|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 17, 2016 15:28:29 GMT -5
Legacy NFL GM's, I brought up this topic last year, and while we had some good back and forth, no rule changes were made. Here is the thread to the discussion we had last year: legacynfl.boards.net/thread/2923/retired-vets-ruleThat being said, we have gone through another free agency period here at Legacy, and nothing has changed as GM's were handing out 4 year contract offers to every Tom, Dick and Harry. Again, with a zero hit cap rule, there's really no disincentive not to give out a max contract offer in terms of years. I want to make this bidding process as realistic as we can, as well as the most challenging as well too. We need to hold GM's accountable to the money they throw out in free agency, and not be in a position where we're only looking for the highest point total in order to win a player. Now, like said before, we had a good discussion last year about this rule, and nothing came about because no hard proposals were ever made. I want us to be in a position where we can hammer out how we're going to move forward, and better the league as a result. However, if league GM's do not participate enough, then I will take this issue over by executive action, because I feel this may be the most important rule change that this league needs at this point in time. Here are a few questions that we need to ask: 1. How much of a contract should a GM be on the hook for in regards to retired players? Should it be the full cap hit amount for the length of the entire contract, or should it be a partial cap hit? 2. How do we implement this rule? immediately? Or do we consider contracts that were signed under different leagues rules and give GM's time to clear some of these bad contracts? In other words, do we implement this rule 2 or 3 years down the line? 3. What do we do with special circumstance players who retire long before their expected retirement date? Players for example who have had concussions early in their careers and decide to hang up their cleats. These are some of the issues we need to address sooner rather than later, and I would like to hear everyone's thoughts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 15:54:27 GMT -5
for me the retirement cap hit should be 40-50 % for the duration of the contract. Too many outrageous contracts are given to the vets. I still think that a free drop should remain for players who retire early due to injury. What ever we decide should be implemented next offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Apr 17, 2016 15:55:58 GMT -5
I would support a 40%cap hit for vet players who retire because of age
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 15:59:26 GMT -5
For me, it should be the full waiver penalty for a retiree. The only problem is that due to the 0% cap hit for retiring vets I don't think it would be fair to penalise owners who signed players to 4yr contracts under the impression that they will get no penalty should that player retire.
Due to this I would say that a rule be introduced where retiring players (due to age) who are signed from the introduction of this rule, would be liable for a full waiver penalty hit. Any players who retire due to injury or personal issues could be liable for a lower penalty hit at the commissioners digression.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Apr 17, 2016 18:05:08 GMT -5
Could maybe do a 20% cap hit for retiring because of health or are below age 30
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 17, 2016 18:44:47 GMT -5
For me, it should be the full waiver penalty for a retiree. The only problem is that due to the 0% cap hit for retiring vets I don't think it would be fair to penalise owners who signed players to 4yr contracts under the impression that they will get no penalty should that player retire. Due to this I would say that a rule be introduced where retiring players (due to age) who are signed from the introduction of this rule, would be liable for a full waiver penalty hit. Any players who retire due to injury or personal issues could be liable for a lower penalty hit at the commissioners digression. I think you make a great points Dan, Im okay with a grandfather rule that excludes all players that were locked into contracts before the cap hit rule changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 17, 2016 18:47:03 GMT -5
Could maybe do a 20% cap hit for retiring because of health or are below age 30 Anthony, this is exactly what I was thinking as well, a full cap hit for players 30 years and older, while a half cap hit for players 29 and under. |
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Apr 17, 2016 18:52:26 GMT -5
Great suggestions thus far imo...and I like them all.
It seems the actual transitioning atm into a feasible solution presents the most difficult part (that is...assuming we can agree with the minute details of actual pct. terms).
Where seeking a solution, there's no doubt that surprise or early retirements must be taken into account (20%), whereas expectancy (over 30) should be in the 40-50% range.
FA signings which were based on the current rule, as noted above could be somewhat tricky BUT...we have to start somewhere. Therefore, I would think that what's done is done and the grandfather clause should take effect. Those FA's that were signed this year or before are still eligible for free waivers. Any signings from here on out should be on the hook according to the above guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 17, 2016 19:16:34 GMT -5
Okay, I like where we're at right now with this rule change.
A cap hit in the 40% range for all retired players 30 years of age and older.
A cap hit in the 20% range for all retired players 29 years of age and under.
And, a grandfather clause for all players who's contract were negotiated prior to the 2017 season.
What this means however, that we will have to raise the cap hit up to 40% starting in the 2017 season
Are we missing anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 17, 2016 19:24:03 GMT -5
However, with the cap hit about to go up to 30% in August, is it too much too fast to propel the league cap hit up to 40% at the start of the 2017 season. Should we instead continue to increase the cap hit slowly, while using a 50% rate cut for players under the age of 30.
So with the cap hit about to hit 30, go with a full cap hit with players 30 and over, and a 15% cap hit with players 29 and under.
And, as we continue to raise the cap slowly, we can along the same line adjust the retired players cap hit accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Apr 17, 2016 20:02:31 GMT -5
However, with the cap hit about to go up to 30% in August, is it too much too fast to propel the league cap hit up to 40% at the start of the 2017 season. Should we instead continue to increase the cap hit slowly, while using a 50% rate cut for players under the age of 30. So with the cap hit about to hit 30, go with a full cap hit with players 30 and over, and a 15% cap hit with players 29 and under. And, as we continue to raise the cap slowly, we can along the same line adjust the retired players cap hit accordingly. I agree w/the direction as well, and believe we perhaps have some sort of solid base to work from. So maybe, by Inkeeping with what we have, we can avoid "over-thinking" the situation and making it more difficult than need be. In other words, while the two-separate ideas of raising waiver penalties and the waiver penalties for retired players are related...keeping them separate for purposes of initial establishment may be best...at least worth looking into I would think. This way...the gradual rise in waiver penalties could continue while immediately instituting the separate penalties for retired players. |
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Apr 17, 2016 21:46:55 GMT -5
However, with the cap hit about to go up to 30% in August, is it too much too fast to propel the league cap hit up to 40% at the start of the 2017 season. Should we instead continue to increase the cap hit slowly, while using a 50% rate cut for players under the age of 30. So with the cap hit about to hit 30, go with a full cap hit with players 30 and over, and a 15% cap hit with players 29 and under. And, as we continue to raise the cap slowly, we can along the same line adjust the retired players cap hit accordingly. I agree w/the direction as well, and believe we perhaps have some sort of solid base to work from. So maybe, by Inkeeping with what we have, we can avoid "over-thinking" the situation and making it more difficult than need be. In other words, while the two-separate ideas of raising waiver penalties and the waiver penalties for retired players are related...keeping them separate for purposes of initial establishment may be best...at least worth looking into I would think. This way...the gradual rise in waiver penalties could continue while immediately instituting the separate penalties for retired players. So your recommendation would be to go straight to the 40/20 cap hit for retired vets, and continue to raise all waivers slowly until we reach the max of 40%. If that is the case, and if we do have a grandfather clause, I guess there would be no need to really wait on the max cap hit for retired vets. I like it. |
|
|
|
Post by BuccaneersGM (Greg) on Apr 18, 2016 10:00:04 GMT -5
I agree that we have to change the retirement cap hit. I think that the easiest way to implement that would be to just continue to increase the regular cap hit by 5% per year until we get to 35% (My preferred Number) and inform all GMs that beginning with the 2018 season the zero cap hit for retired vets goes away.
That give GMs two full seasons to restructure their team. It should eliminate a lot of long-term contracts on older vets in next year's free agency. Trying to keep track of who is grandfathered in and who is not would be a nightmare. Structuring an Over 30/Under 30 retirement clause would work, but again it creates a lot more room for error.
If we just agree that the no cap hit for retirement is going away and give everyone two full seasons (March 1, 2018 is the approximate start of the NFL League Year) to adjust their teams it keeps it simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Oct 24, 2016 13:05:44 GMT -5
I have been thinking about this rule for the last few weeks, and I am thinking of implementing a waiver cap hit for retired players with a grandfather clause (exception) for all players that have been previously signed in other free agent periods, and for those players that may have original Spotrack contracts. I think like Darryl said it best, we should not over complicate this, and my idea would be implemented January 1st 2017 with a retired cap hit that simply mirrors the current waiver cap hit. The current cap hit in this league is 30%, and any future free agent acquisition starting on Jan 1st would be subject to the same cap hit. If we decide to raise the cap hit in the future, the retired cap hit would go up as well to the same percentage as the waiver cap hit. Simply put, what ever the waiver cap hit is at any given moment, the retired cap hit will be the same rate for the duration of the contract. I believe this is a simply solution to this problem, and I believe its a standard rule that many other leagues follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Gremlin) on Oct 24, 2016 22:11:46 GMT -5
Health should be a 0% hit. This isnt Baseball, or some contact sport like Basketball. This is a collision sport that can end a players career in a heartbeat, and it could happen to multiple players on a single team. Ive had 3 players retire due to health, 2 of them in 1 year. Not only is the owner out those players with zero compensation, but they need to take a hit for it too?
Im all for a cap hit on aging vets, but Im 100% opposed to a penalty for someone who can not continue due to a health issue.
|
|
