serves as the perfect example. For instance, we may ask ourselves, "What is the issue?"
The sole issue is that the current franchise tag value is currently out of reach for GM's to consider franchising them.
To me, this indicates that as a league we are being asked if franchising a LB is something we want to do, sooner rather than later.
The competing issue, although not clear, basically represents a denial of the proposed affordability for franchising a LB. This representation of a denial takes on the form of a GM's "responsibility". Yet in truth, even the GM with the responsibility (which is myself in this case) is faced with making the same decision that all of us are faced with. In short, whether or not the league agrees that they would like the LB franchise tag value to come down, my decision carries just as much weight and effect. However, that which is in the best interest of the league has always been my priority and not merely the benefit of my individual team.
So the question is, do we, as a league, abolish this 50% cap hit and attempt to bring the current LB franchise tag value down?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Jun 23, 2017 15:17:22 GMT -5
I see no harm in making a one time exception, but i will always remain consistent on owner responsibilities. It seems to be the only place where I am found in conflict in past rule debates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jul 8, 2017 19:24:39 GMT -5
This proposition has been vetoed by a majority vote, I want to thank all GM's who voted and took the time to express their views.
|
|
