Rules Committee: Three things I think we should look at

Discussion in 'Thread Archive' started by Winuvas, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    Okay, that got your attention. Recently I know it has come up about free agency and people signing high end players to big contracts only to cut them the following season, free up that cash, and do it all over again.

    This exploits a loophole I put into our cap system: no cap hits for mandatory cuts. I did that, and fought for it, because I thought if the league was forcing teams to cut players that high in overall, why should we penalize those owners for that?

    I now see why.

    So, there are three pieces to this plan to eliminate some loopholes that have been in the system once and for all. They can all work separately; so if you like one idea but hate two, then by all means get the good one in here. But here is my three stroke plan of attack:

    1. Eliminating the loophole for cap hits per yearly basis.

    -My plan around this is fairly simple, but flexible: After a certain week in the season, any cuts/signings go toward NEXT YEAR'S cap. So, let's say I set the bar at week 12. Any cuts after week 12 will go on the following year's cap books. So there is no more grace period to get rid of a cap hit. Basically, we add a few columns to the cap book for next year cap hits, and when a season ends, those cap hits move into the current year cap hits. Keeps the books fluid and eliminates a loophole that every owner, including myself, has used since day 1.

    2. Force teams to spend more bonus money, AKA more cap hit money. This makes them spend smarter, ESPECIALLY if combined with idea 3.

    - Another idea that is simple: all players cannot be paid more than 3 million dollars in base salary. No matter the overall. 50 overall player you like? Can't go higher than 3 million dollars base salary. 99 overall player you like? Well, he's already at 3 million dollars.....so you have to increase the bonus now to get the player to come to your team.

    3. ALL cuts incur a cap hit.

    - No more freebies for mandatory cuts. You cut any player, you incur a cap hit. I would be willing to be slightly flexible on this, but only in this way:

    Mandatory cuts take only the base bonus as a cut. No modifier is applied.

    It's either that or the whole thing like we do for normal players. This part I really, really hate. I don't think it's fair to penalize people for something the league is making them do. HOWEVER...if people are going to abuse the privilege, then, like any privilege, it will be taken away, at the detriment of all.

    Let me be frank - regardless of if you like/dislike any/all of these ideas, we should NOT implement them immediately. We should announce that, starting with season 3 and beyond (as long as we are using this cap system) we are implementing whatever rules we decide on (if any). I personally think all three of these ideas I have put up will work, work well, and be easy to implement. With the amount of people we have working on the cap, and doing it well, I think it will be easy to do.

    But it's up to you guys. I can make a recommendation, but it's up to the committee to put it in play.
     
  2. saintsdave75

    saintsdave75 Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,018
    I really like 1 and 2, but would need convincing for #3. Just like in the NFL, there should always be a period where a team can make cuts cap-free
     
  3. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    I am with dave. i am totally against forcing cap hits on players that we force them to cut. i am fine with the rest though, even though #1 is for a total of the highest amount of 2 players. You can never go below 53. It's whatever though. I don't like the last one. #1 i am good with, #2 i really like.
     
  4. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    The reason I suggest rule 3 is to prevent people from signing big contracts of high overalls and cutting them for free the following year. While I do not like even suggesting this, if people will continue to cut huge contracts they just inked the year before, that is not realistic and is exploitative of the rule I put in place because of the fact that we are making people cut players.

    What about my "compromise" idea for 3? Mandatory cuts only get the base bonus as a cap hit. So if a guy's base bonus is 1 million, but he's a 5 modifier (starting QB or LT), the mandatory cut price is only 1 million, not 5 million.

    That way there is SOME penalty, but not a hefty one, for the forced cuts.

    OR.....what if we did a little of both? Force the cap hits even on mandatory cuts, but reduce the mandatory cuts? Maybe do 1 over and 1 under, with a mandatory cutdown to 48 still in place.

    This would still give us a robust free agency. 64 players hit the market in the average range of an 85 overall (average of OMFL teams' top 20 overall players at this point). That still is not shabby. Plus you give guys some credit for keeping low overall players (with no bonus), as they can cut down to 48 using these players and have less cap penalty going into the year, meaning more room than those who signed high bonus money they are cutting.

    I personally would not suggest this is I didn't think it was a solid idea. Either of these suggestions in this particular post is designed to make people not only strategize on the field, but off the field as well.
     
  5. saintsdave75

    saintsdave75 Walk On

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,018
    What about a stipulation that when a FA is cut after having served less than 2 seasons, then the team would incur the cap hit. I guess that is simlair to Dunlap's 2 year contract proposal, except that this does allow a way for the team to get out of the contract by forcing a penalty, where a 2 year contract would not allow that at all. Of course, the biggest problem would be tracking every single FA's length of time with the team. Maybe they can be color coded on the capbook: Red if still in the first season, pink if in the second season, aqua blue if over 2 seasons. Just throwing ideas out
     
  6. Winuvas

    Winuvas OMFL Jets

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,849
    See, the reason I'm not all over Dunlap's idea is it adds the one thing we are trying to get away from: complexity.

    Sure, it seems simple enough. But for those who have to track it.....not so simple. We already have what, 5 colors in play? Adding more would be idiotic at best.

    The suggestion I have would be simple to implement, but would definitely be unfair to all of us. I completely understand. I was the one who suggested the free no cap hit for mandatory cuts. I still think it's doable, but we have tons of people looking to exploit the loophole we know is in place and put in place.

    So how do we stop it? In my opinion, we cut it off. No more freebies.
     
  7. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    I still don't like it. When a new owner takes over he should have a way to fix his team, even if its just 3 - 5 players. Thats just my opinion.
     
  8. natedawg212000

    natedawg212000 New Orleans Saints

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    6,558
    You keep saying loophole like they are getting out of this huge deal with a bunch of players. You are talking a max of 6 players if they are at the max of 55.
     

Share This Page