|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 20, 2016 21:06:45 GMT -5
This is an amendment to the new contract rule extension we updated. Some GM's believe that the contract rule extension price on the QB position is far too low. As it currently stands, its 150% of highest contract year price or a minimum of 5M. After talking to some GM's, most want an extension rate somewhere in the 10M range. I propose something in the middle. A minimum first contract extension price of 8M per year, and a second extension of 16M per year. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the proposal to be voted on, it will be the graduated plan to slowly raise the contract extension over the course of 4 years: Read more: legacynfl.boards.net/thread/3948/2016-league-vote-proposition-8#ixzz3zV9g5ALi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 0:33:22 GMT -5
I say leave well enough alone, we all know getting a very good QB is gonna cost. If that QB is big time teams will already account the amount of cap that will be needed to keep him. Look we've already raised the cap, & already we're looking to raise the contract extension rule for QBs again, which means the 5M bump was nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 0:39:16 GMT -5
if anything I say more points for FGs, especially in the final 2 minutes of the game. Clutch kicks deserve extra points & this will also help raise the value of Kickers..... just a thought, helps point wise in close games.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 21, 2016 0:49:27 GMT -5
League GM's vetoed raising the league cap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 1:39:18 GMT -5
..... really??? I thought we said it passed on the chat???..... then that's all the more reason for us to hold off on this idea
|
|
|
Post by Chargers GM (Andrew) on Jan 21, 2016 10:23:30 GMT -5
Open it up so i can vote no as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2016 15:26:49 GMT -5
Open it so I can vote yes... Locking up a rookie QB for 8 years with a max salary of $5m is just crazy, considering QBs in FA go for well above 10m
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jan 21, 2016 15:41:43 GMT -5
I would think that this would probably be better presented as a two-part proposition...
I do believe a higher value needs to be established for the QB position. Too often, lower-tiered starting QB's are dismissed as having little legitimate value - when in fact the mere position demands at least a standard median value (imho).
However, by adjoining the two concepts (proposed higher rate with a definite amount of increase), it takes away from establishing this median value, as well as the fact that an effective argument cannot be made for one without including the other.
As the proposition stands, I would vote NO for the simple reason I do not agree with $8 and $16 Mil respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 21, 2016 21:06:33 GMT -5
The reason why I did not raise the extension price in the first round of voting was precisely because of this problem, and that those that have low priced QB's were never going to go for a rule change like this. Goal one was to bring other positions more in line with proper extension contract prices, and now we can deal with the QB position individually. I foresaw very little debate in regards to lower extension prices, particularly because they came to positions that were never going to be extended at the old contract rates, that was easy.
Again, I know there will be a few GM's that will have no interest in changing this rule, and I understand to a certain degree in that they picked up a QB under a certain set of rules and strategized around to those set rules. And, to their credit, I understand why they would not want this rule change, and I sympathize with their position.
However, that being said, the contract price for a QB extension is far too low, and it takes away from the reality of what is the game we play here. I believe some type of compromise has to be reached, and I am open to ideas.
Now, the first thing that needs to be done is that we need to establish a fair market value for the QB extension. I choose the 8M mark, because it was a compromise from the 10M suggestion that was thrown around in the chant room. For this reason, I have not opened the poll, and am open to changing the definition of the rule proposal if I get some ideas thrown out.
The second thing we need to figure out is how to implement this rule. Either we pull the band aid off and install it immediately, and retroactively, or we introduce it slowly with some type of grandfather clause where we protect those GM's that played by the rules from the very beginning.
Im open to a gradual introduction, and a grandfather clause.
But, what I need most is hard ideas and numbers for how we can fix this problem.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Jan 22, 2016 16:48:28 GMT -5
I'm with you...and follow 100. It only seems natural that those who have drafted a QB, or otherwise obtained one on a rookie contract, would want to oppose and ignore what's realistic - specifically, that a starting QB in the NFL demands a rate consistent with a starting QB.
Of course the argument could be made that this is fantasy, and not the NFL, however, such a point is moot as it fails to provide the GM with an experience that is closely related to the RL. I think, if we want what's easy, rather than learning how to effectively manage a team, we should join a 12 league fantasy team...just saying.
RL teams are faced with making tough decisions every year when it comes to higher salaried players. The QB position is unanimously paid across the board, before addressing other positions.
So I guess, I'm merely suggesting that if $10 Mil were established as the median value, there is no problem with the $8 Mil as a 1st tag. A fair compromise for a 2nd tag, imo, would be 175%, or $14 Mil.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 24, 2016 11:25:49 GMT -5
I like those number Darryl,
So here's my idea to start to implement this rule slowly, so that GM's holding on to young QB's are not getting screwed.
A 1M increase on the first tag every year for 3 years starting in 2017, and a 1M a year increase for the second tag every year for 2 years, and a 2M increase in 2019 starting in 2017.
Which means, that we will get the increase of 8M and 14M, but we will not reach those max amounts until 2019.
So here is how it would break down:
2016: No Changes 2017: 6M and 11M 2018: 7M and 12M 2019: 8M and 14M
This gives those GM's a chance to extend their young QB's a little earlier at a cheaper price, while we head in the right direction for future years as we bring that extension on QB's to a more real life reality.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Chargers GM (Andrew) on Jan 24, 2016 12:04:11 GMT -5
i like
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Feb 7, 2016 11:52:02 GMT -5
Voting on proposition #8 is now open
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Feb 14, 2016 13:41:19 GMT -5
PROPOSITION 8 HAS BEEN APPROVED
|
|