Missed the post Doug mentioned, I am pretty sure I will be in compliance
http://www.thecfl.us/forum/ |
|
| Salary Cap Question http://www.thecfl.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4515 |
Page 1 of 9 |
| Author: | Shooter [ Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Salary Cap Question |
In order to ensure the $2,000,000 in free cap space if properly followed, I was wondering how others are managing the cap leading up the the final stages of FA. With the ability to carry more than 53 roster spots through camp, the fact that the highest 53 salaries count towards the cap, and veteran's that are offered a minimal contract that count against the cap as 3rd year players, how is everyone managing to keep an eye on there cap space prior to submitting offers as they approach the cap limit. While I know most owners will not approach the limit, there are some of us who will so any input here would be useful to avoid issues. I'm sure if we can determine a successful path to monitor this we could all gain from it. |
|
| Author: | Fastcat [ Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Another question, when does the cap space need to be at the $2,000,000 mark? Training camp? Preseason? Always? Regular Season? I might hit and exceed it, but then cut players if I actually do. |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote8d235bb]We want to gradually make the salary cap meaningful again. As a first step, the proposal is to lower the salary cap by $2 million next season. This means that all teams must have at least $2 million in free cap space at all times. If this gets approved, we'll re-evaluate the situation after the offseason and make a plan for 2018.[/quote8d235bb] Based on this it is at all times, I know this is a tricky part of the season as most teams like to carry 60+ players. A lot of teams have so much cap space this is not a problem at all, for others it could be. |
|
| Author: | fantastic flying froggies [ Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotefa1b4e2="Fastcat"]Another question, when does the cap space need to be at the $2,000,000 mark? Training camp? Preseason? Always? Regular Season? I might hit and exceed it, but then cut players if I actually do.[/quotefa1b4e2] I'm assuming it is at all times, otherwise there isn't much point to the rule. |
|
| Author: | Fastcat [ Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Missed the post Doug mentioned, I am pretty sure I will be in compliance
|
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quoted98b757="fantastic flying froggies"][quoted98b757="Fastcat"]Another question, when does the cap space need to be at the $2,000,000 mark? Training camp? Preseason? Always? Regular Season? I might hit and exceed it, but then cut players if I actually do.[/quoted98b757] I'm assuming it is at all times, otherwise there isn't much point to the rule.[/quoted98b757] Well, the in-game cap isn't at all times, is it? If you go over there are certain checkpoints during the offseason where the penalties are applied if you are over, not the very second you go over. You can be over except when you get to those checkpoints. This gives a GM a chance to correct the cap issues. So there is a point to the rule, even if it is not at all times. I could spend an hour or two getting all the numbers right in a spreadsheet before I sign my rookies so that I never go within $2m of the cap or I could sign my rookies in one export and make the cuts I need in the next export to make sure I comply. The end result is the same, is it not? This is another example of why we should have as few out-of-game rules as possible. I like the idea of pulling the cap number back and I did vote for it but now living with it during a few stages during the offseason is going to be a pain in the ass. It is my opinion that the salary cap is too large right now but I also believe it is a GM's job to do the most with the current situation. Regardless of what the cap is (both in-game and out-of-game) I will always be up against that number. The significance of Shooter's point is so that those of us who use this philsophy know how much time we need to spend calculating salaries during this part of the season. It was easy in the game since it won't let you go over the cap. It would save me a lot of time and effort if I can sign my rookies and take corrective actions in the next export if I happen to be over the manually applied cap number. If I hear anymore arguments about how many people have too much cap space I am going to vomit. There are people that can't manage their draft either, are we going to institute rules to eliminate their inefficiencies there too? Regardless of where we get the cap number to, there will always be someone with too much free cap and spending stupid money on FA's. I think we need to focus on getting the cap number back to where it is a factor in the game and nothing more. I think this draft showed that we are getting closer as teams have traded out of picks for cap considerations. In a few more years I think the salaries will rise to the point of helping achieve the equilibrium we are looking for. |
|
| Author: | wademoore [ Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[redacted] |
|
| Author: | fantastic flying froggies [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
and we have our first case...well, that didn't take long...  Anchorage is now over the cap, and yes, they can cut someone to get back under. Real problem is, they won a bidding war (for a scrub, but that's beside the point) which they should never have in the first place. So now, I guess we find out what, if any, the penalty is going to be... |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote395f4c4="fantastic flying froggies"]and we have our first case...well, that didn't take long... Anchorage is now over the cap, and yes, they can cut someone to get back under. Real problem is, they won a bidding war (for a scrub, but that's beside the point) which they should never have in the first place. So now, I guess we find out what, if any, the penalty is going to be...[/quote395f4c4] Taco is out of town right now, and asked me to handle the commissioner duties for him- but for this one I am going to email him and get his take on it. At the very least Anchorage [b395f4c4]*MUST*[/b395f4c4] release someone to get back under the cap by the next stage. Anchorage- be sure that you know the game counts the most expensive 53 against the cap. I'm going to hold off on saying anymore until I hear from Taco, I don't want to set a bad precedence... |
|
| Author: | fantastic flying froggies [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A wise decision Doug, there's no real rush anyhow. |
|
| Author: | Shooter [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the easy way to solve this is to cut the last player signed which put them over the cap. Where this will be difficult is if it is a rookie signing. So I guess the last FA signed would work best and continue the cuts until they are within the the requirements. |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think giving him the next export to straighten things out works best. |
|
| Author: | thater [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotef78b46b="TurfToe"]I think giving him the next export to straighten things out works best.[/quotef78b46b] As long as teams don't go into camp over "our" limit and also don't ever play a game over that limit, I think they should get a chance to get back under on the next stage file. |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
After talking it over with Taco, I think the best way to handle it for the time being is this. Under this circumstance Anchorage will have to cut someone to be under the cap, because I was away all day and I see Anchorage already uploaded- it is my fault for not jumping on this quicker, I will give him until the next file (the one after tomorrow- as in Tuesday morning) to be back in compliance with the cap. If at that point he is not, further action will be taken, per the rules. Again, it was my fault for being slow on this that is the reasoning for me allowing the file to stand. Based on my short convo with Taco, from this point forward if a team goes over, the stage file that put the team over will simply be discarded. We will see how this works, and I'd like to here if anyone has some thoughts on this process and how to best handle it. But for now this is how we will go. |
|
| Author: | Stretch [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote71600cc="fantastic flying froggies"]and we have our first case...well, that didn't take long... Anchorage is now over the cap, and yes, they can cut someone to get back under. Real problem is, they won a bidding war (for a scrub, but that's beside the point) which they should never have in the first place. So now, I guess we find out what, if any, the penalty is going to be...[/quote71600cc] I missed the ruling about being $2,000,000 under the cap. I'll try to figure out who to cut. Jeremy |
|
| Author: | TurfToe [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote2e1ed2c="Doug5984"]After talking it over with Taco, I think the best way to handle it for the time being is this. Under this circumstance Anchorage will have to cut someone to be under the cap, because I was away all day and I see Anchorage already uploaded- it is my fault for not jumping on this quicker, I will give him until the next file (the one after tomorrow- as in Tuesday morning) to be back in compliance with the cap. If at that point he is not, further action will be taken, per the rules. Again, it was my fault for being slow on this that is the reasoning for me allowing the file to stand. Based on my short convo with Taco, from this point forward if a team goes over, the stage file that put the team over will simply be discarded. We will see how this works, and I'd like to here if anyone has some thoughts on this process and how to best handle it. But for now this is how we will go.[/quote2e1ed2c] Hmmmm, I can see a potential problem with this for camp. Based on my math using a spreadsheet, I can sign my unsigned draftees for the max. $/min. yrs. option and be right up against the cap. However, if I miscalculate this number by $80k or whatever, I run the risk of having that export discarded and my rookies not making it into camp. Seriously ghey. I think trying to manage this outside of the game is too much overhead. If I tried this in-game and it wouldn't fly I would at least be notified before exporting. Now I must trust my math and hope I don't miss camp with my rookies. I'll send a player to cut in a PM to TLK so if I screw up he knows who to cut so my rookies can make it to camp. I know this rule won't be a big deal once the games start but during this part of the season I think it should be flexible enough to allow one export to correct any compliance issues. |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quotec56542f="TurfToe"][quotec56542f="Doug5984"]After talking it over with Taco, I think the best way to handle it for the time being is this. Under this circumstance Anchorage will have to cut someone to be under the cap, because I was away all day and I see Anchorage already uploaded- it is my fault for not jumping on this quicker, I will give him until the next file (the one after tomorrow- as in Tuesday morning) to be back in compliance with the cap. If at that point he is not, further action will be taken, per the rules. Again, it was my fault for being slow on this that is the reasoning for me allowing the file to stand. Based on my short convo with Taco, from this point forward if a team goes over, the stage file that put the team over will simply be discarded. We will see how this works, and I'd like to here if anyone has some thoughts on this process and how to best handle it. But for now this is how we will go.[/quotec56542f] Hmmmm, I can see a potential problem with this for camp. Based on my math using a spreadsheet, I can sign my unsigned draftees for the max. $/min. yrs. option and be right up against the cap. However, if I miscalculate this number by $80k or whatever, I run the risk of having that export discarded and my rookies not making it into camp. Seriously ghey. I think trying to manage this outside of the game is too much overhead. If I tried this in-game and it wouldn't fly I would at least be notified before exporting. Now I must trust my math and hope I don't miss camp with my rookies. I'll send a player to cut in a PM to TLK so if I screw up he knows who to cut so my rookies can make it to camp. I know this rule won't be a big deal once the games start but during this part of the season I think it should be flexible enough to allow one export to correct any compliance issues.[/quotec56542f] This is sort of where I am leaning as well, but wanted to get some good discussion before we hit TC... It'd suck for someone to not get their rookies to sign, not get their weight training, or their training camp settings in because of a minor miscalculation...and personally I feel it'd be a pain to have to set up a spreadsheet to determine your cap status... at the same time, if someone knows that we have the one stage buffer, they could *bend* the rule to carry more players than they should through TC then get to choose who to cut after TC has been run. One idea I had was to toss out the- if you go over the cap going through TC you CAN NOT cut one of the players you just signed to get back under (theoretically keeping people from loading up on gambles just to see how they turn out, when they really don't have the cap space).... For the vast majority of the teams this won't be an issue, but for a handful it could be and I'd hate for someone to be punished for a slight miscalculation. Possibly allow for a buffer zone for the export being thrown out, if your within 350k you just have to cut someone next stage, more than that the export is thrown out? I'm just tossing around some ideas see what everyone thinks. With all this said I think we need to keep as few rules outside the game as possible, start adding rules to our rules it gets complicated and too much of a hassle to check every time you want to do something |
|
| Author: | fantastic flying froggies [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Turns out ANC is back under the cap, so all is well again under the sun... 
|
|
| Author: | fantastic flying froggies [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote34734a3="Doug5984"]...and personally I feel it'd be a pain to have to set up a spreadsheet to determine your cap status...[/quote34734a3] This brought a smile to my face, as I have had a salary cap spreadsheet since the 2005 season... Don't know how I'd manage without it, no way in hell I could plan ahead without it...but that's just the geek in me, I guess...
|
|
| Author: | TLK [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have four spreadsheets for this league and three for the GEFL. I'm a geek too. |
|
| Author: | Raven Hawk [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I had a spreadsheet and I'll start using it again if I ever come into the danger of getting near the cap again. Being $32M under the cap . . . I'll save myself the time of updating a spreadsheet. |
|
| Author: | Doug5984 [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My football leagues are about the only thing in my life I dont have spreadsheets for (not counting the offseason where I will set some up with players I am targetting)... Bunch of geeks around here
|
|
| Author: | Shooter [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[quote5f2bdbd="Doug5984"]My football leagues are about the only thing in my life I dont have spreadsheets for (not counting the offseason where I will set some up with players I am targetting)... Bunch of geeks around here [/quote5f2bdbd]I find it hilarious that the accountant doesn't use the spreadsheet. I actually tried it once, but it became a pain to manage. I really only use the spreadsheet for draft purposes. |
|
| Author: | Meatholes [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We could give a tolerance of $100,000 over the cap for any 1 export to all teams without a penalty as long as they get back under in the next export. This accomodates the slight math errors. I think if it is above that, it was not an error. Any team that goes over more than $100,000 (it could be a different amount) would be penalized immediately or if they do not fix the issue on the next export. I do not think this would be tough to manage, and it gives a little cushion for honest mistakes. Especially during the season when you get a few weeks in, it is more difficult to calculate the salary cap ramifications of a transaction. |
|
| Author: | belanma [ Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[b9d1f137]Proposal[/b9d1f137] [i9d1f137]Rule[/i9d1f137]: All teams must have at least $2 million in free cap space at all times. [i9d1f137]Consquence[/i9d1f137]: Should a team have less than $2 million in free cap space at any time, they [i9d1f137]must[/i9d1f137] get back to $2 million in free cap space for the next export. Failure to do so will result in the commissioner releasing the most recently signed player(s) (according to the transaction log) until said team is back under $2 million in free cap space. [i9d1f137]Exception[/i9d1f137]: The commishoner may, at his discretion, give a manager an additional week based on absence or other complicating factors. |
|
| Page 1 of 9 | All times are UTC-07:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|