2018 Rule Change Suggestions

[Xulu Bak]

I noticed what could be a loophole and I want to put something in place next year to close that.

Contract Renegotiations should have a year cap on them to what the player had or less. We should limit it to that so it doesn't become a way to sign an extension. It's already restricted for injury so I don't see why this doesn't get cleaned up as well.

This restriction would apply only to the controlling owner and years would have to be in place prior to a trade. If another team were to submit an unmatched bid then winning team would be allowed to assign years.

That's not a loophole, that was part of its original intent.

[Xulu Bak]

Some quick ideas/questions:
* Why did we change players picked up during the season to 1 yr deals? Just asking, not sure I really care that much.
* Why are suspended players allowed to be stashed on IR? That doesn't make sense to me. If you wanna keep'm pay the piper.
* We should hold of DS assignments right up until the season starts, a week before max. Seems like the longer the look the better the decision could be.

I'd like to see "IR" eliminated in its current form and replaced with "inactive" roster spots. We need to encourage competitiveness in the short term, without forcing teams to make moves that are detrimental long-term, which is the idea behind having IR. That said...

How does it make sense that a player that's suspended for X games for substance abuse, beating his significant other, etc. can be stashed on "IR," but a player that's hurt for a significant (but undetermined period of time), cannot?

Three roster spots, no restrictions, cannot be started (maybe "inactives" lock at kickoff of Thursday night's game). 100% of salary counts.

[TrueDawg]

Some quick ideas/questions:
* Why did we change players picked up during the season to 1 yr deals? Just asking, not sure I really care that much.

Cuz players have one good game and people would jump on them when they're super-cheap (and most teams don't have a ton of cap space) and give them long-term deals. If these players pan out, they're under contract at WELL below market value for a very long time. If they don't...well, the owner is out $300 or whatever. It's very low risk, very high reward.

It gives everyone an opportunity to sign that player the next offseason at MARKET value.

[TrueDawg]

I noticed what could be a loophole and I want to put something in place next year to close that.

Contract Renegotiations should have a year cap on them to what the player had or less. We should limit it to that so it doesn't become a way to sign an extension. It's already restricted for injury so I don't see why this doesn't get cleaned up as well.

This restriction would apply only to the controlling owner and years would have to be in place prior to a trade. If another team were to submit an unmatched bid then winning team would be allowed to assign years.

Eh...most people use it to get out of BAD contracts, so they're gonna just give the guy one year (like I did with Carson Palmer...this is why there's a 50% floor now). I don't see too many people using it to extend a good player cuz it exposes that player to be signed by another team with no compensation. But if it were used that way and the player got bid up, I don't really have a problem with the owner giving him a longer contract...he's paying market value.

[TrueDawg]

The Franchise Tag is used in the NFL to work out a contract extension and I thnk we can do that here with some creativity. My suggestion is as follows but by no means is how it would have to be done but I think it's at least a starting point.

Use the FT at face value for 1 year
Use the FT as a 2 year contract extension at an increase of 4% over the FT value for that position.
Use the FT as a 3 year contract extension at an increase of 7% over the FT value of that position.

Limit of the extensions would be 3 years total for a Franchise Tag player.

The Franchise Tag absolutely needs to be 1 year only. But that's a bit unfair for owners who have players with contracts expiring this year. Owners last year got to sign FT players to multi-year deals.

This might have to be something we implement over time....or say starting in 2020 or something.

I also like the sliding scale (a percentage ABOVE the FT value) if you want to sign the FT player to a multi-year deal. I like that idea for KFFL too.... since we can only sign FT players to 1 year deals over there.

[Xulu Bak]

Change contract years structure to resemble more closely to that of the nfl. No player in UFA is going to sign a 6 year minimum salary deal so I suggest something as follows.

contract value of $1000 per year or less will be allowed a max of 2 years of control.
contract value of $1001-$5000 per year will be given a max of 3 years of control.
contract value of $5001-$10000 per year will be given a max of 4 years of control.
contract value of $10001+ per year will be given a max of 5 years of control.

This would also cap the max years given to 5 years instead of the current 6.

I don't know the right answer, but I agree that we definitely need to make some changes. An overall "years cap" was way too restrictive, and hindered rebuilding efforts, but 5-6 year min (or near min) salary contracts is horribly unrealistic and bad for competitive balance long-term.

[monkeybones]

Some quick ideas/questions:
* Why did we change players picked up during the season to 1 yr deals? Just asking, not sure I really care that much.
* Why are suspended players allowed to be stashed on IR? That doesn't make sense to me. If you wanna keep'm pay the piper.
* We should hold of DS assignments right up until the season starts, a week before max. Seems like the longer the look the better the decision could be.

I'd like to see "IR" eliminated in its current form and replaced with "inactive" roster spots. We need to encourage competitiveness in the short term, without forcing teams to make moves that are detrimental long-term, which is the idea behind having IR. That said...

How does it make sense that a player that's suspended for X games for substance abuse, beating his significant other, etc. can be stashed on "IR," but a player that's hurt for a significant (but undetermined period of time, cannot?

Three roster spots, no restrictions, cannot be started (maybe "inactives" lock at kickoff of Thursday night's game). 100% of salary counts.

Are you saying you can put any player on this "Inactive" list as long as the roster isn't locked? So basically we would have 19 active roster spots and 3 "inactive" roster spots?

This would allow teams to pick up a player to fill in for a starter and just put the starter on the "inactive" list. Then the team can cut the fill in player the next week when they promote the starter to their "active" roster?

It's an interesting idea.

[TrueDawg]

I'd like to see "IR" eliminated in its current form and replaced with "inactive" roster spots. We need to encourage competitiveness in the short term, without forcing teams to make moves that are detrimental long-term, which is the idea behind having IR. That said...

How does it make sense that a player that's suspended for X games for substance abuse, beating his significant other, etc. can be stashed on "IR," but a player that's hurt for a significant (but undetermined period of time), cannot?

Three roster spots, no restrictions, cannot be started (maybe "inactives" lock at kickoff of Thursday night's game). 100% of salary counts.

Isn't that basically the Practice Squad, which we got rid of a couple years ago?

I mean I don't disagree that it's silly that a player who is "Out" but not on IR can't be deactivated but....

[monkeybones]

I'd like to see "IR" eliminated in its current form and replaced with "inactive" roster spots. We need to encourage competitiveness in the short term, without forcing teams to make moves that are detrimental long-term, which is the idea behind having IR. That said...

How does it make sense that a player that's suspended for X games for substance abuse, beating his significant other, etc. can be stashed on "IR," but a player that's hurt for a significant (but undetermined period of time), cannot?

Three roster spots, no restrictions, cannot be started (maybe "inactives" lock at kickoff of Thursday night's game). 100% of salary counts.

Isn't that basically the Practice Squad, which we got rid of a couple years ago?

I mean I don't disagree that it's silly that a player who is "Out" but not on IR can't be deactivated but....

It's really just a way to add players to a roster so maybe we just add another roster spot?

[TrueDawg]

It's really just a way to add players to a roster so maybe we just add another roster spot?

Yes...we can use the MFL taxi squad functionality just like we used to. You can't start those players. Just those players wouldn't be eligible for bidding by other owners.

[Xulu Bak]

Some quick ideas/questions:
* Why did we change players picked up during the season to 1 yr deals? Just asking, not sure I really care that much.
* Why are suspended players allowed to be stashed on IR? That doesn't make sense to me. If you wanna keep'm pay the piper.
* We should hold of DS assignments right up until the season starts, a week before max. Seems like the longer the look the better the decision could be.

I'd like to see "IR" eliminated in its current form and replaced with "inactive" roster spots. We need to encourage competitiveness in the short term, without forcing teams to make moves that are detrimental long-term, which is the idea behind having IR. That said...

How does it make sense that a player that's suspended for X games for substance abuse, beating his significant other, etc. can be stashed on "IR," but a player that's hurt for a significant (but undetermined period of time, cannot?

Three roster spots, no restrictions, cannot be started (maybe "inactives" lock at kickoff of Thursday night's game). 100% of salary counts.

Are you saying you can put any player on this "Inactive" list as long as the roster isn't locked? So basically we would have 19 active roster spots and 3 "inactive" roster spots?

This would allow teams to pick up a player to fill in for a starter and just put the starter on the "inactive" list. Then the team can cut the fill in player the next week when they promote the starter to their "active" roster?

It's an interesting idea.

Pretty much. It gives owners a lot of flexibility in how they use it. Developmental players, injured players (however serious), suspended players, whatever.

[monkeybones]

It's really just a way to add players to a roster so maybe we just add another roster spot?

Yes...we can use the MFL taxi squad functionality just like we used to. You can't start those players. Just those players wouldn't be eligible for bidding by other owners.

The thing we would need to clarify is the deadline for moving a player up from and down to the "inactive" list. NFL teams have until kickoff of a game to declare players active but that would be really hard to administer since anyone that messes up could potentially have extra players on their roster while games are being played.

Why not just add a roster spot and forget the whole Taxi Squad thing? All this is really doing is allowing teams to fill in for players who aren't officially on IR. Adding another roster spot would help with that and be way easier to administer. It would deplete the available talent on the WW though.

[Xulu Bak]

I'd like to see "IR" eliminated in its current form and replaced with "inactive" roster spots. We need to encourage competitiveness in the short term, without forcing teams to make moves that are detrimental long-term, which is the idea behind having IR. That said...

How does it make sense that a player that's suspended for X games for substance abuse, beating his significant other, etc. can be stashed on "IR," but a player that's hurt for a significant (but undetermined period of time), cannot?

Three roster spots, no restrictions, cannot be started (maybe "inactives" lock at kickoff of Thursday night's game). 100% of salary counts.

Isn't that basically the Practice Squad, which we got rid of a couple years ago?

I mean I don't disagree that it's silly that a player who is "Out" but not on IR can't be deactivated but....

I suggested "inactive" roster spots in lieu of practice squad. Not sure if that was here or in KFFL. There are a few major differences though...

Players would be protected. There would be no salary/contract/played restrictions, but those salaries would count toward the cap and they would "lock" on kickoff of the first game of a week. There would also be normal cap hits for cutting players from the inactive roster.

Alternatively, mimic our IR rules after the NFLs and detach our ability to put someone on IR from their NFL teams. In other words, why should I need to wait for the Texans to put Ervin on IR for me to put him on IR? If I want to put Carr on IR (for at least 8 weeks), why shouldn't I be able to? My team situation is different from the Texans or Raiders.

[Xulu Bak]

It's really just a way to add players to a roster so maybe we just add another roster spot?

Yes...we can use the MFL taxi squad functionality just like we used to. You can't start those players. Just those players wouldn't be eligible for bidding by other owners.

The thing we would need to clarify is the deadline for moving a player up from and down to the "inactive" list. NFL teams have until kickoff of a game to declare players active but that would be really hard to administer since anyone that messes up could potentially have extra players on their roster while games are being played.

Why not just add a roster spot and forget the whole Taxi Squad thing? All this is really doing is allowing teams to fill in for players who aren't officially on IR. Adding another roster spot would help with that and be way easier to administer. It would deplete the available talent on the WW though.

Well, I'm not suggesting adding "inactive" roster spots in addition to what we currently have. I'm suggesting we have them in lieu of current "IR." It's still 3 spots, they're just more flexible.

If we went this route, we wouldn't necessarily even need to stick with 19/3. Maybe 16/5 or 15/6 makes more sense.

[monkeybones]

Yes...we can use the MFL taxi squad functionality just like we used to. You can't start those players. Just those players wouldn't be eligible for bidding by other owners.

The thing we would need to clarify is the deadline for moving a player up from and down to the "inactive" list. NFL teams have until kickoff of a game to declare players active but that would be really hard to administer since anyone that messes up could potentially have extra players on their roster while games are being played.

Why not just add a roster spot and forget the whole Taxi Squad thing? All this is really doing is allowing teams to fill in for players who aren't officially on IR. Adding another roster spot would help with that and be way easier to administer. It would deplete the available talent on the WW though.

Well, I'm not suggesting adding "inactive" roster spots in addition to what we currently have. I'm suggesting we have them in lieu of current "IR." It's still 3 spots, they're just more flexible.

Oh okay. That makes sense.