|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jul 21, 2024 11:42:32 GMT -5
Hello all,
I would like to present an idea I had to give us the ability to poach players off of other teams practice squad.
If there is a player you want to poach off the practice squad.
Poaching team must offer a contract that beats the players current contract and also must offer a 1 round pick upgrade to the team to compensate for them losing the player.
The poaching team must have pick available and must have cap space and roster space available.
Once an initial offer is made then it is open for any team to place a bid as long as they have the cap and pick compensation available.
We will use the same UFA bidding rules.
Once a bid has been won, the team that owns the player will have 24 hours to match offer and keep player or let player go and receive the pick compensation.
If the team matches the offer and keeps the player then the player has to be placed on the active roster for the rest of the season.
So as an example:
If a player was signed as an undrafted rookie free agent then a bidding team would have to offer a 5th rd pick as compensation.
If the player was drafted in the 4th round, the team would offer a 3rd.
One question I have is how can we easily find where a player was drafted in Legacy? I wish we could search for the player and it would show where he was drafted.
I also wondered would the pick compensation be just that current year draft like RFA or would we open it up to any year since two years of picks are tradeable.
Anyway,
This is an idea I came up with. I wanted to post it for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lions GM on Jul 21, 2024 11:46:55 GMT -5
The team poaching the player should also have to put him on their active roster correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jul 21, 2024 11:48:52 GMT -5
The team poaching the player should also have to put him on their active roster correct? Yes good point, I would say so |
|
|
|
Post by Browns GM (Dan) on Jul 21, 2024 11:55:32 GMT -5
A team who owns the player on the PS shouldn't have to match a new contract, only promote them to the active roster as is the case in RL.
I'm not a fan of poaching as the TS was added alongside a roster size reduction with the intention for rebuilding teams to stash rookies on there until they are ready to compete.
Once a player is drafted you can see when they were drafted by clicking on them in MFL. This gets overriden though if they are traded, the same thing applies for players added via FA rather than a trade or draft pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jul 21, 2024 12:04:18 GMT -5
I will say, I like the practice squad the way it is currently, but there has been a lot of talk about the ability to poach players off of practice squad’s so I have been thinking of a way to do it.
I see a benefit of this rule as the owning team will get a pick upgrade if they lose the player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Jul 21, 2024 12:07:36 GMT -5
I set something like this up in one of my leagues, basically to stop tankers putting difference makers on a practice squad. Worked differently though as I made it more NFL like..
If you wanted to put a player on PS you'd have to waive him first... that was posted and then a 24 hour clock started. if the 24 hour clock went by with no poaching then the plater reverted to the original teams practice squad.. But if another GM wanted to poach that player he'd have to make a bid on the thread (think it was a minimum 0.5M pay rise). And that would start an auction, 5th round comp was minimum if won, but any round pick could be used, so we had a few 4th round pick comps and the odd third round. (Any available year)
Player had to go on the active roster once he switched teams and remain there.
We had no option to match which meant you had to think long and hard about moving a player to PS. But we did get a lot more activity at times. And it stopped GM's stashing good points on the PS
|
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Jul 21, 2024 12:08:31 GMT -5
Would need a new sub forum for PS waivers
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jul 21, 2024 12:41:46 GMT -5
The idea isn't terrible. IMHO, I doubt it would generate a lot of activity. In the least, I don't see it as being something harmful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jul 21, 2024 12:46:33 GMT -5
When discussing pick compensation, I'm assuming Fantasy selection rather than RL. MFL retains draft history. Any players not drafted would seemingly fall under a FA pick-up w/a 5th round pick compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Chief) on Jul 21, 2024 15:25:33 GMT -5
I created a similar rule in my other league. We call it Taxi Bids.
We also had a problem with tanking teams stashing productive players on their TS. The point of the TS is to hold on to developing players who aren't ready to contribute to your starting lineup. If a player is putting up starter level pts then they should at least be on the active roster, if not in your lineup.
Our rules are that to place a bid, the bidding team must offer the draft round equivalent AND keep them on the active roster for remainder of season.
The losing team has 7 days to:
-accept the bid as-is
-activate for remainder of season
-negotiate a trade involving the same player with any team and the player must remain active for the gaining team
We also cap the number of bids a team can place and the number of times a particular team's TS can be bid on.
I agree with either increasing the contract value or offering pick compensation, but not both. That could be a lot.
Just like in real NFL, the losing team has opportunity to sign to active roster and pay them more, but there is no pick compensation.
I would be onboard with some type of TS availability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raiders GM (Chief) on Jul 21, 2024 15:26:50 GMT -5
Oh...and the bids don't start until Week 1 as offseason rosters are flexible and we cap the number of promote and demote on a particular player during the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jul 21, 2024 20:58:18 GMT -5
After some great discussions and different ideas, I thought I would write down a rough rough proposal to see if there’s a path forward with making the Practice Squad more significant for our league.
Rough Ideas:
- Active Roster would drop to 40. Dropping the roster size would make Practice Squads more significant and many more teams would use. Smaller the Active Roster size, the more of a role our practice squads will play each week. With a size of 40, we would still have 20 bench players….more than enough. As was mentioned by Frank, having our Pratice Squads act as a Farm Team/Minor Leagues like baseball has….smaller roster size would see call ups more frequently.
- There would be a 12 man Practice Squad limit per team
- Poaching would be allowed. Any team could put a claim on a player from another team’s practice squad. Teams that own the players rights, would have 24 hours to make a decision. If a team blocks the move, the player would immediately need to placed on the Active Roster for the rest of the year. Roster compliance would need to be met (Cap Space + Roster Size) If a team allows a player to leave their practice squad, the acquiring team would need to put that player on there Active Roster for the duration of the current season. (Roster compliance would need to be met (Cap Space + Roster Size)
- This I don’t know about, but Would a 50% waiver penalty make sense for a team who successfully Poaches a player. Why? Would give things teams to think about before Poaching.
-Bidding on UDFA/UFA would be exactly the same. Bidding would be the same. Teams would need to have cap space to sign a player like it is now. However, once won any player that goes to the Practice Squad (3 years of experience or less) would not count towards a teams cap space. As soon as a team brings up a player to the Active Roster, they would immediately count towards the cap. By doing it this way, we would ensure teams are not bidding up Players who they cannot afford and at the same time giving teams a greater benefit in having a practice squad. Even though Practice Squad players would not count towards cap, you must have the cap space available to sign them during bidding
- A player could go on the Practice Squad only if they have 3 or less years of experience.
- Practice squad plyers can be traded but salaries would become active during the trade.
ALL of these ideas are simply ideas. Interesting idea.
I think we need to do something to make the Practice Squad more significant in our league. Each week during the NFL season, Practice Squad players are claimed by other teams. We have nothing right now that comes close to this. As I said on our GroupChat, while our current Practice Squad rules were an amazing FIRST STEP ( Thank you Frank ), there is more we can do. I do not see any difference between our current set up and having 55 man rosters with no Practice Squad.
Open to feedback.
Question, If there is support for something, anything….does it make sense to vote now, so we know what’s coming at the start of next offseason ??
Thanks for time!
|
|
|
|
Post by Browns GM (Dan) on Jul 22, 2024 5:05:33 GMT -5
First things first: PS players salaries not counting against the salary cap is a HUGE no for me, absolutely no need for that.
In terms of roster size, going down to 40 active is one hell of a jump and one that would need to be made in 2 steps IMO. I would much prefer an active of 42 to 40, and even then would like the jump to be made in 2 parts. One halfway and then the following season down to whatever is agreed.
Poached players have a 50% cap hit seems fair, similar to how rescructured players. Not a major impact though given a lot of the PS players will be on contracts less than 1.5m
In terms of poaching if we do pass a rule I think it needs to be made clear what options are available for the currently owning team. Right now I think they should be:
1) Activate the player to your active roster at his current contract
2) Let the poached player leave to to team who has the highest poaching bid for the agreed compensation (1 round above where they were drafted, or a 5th round pick if UDFA)
3) Agree a trade with another team, the PS player being traded must be activated before and after this trade.
- Note: Once a player has been part of the poaching or trading process from the PS, they must remain on an active roster until the end of the season (Unless cut and signed by another team)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jul 22, 2024 7:45:38 GMT -5
I’m good with going with two steps, over two seasons to reach the new Active Roster number.
I still think the smaller roster size (40) is the way to go. PS of 12 will give teams plenty of room to still do eveything they need. More than enough room. More teams will have PS this route as well, more poaching and call ups of one’s own PS players will happen as well.
Maybe as a trade off, could be smaller roster size (40) but PS players counting towards the cap could be a fair compromise.
No one is getting everything they want. Need some compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jul 22, 2024 15:15:45 GMT -5
|
|
