|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 23, 2015 10:28:41 GMT -5
This is from my post from about 2 months ago:
As an added option to the standard 25% cap hit for the duration of a contract for a player that is waived and not claimed, how about a contract buyout. Say for example, if an owner decided to buy out a players contract, that we take the average salary per year remaining on his contract, and apply a 75% buyout rate for the current year, but that owner would no longer be responsible for future money for that player.
Example: Tony Romo (QB-DAL) 21.78/25.28/15.1/19/UFA
The average salary works out to 20.29M per year.
A 75% buyout would mean a 15.22M cap hit for the current year, but that owner would be off the hook for future season.
I guess what I'm thinking is for new owners who inherit bad teams, this could be a way to get bad contracts off the books fast, and begin a rebuild process more quickly. And quite honestly, even veteran owners often make contract mistakes, and this is another way to remedy some of those mistakes. I see this as an option to the standard waiver rule we have in this league, and it would be a choice at the complete discretion of the GM of that particular organization whether as to 'waive' a player or perform a 'contract buyout'.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 23, 2015 10:32:14 GMT -5
My idea would be to limit this to one contract buyout per year, in the offseason along with all the other offseason duties such as franchise tags, contract extensions and contract restructures.
This buyout can only be done in the offseason, prior to the start of a new year, because while trying to help in some ways, bad free agent bidding has to hurt to some capacity. A 75% cap hit on a big contract will hurt when we're in the midst of starting a new season, but helps the team long term if a terrible free agent acquisition has been made at some point by that franchise, either by the current owner, or by a previous owner.
Once a player's contract is bought out, he is a free agent for that year, and the team that bought his contract out would not be allowed to bid on that player anymore for the current season.
Again, this is just an idea I came up with, I think its interesting and would like to know everyone's thoughts. I'm not deadest on implementing this rule unless league GM's find it of interest. Give me your thoughts, if you guys think its a bad idea, I will kill the proposition, and we will move on.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 23, 2015 16:21:21 GMT -5
Like this idea, for both new oweners but also owners who have been in the league for a lomg time. I would vote yes for this new rule
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jan 24, 2015 1:50:12 GMT -5
I'm on board as well. Still being a young lead, we are also dealing with a few large contracts that perhaps should have been left on the board in the original draft. In any case, it will allow for a quicker turn around in some instances. Such as where teams are looking to rebuild, go in another direction, or save/increase cap for retaining/resigning other players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 18:45:07 GMT -5
I am all for the contract buyout, but I believe the way that it is presented by Frank will not help keep the league competitive and will favor the better teams in the league. Looking at the proposed example:
Example: Tony Romo (QB-DAL) 21.78/25.28/15.1/19/UFA
The average salary works out to 20.29M per year.
A 75% buyout would mean a 15.22M cap hit for the current year, but that owner would be off the hook for future season.
My viewpoint on a buyout is that it should provide cap relief in the future by not having to take a cap hit in future years, as Frank's proposed example states. The second part is where I have a different viewpoint. My second viewpoint on a buyout is that it should not provide cap relief in the year that an owner selects to perform the buyout. Owners should be held accountable for the length and full annual salary. In Frank's example, the owner is only accountable for an average that ends up being less than the current year's salary. Therefore, the owner will actually receive $6.5M of cap relief, while getting rid of a contract they do not want. During a restructure, it sure would make sense to backload all contracts in Frank's example. I play in multiple leagues with cap buyouts and in all of them we take into account all of the years of the contract in order to hold owners accountable for their spending sprees. My proposal would be to add the salaries for all of the remaining years and take a 50% buyout of that amount. In Frank's example, this is what it would look like:
Example: Tony Romo (QB-DAL) 21.78/25.28/15.1/19/UFA
If buyout occurs with 4 years remaining the buyout cost would be: (21.78 + 25.28 + 15.1 + 19) x 50% = 40.58 cap hit If buyout occurs with 3 years remaining the buyout cost would be: (25.28 + 15.1 + 19) x 50% = 29.69 cap hit If buyout occurs with 2 years remaining the buyout cost would be: (15.1 + 19) x 50% = 17.05 cap hit
This would be similar to the NFL and why they can't just drop players and sometimes teams have to wait an extra year in order to do it.
The moral of this story is that if you do not want to be held accountable for the cap hits, don't give players big contracts you are not willing to fulfill.
Two other things pertaining to Buyouts:
1) I think that they could be unlimited, thus giving rebuilding teams an opportunity to take the hits and be able to turnaround teams quicker.
2) The buyout deadline would be the Tuesday after week 10 games. This would make the contending teams have to make difficult decisions with the season still in progress.
FREE DROPS - I believe as a perk for new owners, they should be able to have one free drop of any player on their roster. It helps fill teams in the league and usually the open teams were not playoff teams and they are in rebuilding mode.
Just my .02.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 24, 2015 23:16:55 GMT -5
Browns, great insight, love the discussion.
Here's how I would address your concerns on this contract buyout idea.
The max contract length on any free agent is 4 years. Assuming a player is signed to a max year contract, and that player bombs year one of that contract, the buyout would be for 3 years minimum. The 75% cap hit would be the equivalent to the 25% cap hit for the next 3 years. In other words, the penalty for the GM who made that bad free agent signing is actually the same as the current league waiver penalty, only that organization can take that cap hit all at once if they choose to do so and clear their books for future years. If the GM decides to wait until year two of the free agent contract, then it becomes a 37.5% cap hit for the remaining balance of the contract, which is an even higher penalty than the standard league waiver cap hit. I don't see this as any owner really getting away with anything, only a way to take the pain up front so that an organization can move forward and plan accordingly when things don't work out. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 25, 2015 1:19:32 GMT -5
My concern more is 75% too much of a cap hit up front, and would anybody use it. If we were to drop it 60% for example, it would be an equivalent cap hit of 20% per year on a 3 year contract, and 30% per year on a two year contract. While there would be a long term discount on buying out the contract with 3 years remaining, buying it out with two years left would still be a higher cap hit on average than the current waiver penalty. And, even though the average cap hit of 20% per year under the 60% rule would mean an average of 5% a year cap discount, something has to be said for taking the big hit in the immediate, when a team who is about to go into free agency with a 60% cap hit in the current year. I just want to make sure it's an option that is real for league owners, and not something so punitive that most GM's would not consider using it. Again, my interest here is not to reward bad free agent signings, but more to help teams clean up their cap situation and not let bad contracts linger.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jan 25, 2015 15:11:59 GMT -5
As I've said...I like the idea. We have to remember, that just because a contract is unfavorable, doesn't mean the player is unfavorable. Neither does it mean that the player was actually bid on from the start. The inaugural draft is still playing out. Romo is a good player, on an unfavorable contract. By waiving him, and being unable to bid on him after waiving...costs the team quite a bit, as he/she would also lose points for the season.
I would think that if such a person was waived at the end of season, they could actually bid on them the following season if they are available to be bid upon...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 15:14:19 GMT -5
please let me know if there is a free drop for newer gm's i would really like to use mine up
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 20:42:20 GMT -5
In a 32 team league, too many owners are still in the mindset that this is still a 12 or 16 team league. Check the rosters and see how many Legacy teams need starting QB's (I count 5, possibly 6) and how many free agent possible starters (I count 2 and possibly a 3rd) are available. Based on this information, I can see the potential free agent starting QB's going for high bids and possibly ending up with contracts in the top 10 in the league (which is greater than 15M). The league Franchise tag will be around 19.5 - 20M. Based on this Romo is in line with the others.
The cost to franchise a QB this year will be 19.46 and I can't see anyone not paying this price. Romo's contract of 25.28 is high, but the following two years are bargains.
I know this is not about Romo, but everyone needs to realize that most of the players are already on teams. The only way to really rebuild a team is to sign fee agents (not many left, especially since the league is relatively new with few expiring contracts), trades or most importantly, the Rookie Draft.
For this reason, I believe that the best interest of the league is to not allow existing owners to dump contracts in the the Rams' proposed Buyout method. NFL teams cannot just drop players. Sometimes they have to live another year or two with a contract in order to make it easy on their cap. The teams lived through two years of having players, now that the bigger salary years are kicking in, it is not right to give those teams a free pass.
I joined this league last year knowing that I have a rebuild on my hands. I noticed what some teams had to contend with in their salary cap situations. I felt based on their salaries increasing that I would have a chance to sign players with less competition because of tight salary caps. I will already be strapped by deciding if I want a QB for 20M or if I want to fill other free agent needs.
I remember the Lions trading for Larry Fitzgerald and wishing that I could add a WR to my playoff run, but I was looking at the years that were still to come as a salary cap liability. If Frank's proposal comes to fruition, it would had made more sense for me to go all in and worry about this year with the cap hit.
I believe Frank's proposal is not in the best interest of the league. The teams that are in need of a QB may never find one if this were to pass.
My proposal for a buyout, makes owners think more about their contract offers, because it will hurt a little more for those that are greedy and offer outrageous contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 25, 2015 21:56:57 GMT -5
Okay, maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly. Never have I proposed giving any team a free pass.
The way the offseason schedule is constructed, once a player is signed to a max year contract, the period for allowed buyouts would have already passed. Meaning, that that player is guaranteed his first year salary. The first available opportunity for any players contract to be bought out is the following offseason when that same player has only 3 years left on his contract. A 75% buyout, would be equivalent to a 25% a year waiver for the next 3 years. The GM that signed that player is on the hook for the same amount of money weather it's paid up front in the first year, or back loaded over the next 3 years. This is how this league is set up:
Player salary guarantees:
1st year 100% of his salary 2nd year 25% of his salary 3rd year 25% of his salary 4th year 25% of his salary
Under proposed buyout rule 1st year 100% of his salary 2nd year 75% of his salary
Both equal the same amount of guaranteed money.
Also, if we are talking about a player like Fitzgerald, I welcome the 17.38M buyout. Not only does it cripple a team going into the offseason when everyone is building their teams, but he's down a pretty good player along with the 75% cap hit. Also, a player like Fitzgerald would go into free agency and cash in again. He would most likely command a multi million dollar contract, and in theory would most likely make more money in the long run by getting his guaranteed 17.38M from the buyout and a new contract.
The Lions did go all in last year, and now he's got to pay the price for that, he's not getting away with anything because I can almost guarantee you he would love to trade him rather than buy that contract out because he has some hopes of winning this year along with everyone else in this league.
Again, I'm not proposing a free pass, only a way to restructure salary cap money if a team wishes to do so with hefty up front penalty, I would like to give them that option.
|
|