Couple of Cap Rules Ideas

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Winuvas, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Couple of Cap Rules Ideas

    After the first wave of updates now, and doing some things, I noticed a few snags that I didn't think of when doing the ideas for the cap books. Here is a few changes I want to propose to the cap rulebook for future use. Let me know if these are okay, and I will add them in where they are needed:

    1. In the case of a tied overall separating two different modifier listings. What I propose is that if a player is cut, the team takes the lower cap hit in all cases. I'll use my Broncos as an example:

    I have 2 WRs at #3 and #4 on the depth chart. Both are 74 overalls. #3 on the chart is a 2 modifier; #4 is a 1 modifier. If I cut EITHER of them, I always take the lower hit, since if I cut the #3 guy, the #4 guy BECOMES the #3 guy and I have to pay him as such (depth chart moves).

    Keep in mind that rule one is in place ONLY if the cap hits would be the exact same value (in other words, if they have the same bonus paid out; if extra bonus is paid out, this rule is null and void). This example also leads to my second rule modification:

    2. A rookie ALWAYS takes priority in case of ties for modifiers.

    I did this with all the rulebooks I adjusted, which are the Chargers, Raiders, my Broncos, Chiefs, 49ers, Rams, Cardinals, Seahawks, and Colts.

    The example above works here as well. On the original roster setup, I had my rookie WR Demaryius Thomas listed at #4 on the depth chart at a 74 overall, with a 1 modifier. I had Brandon Stokely at #3 on the depth chart, ALSO at a 74 overall but with a 2 modifier. Because of the rookie pay scale we have in place, and the effort to achieve realism, rookies should always be as high up on the depth chart as they can be (because this means bigger contracts than veterans, which, sadly, is realistic). It affected my overall cap space by 2 million dollars, which may not seem like much, but it continues to help bring the lower tier teams' cap numbers up to the big boys.

    Let me know if I need to try to explain this further. I will check the boards periodically during work today but may not be able to check during the weekend as I am in the process of moving and do not know what the internet situation is up at our new place.
     
  2. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    I like it. Just need to get the rest of board approval and then post for the league to see.
     
  3. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    If two players are tied, why not split the modifier down the middle (in your example above, make each of them 1.5).
     
  4. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    I'd rather not make it more complicated with the numbers side of it. Yes, your idea would be easier, but could possibly confuse people even more than they may be already.

    If you guys want to do it that way though I can.
     
  5. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    i am on the side of win here. plz give us some input guys. we need to get this rdy
     
  6. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    The only reason I'm not completely behind Win's idea here is that it opens up a tiny loophole where guys could actually cut their starter for less of a penalty that it actually should be.

    Say I have an 81 rated old guy CB who is #2 on my depth, and an 81 rated young up and coming CB who is #3 on my depth. With this I can cut my #2 old guy for #3 type cap hit.

    I know its a small loophole, but I want to close as many of those as possible. I say in these scenarios we split the modifier down the middle. Its not that confusing, actually not any more confusing than Win's proposal above I don't think.
     
  7. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    Yes sir, and I agree, but just to play devils advocate here, there are loopholes in the NFL. Saints owed Mccray a huge roster bonus, they cut him and resigned him for less money 4 weeks later, saving them the roster bonus. I guess my main worry is adding '.' anythings to our formulas.
     
  8. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Like I said, I am either way on this one. I see the good on both sides here.

    I will point out one thing, though: Even though my rule would save some cap, the cap savings in most cases would be minimal, I think.

    However, those positions that have big differences between starter and backup (say 3 for all LB positions versus 1 for backups) would be a problem. I just don't want too many cap books to have modifications.

    Also, to simplify, with me, Wajy, and Dunn doing cap books, could just make sure it's always organized by overall, and whoever is #3 on the depth chart is #3 on the depth chart (using my WR example from above). Wherever they are on the depth chart is the penalty you pay, regardless of equal overalls or whatnot.

    Long way of saying, I'm comfortable saying "screw rule idea 1" and just make sure we implement rule idea 2, if you guys like it.
     
  9. BRUCE80

    BRUCE80 Let the dirt just shower over you..

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    I like it and agree with Nate. Loopholes are there, if guys are cutting decent players thats a good thing for the rest of the league.
     
  10. wajomatik

    wajomatik Magister De Puer De Vacca

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    916
    I can see both sides but I am going to have to agree with Win as adding the half point value for tied positions may be confusing to some owners
     

Share This Page