|
|
Post by C-Low(The Panthers) on Oct 27, 2020 9:34:55 GMT -5
Hey Guys,
Been meaning to bring this up because just seems like a glitch, if you drop a player, then pick the same player up. You essentially end up paying for their salary 140% or something. This just seems like a glitch. I'm currently paying 21mil for Dedmon. I understand the penalty for dropping a player but shouldn't you just reassume the salary if you pick them back up?
|
|
|
|
Post by ucf (Air Republic) on Oct 27, 2020 9:53:56 GMT -5
The rule now encourages doing nothing to improve your roster because a long term salary nobody will want to trade for. I would propose if you have a player ruled out for the season, teams could sign any player to a one year deal or for their whole contract while retaining the player who is out for the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by stick (Disastercycle) on Oct 27, 2020 15:20:53 GMT -5
I remember this discussion many years ago when it was voted to the current system that negatively affected my team at the time
|
|
|
|
Post by ucf (Air Republic) on Oct 27, 2020 21:31:27 GMT -5
I don’t disagree with the rule. I’ve long held onto sub par players because of it and not wanting the dead salary on the books.
|
|
|
|
Post by stick (Disastercycle) on Oct 28, 2020 6:20:11 GMT -5
I'm just not sure how dropping a players and having the dead salary is a glitch
|
|
|
|
Post by Yuri V.(The Bruce Campbells) on Oct 28, 2020 8:27:32 GMT -5
I like the rule as is for a few reasons. 1. it encourages being fiscally responsible - and like the NBA if you make a bad signing you live with it. 2. it opens the door for trades - sure you'll have to package prospects, better players or a pick (or picks) to move it but it encourages movement. 3. it might be enough incentive to really, REALLY try to win and get the option to nuke a contract.  Out of curiosity, currently if I drop a player with $5m salary and someone signs him for $3m does that reduce what I owe him to $2m? If not, that might be something we want to look at. |
|
|
|
Post by ucf (Air Republic) on Oct 28, 2020 9:14:09 GMT -5
I like the rule as is for a few reasons. 1. it encourages being fiscally responsible - and like the NBA if you make a bad signing you live with it. 2. it opens the door for trades - sure you'll have to package prospects, better players or a pick (or picks) to move it but it encourages movement. 3. it might be enough incentive to really, REALLY try to win and get the option to nuke a contract. Out of curiosity, currently if I drop a player with $5m salary and someone signs him for $3m does that reduce what I owe him to $2m? If not, that might be something we want to look at. That’s the way I understand the rule. Just have to be on the lookout for someone signing them and usually if they are getting cut they aren’t being paid by another team anytime soon. If they sign for zero dollars it doesn’t help you. |
|
|
|
Post by stick (Disastercycle) on Oct 28, 2020 9:24:20 GMT -5
I like the rule as is for a few reasons. 1. it encourages being fiscally responsible - and like the NBA if you make a bad signing you live with it. 2. it opens the door for trades - sure you'll have to package prospects, better players or a pick (or picks) to move it but it encourages movement. 3. it might be enough incentive to really, REALLY try to win and get the option to nuke a contract. Out of curiosity, currently if I drop a player with $5m salary and someone signs him for $3m does that reduce what I owe him to $2m? If not, that might be something we want to look at. If you drop someone at 5, 3 is on your books. If someone signs for 3, 3 comes off, and 110% compounded for future years. This is actually why we started this. Teams with no cap and not caring about future money (especially before hard cap) would sign players from other teams cut list for the minimum but would be picking up the full amount of future years for them |
|
|
|
Post by C-Low(The Panthers) on Oct 29, 2020 14:41:45 GMT -5
So because I picked up the same player I have to now still assume his dead salary how TF is that not a glitch? Lol.. if someone else were to grab him they would have assumed his future years..
Realistically Dedmon should just be costing me 13mil and that's it. Last year I get him costing me some dead salary, but I shouldn't be now paying for his dead salary and his salary is my point lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by ucf (Air Republic) on Oct 29, 2020 14:57:54 GMT -5
That makes some sense to me to address.
If a team signs a guy I cut for $0 / min and than assumes his full salary the following year I would be in favor of that salary ( or at least a %) coming off the books of the team that dropped him.
That would also address a team who signs a guy twice. It wouldn’t be instant relief but you wouldn’t have double salary the second year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yuri V.(The Bruce Campbells) on Oct 29, 2020 14:58:00 GMT -5
So because I picked up the same player I have to now still assume his dead salary how TF is that not a glitch? Lol.. if someone else were to grab him they would have assumed his future years.. Realistically Dedmon should just be costing me 13mil and that's it. Last year I get him costing me some dead salary, but I shouldn't be now paying for his dead salary and his salary is my point lol. I think there are 2 ways of looking at this. 1. perhaps a team shouldn't be allowed to sign someone they've already bought out. 2. if it is allowed then the new salary should be taken from the old, but perhaps pre-buyout amount? How many times are you going to sign the same scrub? Didn't you learn the first time?  (tongue firmly in cheek). |
|
|
|
Post by C-Low(The Panthers) on Oct 29, 2020 15:16:58 GMT -5
Ya I agree with both suggestions above(KAZ and Yuri) there has to be some sort of safeguard for this.When I picked dedmon up I actually thought I was just going to have to reassume the 13mil. Having to pay the same salary is dumb plain and simple. I'm sorry if it's been done before, but someone should have absolutely questioned that. Like let's be logical here and instead of being like "well that's how things were" maybe look to fix things like this?
I hadn't done this before obviously or I'd have brought it up lol.. but breaking it down.
A player gets dropped..you have dead money. FAIR.
You then pick up the same player, for min, fair you're going to pay .25 that year, but then pick upt he rest of his salary.
Why would the SAME manager of the SAME player then be paying his buyout money and his current salary?!? If we're mirroring the NBA. None of that would ever occur. So I do believe it should be looked at from a logical lenses versus. "We've always done it this way".
League this old should probably evolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by A-Ron (The Red Barons) on Nov 3, 2020 15:57:59 GMT -5
Ya I agree with both suggestions above(KAZ and Yuri) there has to be some sort of safeguard for this.When I picked dedmon up I actually thought I was just going to have to reassume the 13mil. Having to pay the same salary is dumb plain and simple. I'm sorry if it's been done before, but someone should have absolutely questioned that. Like let's be logical here and instead of being like "well that's how things were" maybe look to fix things like this? I hadn't done this before obviously or I'd have brought it up lol.. but breaking it down. A player gets dropped..you have dead money. FAIR. You then pick up the same player, for min, fair you're going to pay .25 that year, but then pick upt he rest of his salary. Why would the SAME manager of the SAME player then be paying his buyout money and his current salary?!? If we're mirroring the NBA. None of that would ever occur. So I do believe it should be looked at from a logical lenses versus. "We've always done it this way". League this old should probably evolve. I support this |
|
|
|
Post by headliner (Halifax) on Nov 3, 2020 16:17:36 GMT -5
I do too
|
|
|
|
Post by Yuri V.(The Bruce Campbells) on Nov 3, 2020 16:48:45 GMT -5
thumbs up here.
|
|
(tongue firmly in cheek).
