:: Salary Cap Question - Page 4

http://www.thecfl.us/forum/

Salary Cap Question http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4515	Page 4 of 9

Author:	thater [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:34 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote8a8e444="timmynausea"]Just something to think about in terms of the time table - to have this rule not effect recent 1st round picks, we'd have to wait 5 or 6 years to implement the rule. I just don't think that's feasible.[/quote8a8e444] I agree 5 to 6 seasons is too long. It just seemed as though everyone was wanting this now. That was the first I heard about the RFA's. Are they asking for those deals, or are they taking those deals once offered? This is something I do want to address and quickly.

Author:	timmynausea [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:39 pm ]
Post subject:
[quotee3639ae="thater"] That was the first I heard about the RFA's. Are they asking for those deals, or are they taking those deals once offered? This is something I do want to address and quickly.[/quotee3639ae] My guess is that the guys that are asking for the 1 or 2 year min deals will often accept up to 3. This obviously wouldn't apply to RFAs that have been starters and would ask for more.

Author:	TurfToe [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:49 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteeca3ad3="timmynausea"] Just something to think about in terms of the time table - to have this rule not effect recent 1st round picks, we'd have to wait 5 or 6 years to implement the rule. I just don't think that's feasible.[/quoteeca3ad3] Now you're inventing facts, as no one has asked for a 5-6 year implementation schedule. I am also not asking specifically because of my 1st round picks. I am asking for time as my mortgaging strategy will buckle the minute I stop and I want time to back out of it gracefully. It's not necessarily due to the players I have but the moves I have made and their effect on future drafts. The players I do have will affect which position I want to be in during future drafts from a cap standpoint but not because I don't think I can afford them. I will simply have less depth. I have trade implications that reach out two more years that were made on a current rule set. It baffles me that this aspect of the discussion cannot be grasped by some people. If you don't get it now you probably never will. Let's stop selling a rule and work through the process. Once we get everyone to agree what the problem is and assign a priority to its effect on the CFL we can continue the debate as to whether this rule is what everyone wants.

Author:	timmynausea [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:
My apologies for cluttering up the process.

Author:	TurfToe [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteed81592="timmynausea"]My apologies for cluttering up the process.[/quoteed81592] It's not getting cluttered since it hasn't started yet - that's the major hurdle here. Just wait and unload all of this stuff when we discuss a solution. I'm buying into a good portion of what's out here but I think we haven't gotten to that point yet. I don't want a poll but we need to see where the majority of owners are on this subject. Is this a problem? How significant is this problem? We already know a handful of us agree it's a problem and a significant one at that. If the other 80% of the GM's chime in and join this discussion it might help move the process along to where this thread is applicable.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteba5d5b5="TurfToe"][quoteba5d5b5="timmynausea"]My apologies for cluttering up the process.[/quoteba5d5b5] It's not getting cluttered since it hasn't started yet - that's the major hurdle here. Just wait and unload all of this stuff when we discuss a solution. I'm buying into a good portion of what's out here but I think we haven't gotten to that point yet. I don't want a poll but we need to see where the majority of owners are on this subject. Is this a problem? How significant is this problem? We already know a handful of us agree it's a problem and a significant one at that. If the other 80% of the GM's chime in and join this discussion it might help move the process along to where this thread is applicable.[/quoteba5d5b5] I think we're starting to get on the right track here, some good discussion in here for everyone...especially those who are not in other leagues and such. I agree with you on that first we need to get a consensus there is a problem, how big the problem is, should something be done to solve the problem, what is causing the problem and what we should do to remedy the situation. I think by getting the appropriate amount of votes we can safely say that the league agrees there is a problem with how the game handles the cap situation. I think again, based on the original votes we can say that the league views this as a big problem, and something does need to be done. (For both of these I'd like to see more people chime in, since as was pointed out the original vote not everyone might have known exactly the real issue going on). Now what is causing the problem- we've had a lot of good posts in here on the issue, and I tend to agree with them. Back when the cap was closer for a lot of teams, I always managed to stay in the clear by watching my players- if you simply go to renegotiate and watch them throughout the season the demands may go up, or they may go down- if they go down and you structure a 4+ year deal with the first could years being low and the last few being really high it was easy to always get them to re-restructure those last 2 years where you never had to pay them. The cycle continues and eventually you have the situation where we are at now. That is my view on it. To me the problem is causing a real lack of talent in FA- I went out and got the # 1 player in FA based on the grey sheet for a measly 1.75 million, and he is simply a backup QB... Stupid money was being thrown around on average players- and with only a handful of possible starters in FA teams are going to throw money and the ones that don't get them are stuck with an ass load in cap space...and nothing to do with it, except maybe resign some guys early to help ease the cap in future years... I know there were some guys in FA that I could have spent crazy money on, and it would have been a couple point bump in talent for a backup, but to me the cohesion and affinities are more important than a couple points so I stick with my current backups. I've started to ramble some and lost my train of thought... Oh yeah, now once we can all agree on there is a problem, what is it, what is it causing we can then discuss what to do next. Maybe what we have now can work better than the other ideas thrown around, I don't know- I haven't thought about the long term under these circumstances.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:08 pm ]
Post subject:
[quoteff53752="TurfToe"] I don't want a poll but we need to see where the majority of owners are on this subject. Is this a problem? How significant is this problem? We already know a handful of us agree it's a problem and a significant one at that. If the other 80% of the GM's chime in and join this discussion it might help move the process along to where this thread is applicable.[/quoteff53752] I went ahead and made an announcement to try to pull some of the other owners in to this thread to get some more input on the situation. I'm going to copy this and add it to that post so that the other owners will know where we are at, and what we need to try to accomplish.

Author:	Raven Hawk [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:05 am ]
Post subject:
I've been keeping up with this thread, but haven't posted an opinion yet because I wanted to see where the discussion was going. Although there were plenty of great points made, I think we've waded through a bunch of the preliminary bickering and are at a point where we can effectively discuss a positive change for the league. To answer TT's questions. This IS a problem and it IS a significant one. The league is becoming less Football Management and more "Beat the Game." Thus its appeal to me has fallen over the last couple of seasons. Problem #1: I look at the best QB in the league's contract (yes I am referring to [player]Kent Goodwin[/player]) and I laugh. The contract is well within the rules of the league, but it looks like an exploit to me. The same salary for 3 years then an almost (but not quite) doubling of his salary in the last year. $57.33M over 5 years. I don't mean to pick on this contract, there are plenty of others in the league that look just like this. Kent is just an easy target - he's got 3 rings. I'm guessing that this contract is considerably less than what he was asking. Problem #2: Free agency has become a place to find Mentors and Leaders. There isn't any talent that goes back into free agency. I used to love having a meaningful bidding war for 60/60 WR, mortgaging the future to get that "last piece." I think that this is because the cap is advancing too quickly for the contract requests that are being asked and the contracts that are actually being signed (see problem #1). When we've seen problems in the past we've discussed and acted on them. The best example is when we'd have outrageous 1 year offers to players looking for a multi-year deal. Although the system we put in place is not perfect it has been effective and I don't see this as a problem in our league any longer. So what do we do about this? I agree with TT: I hate to see rules that have to be policed outside of the game. However, if it's going to make the game more enjoyable for the majority I'm for it. For problem #1, I'm at a loss, I don't know what to do take care of problems like this. No matter what line you draw, you'll have owners walk right up to that line and stop before they cross it. Unfortunately, I think that Jim needs to fix the game, but who knows if this is even on his "hit list" for the next patch/release? For problem #2, I'm for a hybrid method: We can first use the signing a punter to each team with a bonus, then cutting him idea to ease ourselves into cap control, then when the TV contract is up, we can freeze the cap. The only thing that I'd want to make sure that we did is that we had a plan for how much dead cap space we'd have per season leading up to the contract and how much we'd have once the new contract is in place. I'd recommend something like this: 2017 - 2M 2018 - 4M 2019 - 6M 2020 - 6M (TV contract expires, freeze cap) 2021 - 5M 2022 - 4M 2023 - 3M 2024 - 2M 2025 - 1M 2026 and beyond - Manage the TV contract At least this way, people would know what the plan is going into the future and can adjust their strategies accordingly.

Author:	timmynausea [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:31 am ]
Post subject:
Raven Hawk - First, as you say yourself, your solution doesn't address problem #1 at all. I believe, as I've said, that problem #2 is actually just a symptom of problem #1. In other words, we can do whatever we want with the cap, but if the renegotiation code is allowing arguably the best QB in league history to sign for peanuts, we're going to have problems. Let's look at the Goodwin situation here to frame the actual problem. As you say, Fonzie has shuffled those numbers, but I submit that he hasn't done anything devious. The problem is not that Fonzie moved around the numbers to shave a 5 year asking price of $60-65 million down to $57 million with some amount of backloading to make the early years easier on his franchise. I just think that is nothing compared to the real issue here - that Kent Goodwin should be asking for closer to $100-120 million over 5. It's a perfect example, in my mind, of the renegotiation code being too soft. To look at it and complain about the backloading aspect is to miss the fundamental problem, in my view.

Author:	thater [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:35 am ]
Post subject:
[quotebb17e33="timmynausea"] Let's look at the Goodwin situation here to frame the actual problem. As you say, Fonzie has shuffled those numbers, but I submit that he hasn't done anything devious. The problem is not that Fonzie moved around the numbers to shave a 5 year asking price of $60-65 million down to $57 million with some amount of backloading to make the early years easier on his franchise. I just think that is nothing compared to the real issue here - that Kent Goodwin should be asking for closer to $100-120 million over 5. It's a perfect example, in my mind, of the renegotiation code being too soft. To look at it and complain about the backloading aspect is to miss the fundamental problem, in my view.[/quotebb17e33] However, to suggest that renegotiations can only be made in the last year of the contract, will fix the leagues situations of those backloaded contracts is also wrong. The last year of the contract is the time they WOULD want to renegotiate. Yes, he should be asking for more. Yes, I did not realize this was a problem as I offer contracts extremely close to what they are asking for. I would like a league that would offer the guy exactly what he is asking if this is the case. Sometimes, I try to cut down the bonus money by say $200,000, but put an extra $250,000 in the first year of the contract so the player knows he is still getting his money. I have tried to get guys to add a year to there deal at more then they were asking for their last year, but have not got anyone to sign those as I was trying to spread the bonus money over an extra year to make it less hurtful. With this knowledge of getting guys to sign contracts like Goodwin's, then let's do this renegotiation thing, as I would still never have to worry about the cap situation.

Author:	fantastic flying froggies [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:41 am ]
Post subject:
[quote90cfece="TurfToe"]BTW, does anyone know who the worst-rated QB was to win a championship? [/quote90cfece] Don't know if it's the all time lowest, but it's the lowest I've ever see. Teddy Parmalee led the Raleigh Recalcitrants to a championship in the WOOF last season. And he is rated 36/36. Yup, that is right. And WOOF is quite a competitive league too, so that was quite an accomplishment.

Author:	fantastic flying froggies [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:46 am ]
Post subject:
To get back on subject, like Raven Hawk, I haven't posted much in this thread but have read every post. (well, except the long rambling ones ) To me, this is a very serious issue which basically made free agency useless. For all intents and purposes, we have no salary cap right now, and are mirroring the eighties NFL where the 49ers were able to keep a star loaded roster for many consecutive years. (see Tucson, Boise) With the longer draft and the useless FA, I must confess the CFL offseason is just a long boring tunnel to me...and that sucks, because that really should be the most attractive part of the season for a GM sim... I think we need to fix this issue quickly, and not just down the road. I think drastic action needs to be taken, and quickly, or we run the risk of losing the interest of many owners.

Author:	TurfToe [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:13 am ]
Post subject:
[quotea6189a8="fantastic flying froggies"] I think we need to fix this issue quickly, and not just down the road. I think drastic action needs to be taken, and quickly, or we run the risk of [ba6189a8]losing the interest of[/ba6189a8] many [ba6189a8]owners[/ba6189a8].[/quotea6189a8] Like the ones with 30 players and the most cap space?

Author:	baildog [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:24 am ]
Post subject:
[quote56980ee]With the longer draft and the useless FA, I must confess the CFL offseason is just a long boring tunnel to me...and that sucks, because that really should be the most attractive part of the season for a GM sim... [/quote56980ee] +1 Yes it is a problem and yes it is a serious one. On one hand there is a ton of cap space, on the other hand when a GM has $40mil in cap space and overbids on a marginal player a) because there are no good free agents and b) because he has $40 mil to spend on 15 guys; he gets hammered for offering too much money and throwing the league contracts off. I am in the camp that the less rules outside the game, the better. But something needs to be done. Nobody knows for sure the answer, but we need to start somewhere. I would rather try something that did not work, and then try to fix it or adopt something else than do nothing at all.

Author:	wademoore [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:35 am ]
Post subject:
My god. It's 10x worse to get things done here than it is at my job. This shouldn't be work. There's a problem, it's obvious, let's fix it. Someone call me when we get to actually doing something months from now and I'll vote. This league drives me up a fucking wall sometimes.

Author:	thater [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:38 am ]
Post subject:
[quote7fb6cee="wademoore"]My god. It's 10x worse to get things done here than it is at my job. This shouldn't be work. There's a problem, it's obvious, let's fix it. Someone call me when we get to actually doing something months from now and I'll vote. This league drives me up a fucking wall sometimes.[/quote7fb6cee] [quote7fb6cee="thater"]With this knowledge of getting guys to sign contracts like Goodwin's, then let's do this renegotiation thing, as I would still never have to worry about the cap situation.[/quote7fb6cee] Lets do it now with them signing those contracts, hells yeah, lets do it.

Author:	TLK [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:05 am ]
Post subject:
With a cap freeze... do the rookie and veteran minimum salaries continue to grow?

Author:	Masked [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:53 am ]
Post subject:
I've been very frustrated with free agency for the past several seasons - it simply isn't fun when there is at most one or two impact players available. The non-meaningful cap also hurts the trade market since no one has to dump salaries. I think implementing the renegotiations in the final season only rule the next offseason would be a good idea. Everyone gets one last chance this season to extend anyone currently on their rosters with no restrictions.

Author:	GoldenEagle [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:50 pm ]
Post subject:
I am just now getting back into the league, so the majority of this discussion is over my head. But I was not even aware of the $2mil rule. I am going to read over the original discussion and then try to formulate an opinion.

Author:	Doug5984 [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote600939f="fantastic flying froggies"]To get back on subject, like Raven Hawk, I haven't posted much in this thread but have read every post. (well, except the long rambling ones ) To me, this is a very serious issue which basically made free agency useless. For all intents and purposes, we have no salary cap right now, and are mirroring the eighties NFL where the 49ers were able to keep a star loaded roster for many consecutive years. (see Tucson, Boise) With the longer draft and the useless FA, I must confess the CFL offseason is just a long boring tunnel to me...and that sucks, because that really should be the most attractive part of the season for a GM sim... I think we need to fix this issue quickly, and not just down the road. I think drastic action needs to be taken, and quickly, or we run the risk of losing the interest of many owners.[/quote600939f] The last part is the biggest concern to me, we have a very good solid group of owners and I'd hate to lose people because the off season becomes pointless besides the draft, and it takes to long to rebuild and become a contender.

Author:	belanma [ Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:
My inexperience makes me feel a little unprepared for this conversation, but I'll go ahead and throw in my 0.02 in the interest of league participation. Here are some "I would"s. I would like it if the cap was more meaningful. I dislike rules that exist outside the context of the application, such as the mystical 2mil cap gap we have in place now, but I will happily accept whatever result comes out of this discussion. I would like to second the sentiment that someone else out there brought up that we should not try to re-invent the wheel uneccesarily. If another league has a successful solution to the cap problem, I would like us to at the very least take a good look at it before we get too involved with being creative. I would be sad if I lost my good players to FA because I wasn't as good at manipulating contracts as other GMs. I'm all for a more aggressive cap, but if that more aggressive cap is essentially compensating for exploitive contracts I would have to say that we should look at the problem and not the symptom. Reducing carelessness by restricting the supply of bandaids seems to me to be a little masochistic... but I defer to my betters on that one. I've heard various rules restricting year over year increases in contracts, and while I generally dislike out of game rules, that one seems pretty reasonable to me.

Author:	Stretch [ Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:08 am ]
Post subject:
I am late to this party as well but I think it should be no more complicated than this: Freeze the salary cap as it is right now. Send the file to Solecismic. They can adjust the salary cap increase due to TV contract. This arbitrary $2m cap space rule is crap. I'm sorry but it is.

Author:	Shooter [ Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:01 am ]
Post subject:
[quote110e02c="Stretch"] Freeze the salary cap as it is right now. Send the file to Solecismic. They can adjust the salary cap increase due to TV contract. [/quote110e02c] This is a very solid idea. I wonder if it could be done?

Author:	JJ Smitty [ Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:22 am ]
Post subject:
[quotee9321a6="Shooter"][quotee9321a6="Stretch"] Freeze the salary cap as it is right now. Send the file to Solecismic. They can adjust the salary cap increase due to TV contract. [/quotee9321a6] This is a very solid idea. I wonder if it could be done?[/quotee9321a6] I second this Idea, see if Jim can fix it..

Author:	baildog [ Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:12 am ]
Post subject:
[quote36852e7="JJ Smitty"][quote36852e7="Shooter"][quote36852e7="Stretch"] Freeze the salary cap as it is right now. Send the file to Solecismic. They can adjust the salary cap increase due to TV contract. [/quote36852e7] This is a very solid idea. I wonder if it could be done?[/quote36852e7] I second this Idea, see if Jim can fix it..[/quote36852e7] +3

Page 4 of 9	All times are UTC-07:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/