2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Moderator: TrueDawg

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:46 am

I propose we expand IR eligibility next year. NFL teams have a number of reserve "list" designations (reserve/retired, non-football injury, etc.)...we only have one. I think all these roster designations should be eligible for IR.

http://overthecap.com/explaining-roster-designations/

Multiple Scorgasms
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:12 pm

Any interest in looking at the guaranteed rookie contracts?

They're f'ing brutal to deal with... :|

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby TrueDawg » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:28 pm

Multiple Scorgasms wrote:Any interest in looking at the guaranteed rookie contracts?

They're f'ing brutal to deal with... :|
Not if you know the rules.... :lol:

Multiple Scorgasms
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:30 pm

:lol: :wall:

Today is like Christmas! And in my defense, I know at least 2 others thought the same as me, and probably many more. Congrats everyone, we're actually not bound to our rookie busts for the next 4 years! :dance:

User avatar
monkeybones
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1766
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby monkeybones » Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:51 am

Multiple Scorgasms wrote::lol: :wall:

Today is like Christmas! And in my defense, I know at least 2 others thought the same as me, and probably many more. Congrats everyone, we're actually not bound to our rookie busts for the next 4 years! :dance:
Isn't that only for 2nd and 3rd round picks? I thought 1st round picks still had guaranteed contracts.

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby TrueDawg » Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:50 am

monkeybones wrote:Isn't that only for 2nd and 3rd round picks? I thought 1st round picks still had guaranteed contracts.
It's for any rookie on a fully-guaranteed deal...the first year (or two?) we did it, it included 2nd and 3rd round picks.

User avatar
monkeybones
All Pro
All Pro
Posts: 1766
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:16 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby monkeybones » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:42 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
monkeybones wrote:Isn't that only for 2nd and 3rd round picks? I thought 1st round picks still had guaranteed contracts.
It's for any rookie on a fully-guaranteed deal...the first year (or two?) we did it, it included 2nd and 3rd round picks.
It does get confusing since the rules seem to contradict themselves:
Guaranteed Money

For a bonus contract, 20% of the total contract value is guaranteed money that is prorated over the life of the contract. The owner is always responsible for this money. For example, if a player is signed to a $10,000 contract for 2 years, the guaranteed money is $4000, or $2000 per year. If a player is signed to a $40,000 contract for 5 years, the guaranteed money is $40,000, or $8000 per year.
but then later is says:
Salary Cap Penalties

Salary cap penalties are assessed any time a contract between a team and a player is prematurely terminated. This includes cuts and trades. The penalty is the guaranteed money remaining on the contract. If the player is cut in the off-season, the full remaining amount rolls up into the current cap. For example, if a player is signed to $10,000 for 5 years, the guaranteed money would be $10,000 or $2000 per year. If the player is cut after year 2, the remaining $6000 immediately hits the owner's cap. If the player were cut after year 4, only $2000 would remain. If a player is cut during the season, that season's prorated portion of the guaranteed money hits the owner's cap immediately and the remaining prorated amount is assessed in the off-season. Taking the example above, if the player was cut in the middle of year 2, $2000 would immediately hit the owner's cap and $6000 would be assessed in the off-season.

When trading a player still on his rookie contract, the original owner takes the current-year cap hit. The remaining guaranteed money is spread over the life of the contract, meaning the salary would stay the same but the "bonus" would decrease. For example, if a rookie with a 10K salary (4 years) was traded right after the draft, the original owner would take a 10k cap hit. The remaining 30K of guaranteed money would be spread over the remaining 4 years...so the guaranteed/bonus amount would drop to $7,500 for the new owner.

In the offseason, there are special penalties that may apply. Any player won in any bidding scenario is considered to have 1 year of guaranteed money for the duration of the offseason. That means that any player won and cut during the same offseason, even those without bonus contracts, will incur a penalty equal to 20% of the winning bid amount.

Salary cap penalties are removed at the end of the year when contract years are cycled.
Being new, I missed the part about the guaranteed portion of a rookie contracts being passed on to the new owner. The first rule makes it seem like the original owner is "always responsible for this money" but he really isn't. Just another one of those small details I missed when reading the rules as a new owner. It makes way more sense to do this way because having the drafting owner be 100% responsible makes it almost impossible to deal anyone on their rookie contract.

Multiple Scorgasms
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Tue Oct 18, 2016 12:48 pm

You can imagine my pain when I've tried to negotiate various trades including the likes of Cooks (2 years w/ 8k bonus), not realizing the actual rules and thinking I'd have to eat a 16k dead cap hit. :lol:

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby TrueDawg » Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:58 am

monkeybones wrote:Being new, I missed the part about the guaranteed portion of a rookie contracts being passed on to the new owner. The first rule makes it seem like the original owner is "always responsible for this money" but he really isn't. Just another one of those small details I missed when reading the rules as a new owner. It makes way more sense to do this way because having the drafting owner be 100% responsible makes it almost impossible to deal anyone on their rookie contract.
If you CUT the player, then yes, you are "responsible for this money" (ask MS about Bishop Sankey)....if you trade him, you're not.

It's the only reasonable way to deal with fully-guaranteed contracts. Otherwise it would be impossible to trade highly drafted rookies.

citsalp1
Captain
Captain
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:32 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby citsalp1 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:53 pm

1. Get rid of the trade deadline, make it so owners can trade all year long. With our playoff system, you can't tank and help your team.

2. 2. Expand rosters to 20 vs 19. Easy enough to figure out

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby TrueDawg » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:29 pm

citsalp1 wrote:1. Get rid of the trade deadline, make it so owners can trade all year long. With our playoff system, you can't tank and help your team.
I will never be in favor of playoff teams being able to bring in "ringers" to load up their teams the week before the playoffs start. It totally wrecks the competitive balance. I mean there's a reason the NFL trade deadline is also week 8.

As for tanking...while you can't tank and guarantee you'll get the #1 pick, you'll end up with at least a top 4 pick.

citsalp1
Captain
Captain
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:32 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby citsalp1 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:38 pm

TrueDawg wrote:
citsalp1 wrote:1. Get rid of the trade deadline, make it so owners can trade all year long. With our playoff system, you can't tank and help your team.
I will never be in favor of playoff teams being able to bring in "ringers" to load up their teams the week before the playoffs start. It totally wrecks the competitive balance. I mean there's a reason the NFL trade deadline is also week 8.

As for tanking...while you can't tank and guarantee you'll get the #1 pick, you'll end up with at least a top 4 pick.
After further thought , I agree...but can we add one more week???

User avatar
TrueDawg
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:45 am

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby TrueDawg » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:51 am

citsalp1 wrote:After further thought , I agree...but can we add one more week???
I'd be open to moving it back one week...but probably not more than that. Or we could make it the Tuesday after week 8, like the NFLs deadline.

Multiple Scorgasms
Pro Bowler
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:18 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby Multiple Scorgasms » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:13 am

INTs should be -3, maybe even -4.

There's no way in hell the following performance should net 8 points:

240 yards
1 TD
5 INT

If you flipped those numbers, the great performance would net a huge, game-winning score. It's only appropriate that such a disaster of a performance should be the opposite IMO.

Actually -4 would really be appropriate. It would REALLY separate the value in QBs. Turds like Bortles wouldn't be able to put up garbage points because their turnovers would cancel out their TDs.

citsalp1
Captain
Captain
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 10:32 pm

Re: 2017 Rule Change Suggestions

Postby citsalp1 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:46 pm

Multiple Scorgasms wrote:INTs should be -3, maybe even -4.

There's no way in hell the following performance should net 8 points:

240 yards
1 TD
5 INT

If you flipped those numbers, the great performance would net a huge, game-winning score. It's only appropriate that such a disaster of a performance should be the opposite IMO.

Actually -4 would really be appropriate. It would REALLY separate the value in QBs. Turds like Bortles wouldn't be able to put up garbage points because their turnovers would cancel out their TDs.
He had 8 whopping points??? AND, no a interception should never be scored like a touchdown(4pts) :nono:

It's a 16 team league, only 32 QB's, of course there are going to be some turds. If your used to playing in 8 team leagues...


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest