I've found a way to funnel my extra cap room into real life dollars. I'm currently posting on my own island in the south pacific.

_________________

How about we use the rules that have been working so well in other leagues?

*sigh*

I really hate this rule.

_________________

[quotef7733be="wademoore"]How about we use the rules that have been working so well in other leagues?

*sigh*

I really hate this rule.[/quotef7733be]

Agreed.

I voted for this cap rule because it seemed to be the only one on the table for the CFL, but I did so while holding my nose. Limiting renegotiations to a player's final contract year seems to be working pretty well elsewhere. Why not give that a try?

_________________

Ring of Fire Division Champions - 2009, 2011-2026, 2028-33
Western Conference Champions - 2011-2013, 2016, 2017, 2019-2022, 2024, 2025, 2028, 2033
CFL Champions - 2011, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2025

[quote46bf2f0="Fonzie"][quote46bf2f0="wademoore"]How about we use the rules that have been working so well in other leagues?

*sigh*

I really hate this rule.[/quote46bf2f0]

Agreed.

I voted for this cap rule because it seemed to be the only one on the table for the CFL, but I did so while holding my nose. Limiting renegotiations to a player's final contract year seems to be working pretty well elsewhere. Why not give that a try?[/quote46bf2f0]

Doesn't this rule prohibit the ability to manage your cap situation for many years? I don't think taking the ability to manage your cap space is a better rule than limiting the actual cap. I do think that the results will be the same.

My concern is the restriction on renogiating in the final year will ultimately be a permanent hinderance to manage your team. On the otehr hand, in a few seasons when the TV contract is up, we can make the proper in game adjustment. Keep in mind what we are doing here will only effect us for 2-3 seasons and then the rule should not be needed due to the inflation of salaries will catch up to the limited cap space which we can get to work [i46bf2f0]in game[/i46bf2f0].

And that would be [i46bf2f0]awesome![/i46bf2f0]

Did we ever figure out when the TV contract expired?

_________________
The Cleveland Flats Ring of Honor:
FB Mark Reed, WR Tony Oaks, OG Richard Johnson, DT Herb Handy, OLB Alfonso Levine, SS Elijah Roy

[quoteef8b292="TLK"]Did we ever figure out when the TV contract expired?[/quoteef8b292]

Taco simmed ahead to find out. I don't remember for sure, but I know it's several years off still. Maybe 2020 or 2021.

[quote5bc9394="Fonzie"][quote5bc9394="wademoore"]How about we use the rules that have been working so well in other leagues?

*sigh*

I really hate this rule.[/quote5bc9394]

Agreed.

I voted for this cap rule because it seemed to be the only one on the table for the CFL, but I did so while holding my nose. Limiting renegotiations to a player's final contract year seems to be working pretty well elsewhere. Why not give that a try?[/quote5bc9394]

Working or not, I dislike that rule based mainly on how I like to handle my players. I like to renegotiate with guys before their last year. I almost never come up with holdouts because I like to reward players who play well by giving them a new contract when I feel they have earned one. I started doing this when I had good players start to hold out on me.

I think it was mentioned previously that the TV deal was up in 2020. I would rather live with a manual cap restriction than have part of my GM abilities taken away. Whatever we can do to fix this in-game is better than any out-of-game solution.

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quoted120c28="wademoore"]How about we use the rules that have been working so well in other leagues?

*sigh*

I really hate this rule.[/quoted120c28]

I personally like the other rule better, but this is what the league voted to go with. But my opinion counts the same as everyone elses so as always it'd have to be put up to a vote for any type of change.

I used to like to renegotiate with players nearly every season, but to solve the problem it seemed like it was the best option (and yeah it works, in another league I'm in I'm going to have to cut an older WR because of the way I originally structed the deal, can't pay him 11 mil this year, and 13 next as a 11 year vet... and normally I'd have been able to restructure him down to next to nothing)...

But like I said, it was put to a vote and this is what we came up with.

_________________


Home of Marvin "Muddy Waters" Raffo

[quote67da774="Doug5984"][quote67da774="wademoore"]How about we use the rules that have been working so well in other leagues?

*sigh*

I really hate this rule.[/quote67da774]

I personally like the other rule better, but this is what the league voted to go with. But my opinion counts the same as everyone elses so as always it'd have to be put up to a vote for any type of change.

I used to like to renegotiate with players nearly every season, but to solve the problem it seemed like it was the best option (and yeah it works, in another league I'm in I'm going to have to cut an older WR because of the way I originally structed the deal, can't pay him 11 mil this year, and 13 next as a 11 year vet... and normally I'd have been able to restructure him down to next to nothing)...

But like I said, it was put to a vote and this is what we came up with.[/quote67da774]

This is a good example of why I don't like that rule. You have to cut a guy because the rule prohibits you from GM'ing your team. If I remember correctly, the reason we want to make changes is to have the cap be more significant in gameplay. So, to do this, we are limiting gameplay to achieve it. Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive?

Can't you trade the receiver? Or does the new owner have to keep that contract until its last year? If that's the case, trades are significantly affected as well.

If the cap is the problem, fix the cap.

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quotec230aba="TurfToe"]
If the cap is the problem, fix the cap.[/quotec230aba]

I agree, address the root cause of the problem, and do not slap a bunch of band aids on this thing

Maybe we need to deal with this for a season or 2 and someone will develop a method to edit the cap within the proram. We can deal with this for now and vote again before each new season.

_________________

2014 & 2015 CFL Champions
2007, 2014, 2015 & 2017 Conf Champs
07, 08, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 26 Division Champs

An out of game cap will become a huge hassle, though, and fixing the in game the cap is not very simple. The reason that the cap is getting out of control is supposedly because renegotiating is so lenient. It's too easy to sign all your guys up long term fairly cheap. That's why addressing the issue as a renegotiating problem is effective.

Also cutting the WR is still GMing. Because of a cap situation he has to let an overpaid, aging player go. That's a perfect example of the cap actually mattering, even if it's a negative to some degree for Doug's team.

[quotea0bb562="timmynausea"]An out of game cap will become a huge hassle, though, and fixing the in game the cap is not very simple. The reason that the cap is getting out of control is supposedly because renegotiating is so lenient. It's too easy to sign all your guys up long term fairly cheap. That's why addressing the issue as a renegotiating problem is effective.

Also cutting the WR is still GMing. Because of a cap situation he has to let an overpaid, aging player go. That's a perfect example of the cap actually mattering, even if it's a negative to some degree for Doug's team.[/quotea0bb562]

Understood. I guess one of the reasons I play is to enjoy the simulation of the NFL experience. If I am going to have to live with aspects of the game, I would rather live with the aspects created by the game that still allow a better simulation than to live with external controls to try to fix "broken code" that take away from that simulation. I'm also trying to find where the parity of the integrity of the game will benefit from this. If a talented WR is cut, there is simply going to be a bidding war for him and as long as there isn't a multi-year request on th eplayer's part. It will likely result in a contract that someone will complain about, which is where we are currently - except we have less tools at our disposal to GM our teams. I think this will lead to more teams with even more room under the cap. Maybe we should penalize teams for not using their cap space like baseball does. It's not like there isn't talent out there to spend it on - draft it, sign it, or trade for it.

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

I don't follow. Why would more talent (like Doug's WR) hitting the market lead to more teams with more room under the cap? Every time a team is forced to choose to let someone's contract expire or cut them to make room, someone else has talent to spend on. While that WR's particular contract may discourage trades, other trades will happen in order to make cap situations work, especially since renegotiations have some limits. The cap will go back to what it should be - an obstacle to work around.

Essentially Doug is being made to pay for a mistake - signing the WR to a huge contract, which he can no longer afford. This is what we want - decisions that have consequences. In the past few seasons, nobody has had to pay for a lot of mistakes as we could renegotiate our way out of any and all trouble. Tough cap choices have not existed, and it's lead to a more static league.

I understand that some people take a glance and think that they don't want to deal with restrictions or have harder choices to make with their team, but we're talking about fixing our league so the talent moves around properly. More movement in FA, cap pressure encouraging trades. There'll be more room to rise and fall quickly, which to me means more excitement.

Maybe some day a team besides Tucson or Boise will even represent the WFC in the CFL Bowl. Not too soon, hopefully.

This rule was put into place quickly and I do not think the league had a chance to do what is truly necessary before making such a rule. However, the amount this current rule states should be ok to deal with for everyone at this time, even if I think there should have been more warning, even for this small amount.

Before we make a rule we should:

A. Decide what we want the rule to accomplish for the league.

B. Decide what is the best course of action to easily achieve those results. Easy for the GM's to abide by, and easy for the league to enforce.

This salary cap rule from what I thought I was understanding in the early discussions was to make Free Agency matter in the offseason and that people would have to make better contract decisions. The problem with starting some kind of policy without warning is that teams have been signing contracts under other circumstances. There would need to be a buffer period for teams to be able to fully prepare themselves for fielding a team under the new rules. You do not want to force a team to cut players it does not want to let go of, without them having the time to prepare for it by either getting a replacement for that player ready, or by figuring out a way to afford that player by negotiations to his and maybe some teammates contracts. This is not something that should be decided and then put into place the very next season, there should be time to make the transition.

I personally think too many people are trying to beat the game vs. playing the game. Some of these reneg's I see are amazing considering my guys ask for the moon, I give it too them and have to make decisions. I had a good 2-3 year run when I took over the Privateers then had to trade or not resign such players as Hedges,Stolzfus,Smyth,Pelligrini, Tollefson, Rains, Athey, Johnson, Fling. I have another couple of years and I have to start doing it again. Salary demands are there, you just have to give it to them instead of trying to "beat the game" I know it is all intertwined with trying to have a bigger profit on the income statement, higher franchise values, but even when I had my lean years I had highly paid players and a fairly competitive team and still lost, hell I had what I thought was one of the better teams on paper last year and didnt even make the playoffs. When I first joined back in the 2005 season, I joined because it was a fun, no pressure league (unlike the so-called elitist leagues) now I feel like I need to have spreadsheets for the draft, salaries, stay under the cap, etc....
My solution:
Repeal the $2,000,000 limit (I voted for it,now regret it, not for me because I am always near it and really dont care)
Find the new TV contract date and post what we will do that season (ie- cut the cap to ???
Everyone can do whatever they need to do to prepare for that date. I can play by whatever but this would allow everyone to GM they way they prefer without the hassle of outside rules. I realize we are past the point any of this mattering this season, but it's
Just my rambling 2 cents

_________________


San Andreas Division Champions: 2005,2007,2015,2017,2018,2019,2020,2021,2028,2032,2035

2032 Western Conference Champions

2032 CFL Champions

[quote509a8a7="thater"]You do not want to force a team to cut players it does not want to let go of, without them having the time to prepare for it...[/quote509a8a7]

See, I think this sums up the attitude of some. People are looking at this issue only from the perspective of their own team. They're scared they'll end up losing players they don't want to, and they think we shouldn't change anything because of that. When you look at it from a league-wide perspective, though, that's exactly the point. We [i509a8a7]do[/i509a8a7] want players to move around. We [i509a8a7]do[/i509a8a7] want GMs to have to make a decision about who to let go cause they can't squeeze all their talent under the cap.

I do understand what you're saying, that GMs have adjusted their styles because of the way the cap has worked the past few years, but maximizing the competitiveness/parity of the league ASAP should be priority number 1, and beyond that we're going to have had a season of discussion plus a season with a $2 million dollar deduction before we make any further changes. To me, that's already plenty of warning.

I honestly think we may be jumping the gun here. We haven't even seen our initial philosophy play out. The rule we put in place was a way to ease into the cap constraints only until the TV contract expires. We also only voted to put this into effect for this year.

And to say that the contract renogiations are being used to work the game is not 100% true. I actually have players on my team that I would overpay to keep, for no other reason than to not see them wear another uniform, especially Shreveport!

[quotedad475f="timmynausea"]I don't follow. Why would more talent (like Doug's WR) hitting the market lead to more teams with more room under the cap? Every time a team is forced to choose to let someone's contract expire or cut them to make room, someone else has talent to spend on. While that WR's particular contract may discourage trades, other trades will happen in order to make cap situations work, especially since renegotiations have some limits. The cap will go back to what it should be - an obstacle to work around.
[/quotedad475f]

Easy, what happens when that $13m WR is cut? Doug now has $13m laying around and someone else picked the guy up for a $4m, $6m, $7m deal over 3 years. Doug now has $13m free and the same talent now plays elsewhere for someone else for $9m less. That's more money to be spent on free agents that are already being overpaid. Multiply this by a few guys each season and you now have a larger money supply to spend on the same lack of talent in free agency. Who gets punished? The GM that drafted and developed the guy in the first place. You bring up parity and this is the important part. The guy that keeps drafting first ends up with cap issues and has to cut highly-paid guys since he can't reneg them. Now the "haves" can win them in free agency for less money after the "have nots" finish developing them. Your parity no longer exists.

I say let him reneg the contract and shell out more bonus money so he has less to spend on caoches and other players. Bonus money is what cap-straps owners and I say let them do it to themselves.

Hamstringing owners in order to make the cap an obstacle to work around is not the answer. Making the cap an obstacle is the answer. The key words are "work around". People will find other ways to work around the cap and then we will have more rules to manage what methods we can use once someone figures the best way to do that. Let the game manage itself and apply input when we can, i.e. limiting the cap within the game. I think we need a few years to ease into it and we have just that - a few years before we can affect the cap within the game. Whatever decision we make it must be worked into gradually as many of us are in the middle of a current strategy based on the current rules. I have already changed my strategy knowing that something is going to happen but it would be easier to manage if I know exactly what is changing and when.

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quote88d48cd="timmynausea"][quote88d48cd="thater"]You do not want to force a team to cut players it does not want to let go of, without them having the time to prepare for it...[/quote88d48cd]

See, I think this sums up the attitude of some. [b88d48cd]People are looking at this issue only from the perspective of their own team.[/b88d48cd] They're scared they'll end up losing players they don't want to, and they think we shouldn't change anything because of that. When you look at it from a league-wide perspective, though, that's exactly the point. We [i88d48cd]do[/i88d48cd] want players to move around. We [i88d48cd]do[/i88d48cd] want GMs to have to make a decision about who to let go cause they can't squeeze all their talent under the cap.

I do understand what you're saying, that GMs have adjusted their styles because of the way the cap has worked the past few years, but maximizing the competitiveness/parity of the league ASAP should be priority number 1, and beyond that we're going to have had a season of discussion plus a season with a $2 million dollar deduction before we make any further changes. To me, that's already plenty of warning.[/quote88d48cd]

Heed your own advice. Your team probably hasn't gone 0-fer in free agency since the FOF 2007 conversion and you may also be one of the owners who didn't make a bunch of moves with draft picks to take advantage of the available salary cap. For those of us who do like to use spreadsheets and calculate how much we have to work with 3 years down the road in order to pull off blockbuster deals will get screwed if something we had every reason to expect to be there in three years is gone after one. That perspective is as narrow-minded as those who do not maximize their team's talent with the available cap.

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quote91b92f1="timmynausea"][quote91b92f1="thater"]You do not want to force a team to cut players it does not want to let go of, without them having the time to prepare for it...[/quote91b92f1]

See, I think this sums up the attitude of some. People are looking at this issue only from the perspective of their own team. They're scared they'll end up losing players they don't want to, and they think we shouldn't change anything because of that. When you look at it from a league-wide perspective, though, that's exactly the point. We [i91b92f1]do[/i91b92f1] want players to move around. We [i91b92f1]do[/i91b92f1] want GMs to have to make a decision about who to let go cause they can't squeeze all their talent under the cap.

I do understand what you're saying, that GMs have adjusted their styles because of the way the cap has worked the past few years, but maximizing the competitiveness/parity of the league ASAP should be priority number 1, and beyond that we're going to have had a season of discussion plus a season with a $2 million dollar deduction before we make any further changes. To me, that's already plenty of warning.[/quote91b92f1]

Wrong, you want to give the teams the time to release or trade the people they want to or feel they can manage letting go. You don't want to force a team to get rid anyone without them having other options. When you institute something too quickly, you force GM's hands. When you give GM's enough time to prepare for the new system of rules, if they then have to get rid of someone they don't want to, it is their own fault for not making the necessary decisions ahead of time. We have been playing under this system for some time now and people have adjusted to it. The conversion to 2k7 was a shock to the system indeed. We do not need another shock, we need to come to decision about what to do and then allow plenty of time for GM's to prepare for it.

[quoteccac224="TurfToe"]
Heed your own advice. Your team probably hasn't gone 0-fer in free agency since the FOF 2007 conversion and you may also be one of the owners who didn't make a bunch of moves with draft picks to take advantage of the available salary cap. For those of us who do like to use spreadsheets and calculate how much we have to work with 3 years down the road in order to pull off blockbuster deals will get screwed if something we had every reason to expect to be there in three years is gone after one. That perspective is as narrow-minded as those who do not maximize their team's talent with the available cap.[/quoteccac224]

Actually, as one of the top teams, I stand to gain the most without a rule change of any type. The less restrictions we have, the better off I'd be. Boise has added little in FA over the years, which has regularly been the case for us going back to 2k4. I did spend to sign a MLB this year just because I had over 30 mill in free cap space that would've gone to waste. We currently have the top rated roster, however, because I don't even have to try to keep all my talent together. The top rated roster with about $15 million to spare.

I'd say I am actually arguing against what is best for my team for the sake of making the league better. If that's narrow-minded, then so be it.

[quote9d8fd2c="TurfToe"]
Easy, what happens when that $13m WR is cut? Doug now has $13m laying around and someone else picked the guy up for a $4m, $6m, $7m deal over 3 years. Doug now has $13m free and the same talent now plays elsewhere for someone else for $9m less. That's more money to be spent on free agents that are already being overpaid. Multiply this by a few guys each season and you now have a larger money supply to spend on the same lack of talent in free agency. Who gets punished? The GM that drafted and developed the guy in the first place. You bring up parity and this is the important part. The guy that keeps drafting first ends up with cap issues and has to cut highly-paid guys since he can't reneg them. Now the "haves" can win them in free agency for less money after the "have nots" finish developing them. Your parity no longer exists.[/quote9d8fd2c]

I don't think that's very realistic. First of all, nobody would be cutting guys if they had the cap room to spare, and if the player had value anywhere near his salary, he would've been traded. (Esp. with everyone having so much cap space.) Cases close to specifically like Doug was talking about would be rare, and would have little in common with a rookie deal. Doug signed a vet WR with money in the $13 million range just for salary. That's nothing like a rookie deal, which is often close to half bonus money.

My team in the NAFL is built around 5 top 15 picks (4 top 10, in fact) over a 3 season span. I've still got a year or two to go, but as those contracts get close to coming up, I will have tough choices to make about who to sign on for longer, who to trade away, etc. If I make enough moves, I may be able to keep all of them, but it will be a challenge. I think that's how it should work. If I were easily able to just hoard all that talent, something would be wrong. When every team in the league is able to easily hoard all of their talent, something is definitely wrong.

[quote="timmynausea"][quote24787f2="TurfToe"]

I'd say I am actually arguing against what is best for my team for the sake of making the league better. If that's narrow-minded, then so be it.[/quote24787f2]

You missed the point. Not understanding that changing the rule completely in one year is narrow-minded. There are others who do not have the top-rated roster and cap to spare. Kudos to you. However, there are teams who have started a multi-year plan that would be screwed if we just change it now, meaning your concern about parity went out the window. The teams trying to make an impact on the competitive landscape are the ones impacted. Seems so much like politics. Everyone wants more government with the top and bottom suffering little while the middle class seems to be the only ones taking it in the wumpy.

_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067, 2070-2072
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062

[quote9997f98="Fastcat"]
My solution:
Repeal the $2,000,000 limit (I voted for it,now regret it, not for me because I am always near it and really dont care)
Find the new TV contract date and post what we will do that season (ie- cut the cap to ???
Everyone can do whatever they need to do to prepare for that date. I can play by whatever but this would allow everyone to GM they way they prefer without the hassle of outside rules. I realize we are past the point any of this mattering this season, but it's
Just my rambling 2 cents[/quote9997f98]

Exactly how I feel.

_________________
The Cleveland Flats Ring of Honor:
FB Mark Reed, WR Tony Oaks, OG Richard Johnson, DT Herb Handy, OLB Alfonso Levine, SS Elijah Roy

Turftoe, you're missing the point imo.

The reason we are in this cap mess in the first place is because things do NOT simulate the NFL. In the NFL you cannot continually reneg all of your players, including your stars down to favorable contracts every year. Sorry, just not realistic to the NFL at all.

If we're going to do this "cut the cap" then we need harsh, strict rules to keep people under the cap. The second that we are allowed to "play" with that extra space we cause ourselves a serious, serious problem.

The reneg rule has caused what I think we're looking for here in other leagues - tough personnel decisions where you actually have to decide who to keep, not to keep, etc. The way it is now there are not tough personnel decisions - you reneg your stars down, rinse, repeat. Every now and then a team that gets totally stacked has to maybe let a 50/50 guy go every few years - oh noes!

Instead we have a league where you can keep whomever the heck you want and there is nothing of value in the FA market. You think it will make more cap space? Look at leagues that have actually done this, try it in SP, etc. You're just plain wrong - that's all there is to it.

_________________