Ideas to bally around for salary cap

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Winuvas, Sep 17, 2010.

  1. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Ideas to bally around for salary cap

    Okay, this is totally based on feedback that you guys have read. I have come up with a few ideas in the effort to keep the realism that those who like the system like, while efforting to simplify the system, which is what the owners who didn't care for the cap mentioned a lot.

    Keep in mind, these are not "all or nothing" type set ideas. I want us to discuss all of them, and possibly discuss inputting some/none/all of them.

    IDEA # 1:

    Trade rules involving cap space.

    After discussing it with one owner in particular, it makes sense to me now versus the real deal we are trying to emulate: having only one team take a cap hit in a deal is not cool. PLUS it's math intensive. So I want to propose simplifying it and, at the same time, encourage teams to NOT trade their big dollar players (encouraging stability for franchises long term). Here's the proposal:

    When you make a trade, you add up the bonuses of what you are sending (bonus times modifier). That is your personal cap hit for making the deal. The other team(s) involved do the same thing. Whatever their personal bonuses are that are leaving their squad are taken as cap hit for their team for the rest of the year.

    So if I decide to trade Elvis Dumervil (UNDER THIS IDEA), for example, a 93 ovr player at ROLB, I'm taking $2,250,000 dollars in a cap hit just to move him to another team. That doesn't count any other players involved in a deal I might move. Makes teams think about shipping out that high priced talent, but allows the trade committee to allow easier 3-1 or 4-2 type trades involving big players (shows the big overall sending team is attempting to prepare for a big FA/draft year because they are willing to take a cap hit).

    If I need to clarify this idea PLEASE let me know.

    IDEA # 2:

    Simplify the modifiers.

    My proposal is very simple, honestly. A team cannot bid a modifier that the player does not fit on their team based on overall. Period.

    So if you are bidding on a QB that is #2 on your roster, you can offer them a 3 modifier. If another team bids on that same QB and that team can make that QB a #1 starter (all based on overall), they can bid the 5 modifier and the first team cannot match that modifier.

    It makes sense, in all honesty. Is a team REALLY gonna pay starter money to a backup unless they already had him signed as such? In real life? NO. We shouldn't allow it here.

    What I would suggest for next offseason (IF THIS IDEA GOES INTO EFFECT) is that any free agent signees that the team has are reorganized by overall and their depth chart modifiers are changed accordingly. Reset any "bad" modifiers and start fresh the next season with this rule in place.

    The only caveat to this would be if you go to sign a FA that you wish to start at another position. If that player fits the minimum qualifiers, THEN you could bid the max modifier for his new position (per the position change rules we have in place). This would HAVE to be noted in the bid, and could NOT be done in offseason FA, in my opinion, since we blind bid in the offseason.

    IDEA # 3:

    Upping the cap.

    Personally, I am against this. But I want to propose a salary cap increase of 5 million dollars per year every year to coincide with progressions.

    I would rather leave the cap static at 135 million. It forces teams to spend SMART. I would rather make a large post reinforcing the economics of free agent spending than up the cap. Upping the cap seems like a knee-jerk reaction and too easy. But I want to put it up there as an idea.

    IDEA # 4:

    Rookie salaries.

    This is more a question than an idea: do rookie salaries look crazy compared to real life NFL salaries of rookies versus veteran players? I don't think so, but if we need to tweak them, let's discuss that too.

    IDEA # 5:

    Eliminating blind bidding.

    Look, don't get me wrong, I LOVE blind bidding. It is a WONDERFUL idea and if we keep it I won't cry. BUT....since we have money in place instead of points, and we make owners post their bids in full to SEE the money they are spending....could we discuss eliminating blind bidding in the offseason?

    Before, we did it to eliminate CRAZY amounts of bids going on. I personally would be in favor of a bid limit on owners (say 5 total, NOT including the initial posting bid). That way we don't have ticky-tack bidding like we did before, yet everyone can see what they are having to match up with.

    Please, when we discuss these, keep an open mind, and consider the entire league. Just because we think we know this system inside and out doesn't mean everyone does. And if we can work to make it easier on the "common owner", we improve the league as a whole. And that is what I am wanting overall from this discussion.

    Also, when we discuss, mention the idea # in the thread. We can always refer to the starting post to figure out what idea you may be discussing.
     
  2. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Wow. Two days, three views, and no responses. So our salary cap is perfect and needs no tweaking then?
     
  3. wajomatik

    wajomatik Magister De Puer De Vacca

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    916
    I am pretty happy with the system as of now. Im not sure that I feel we need to change anything, I feel the system is working very well. Maybe the blind bidding change I do kinda like that.
     
  4. Emmdotfrisk

    Emmdotfrisk Working half days on my days off.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    11,955
    I also have no complaints. Continually changing it gets confusing for our owners.
     
  5. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    Sorry I haven't been around for a few days. I like 1-4. I don't think those are major changes. I dont think the rookies contracts are crazy and I am against removing blind bidding but I wouldn't cry if we did either.
     
  6. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    No problem man. I just wanted to make sure that people were paying attention to this. Trying to make the feedback of the people who have talked to me known and working on minor stuff to get their concerns in order.

    I agree they aren't much in the way of changes. But I'd like to get this stuff discussed at the very least and see if any/none/all of this is viable.
     
  7. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    I agree that constant change for change's sake is a BAD idea, especially with a system that can be complicated like this system is.

    However, I think that idea #2 (modifiers) simplifies the free agent process TREMENDOUSLY. That will help owners that are less than happy about trying to participate in free agency now more willing to try it out.

    Also, idea # 1 is a simplifier of the way we do things now. The way we do trades now is complicated. Too much math. If the idea is implemented, you add up your bonus times modifier numbers for players you send, and that is your cap hit for making the trade to another team. The other team does the same thing with their players. No complications in my opinion as compared to now (where you have to figure your bonuses, find out the other guy's bonuses, subtract the numbers, and whoever is higher gets cap hit). This idea would be more fair as well, as there is a cap hit on both sides.

    Idea # 3 I will look at based on doing an offline franchise and seeing how much my team (I have our original rosters offline saved with proper potentials and stuff) goes up compared to where I am now. I'll report in and let you guys know if I have changed my mind about upping the cap.
     
  8. wajomatik

    wajomatik Magister De Puer De Vacca

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    916
    I actually do like the Modifier rule change it makes sense. I think the way trades are now is fine but thats just my opinion. They kinda balance themselves out with the team that is unloading the higher salary players taking the cap hit and the team recieving the players gets higher salaries added to thier roster. I dont feel like its crazy amounts of math but if you feel we need to change it I am down for whatever.
     
  9. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    The only one I would be in favor of is #1.

    I love blind bidding, I think its great and adds to the realism.

    I also think constantly changing our system is too confusing. However, #1 does make sense so I could go for that.
     
  10. wajomatik

    wajomatik Magister De Puer De Vacca

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    916
    I have a question. If a starter gets hurt and gets put on IR, his replacement gets bumped up in pay, right? If this is the case I think maybe we should rethink this because once the player enters into contract, that is his contract for the season regardless of if someone ahead of him gets hurt for the season. What do you guys think?
     
  11. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    I would agree with you, Wajy. When week 1 starts, modifiers should be locked in place unless a team cuts/trades a player. If they cut due to IR, I feel that no modifier should be moved because that player is still, technically, a member of the team and is still technically on their book.

    A great point and question, too, Wajy. I honestly did NOT think of that.
     
  12. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    We already had a long discussion about that. Salaries are locked in at the start of Week 1 through the season.
     
  13. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    bump. if you are part of rules committee then lets really discuss some of these things. I am all for even agreeing and pushing some back till the offseason or whatever, i just want to try and simplify things as much as possible. if we are losing owners because our system is too confusing (which I think some parts are but not all) then we need to simplify.
     
  14. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Totally agreed Nate. That is why I pushed some of these ideas I had here for discussion.

    Keep in mind too that if we have any further ideas to help simplify matters (which I think would be important to new/old owners alike), share them!

    While I think once the basics of the cap system are gotten, it's fairly simple, I will be the first to admit it is quite daunting and complicated seeming for new owners to grasp.

    If necessary, I can reprise my role as the cap welcoming committee and try to go over the basics of cap management OMFL style if you guys think that would help. If we need someone else to explain it though, I'm all for that as well. Sort of like a mentoring program.
     
  15. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    Thats defiantly something we can start doing right away. just take that and run with it.
     
  16. wajomatik

    wajomatik Magister De Puer De Vacca

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    916
    I can help you with explaining the system Winuvas, its really not complicated once you spend a little time with it. Like you said I think a lot of people are just intimidated by the system because of all the 000000000's. I also dont think all of the owners understand that they can download the cap book and just plug in numbers, I think if we made sure that owners know how to do this it would help out a bunch.
     
  17. Big D

    Big D Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,398
    Let's try the League Manager before we make any more changes/decisions. That'd be my input.
     
  18. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
  19. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Anyone study up on League Manager? How is it if anyone has checked into it?
     
  20. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    I think League Manager is nice. However, I haven't fiddled with salary stuff yet.
     
  21. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Starting in the offseason, we are instituting idea #1 as a rule. I will change the cap rulebook accordingly.

    Everyone I've mentioned the idea to in the league thinks that it's MUCH simpler to do it the way I proposed (just add up bonus times modifier of your team and that is cap hit for you to do trade) than the way we do it now. So we're running with it.

    Idea #2 (modifier simplification) will be discussed still. I will also look into how we can simplify the cap book as a whole. I don't know how much more I can do in simplifying it after the two big ideas I've already had. NEED input. :)
     
  22. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    I have instituted idea #1 (trade cap hits) as a rule now instead of an idea. I went into the blast chat area and talked with a few owners who, after saying what the idea was to simplify cap hits on trades, loved the idea. I think the idea also fits our purpose of making the cap book easier to grasp as a whole, since trading is a big part of our league's enjoyment during the offseason.

    When logging future trades by teams, we can now just log the player leaving, his bonus times modifier hit, and under reason, we can now list trade. Basically it would be listed like the team cut the player in question. That way people will now have to think about trading players, especially if they are close to the cap limit. Makes teams hold onto higher tier players, at least a little more, I think.

    Simpler, yes?

    Over the next few days I'll work out the modifiers as far as movement. One thing I do think we need to re-address is the position change rules as far as modifiers go. I really think, honestly, we went completely overboard on that rule and, personally, I dislike the position change rules. Completely.

    I'll bring it up in a separate thread my proposal on position changes, however. I want to do it when I'm not at work and can give detailed examples of my proposal.
     
  23. wajomatik

    wajomatik Magister De Puer De Vacca

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    916
    Your idea about trades as the rule change that sounds good, simplify one aspect for owners. I also think the modifier change should most definitely be in place this coming offseason.
     
  24. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    I do want to try to work it out and make it fair. I am honestly thinking that locking modifiers based on overalls on FA bids is best way to do it. That way the talent pool gets spread evenly (as lower end teams will be able to get mid-high level talent easier with modifier offers) and keeps all teams on fair soil.

    Also, we have GOT to work on position changes. Either make it simpler for owners to use, or do away with it. Like I said before, I will put forth a proposal sometime this weekend for discussion, but it will definitely be hotly contested I wager.
     
  25. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    since we have the new chart that shows the bonus floor and base floor and ceiling, lets lock all modifiers for all positions. This way its a ton easier for everyone. thoughts? lets also talk on AIM soon buddie. sunday is a great day for that.
     

Share This Page