2011 Possible rule changes

[Jared A]

Just wanna post this so we don't forget to discuss it next offseason.


* 75% offers for franchise players
* Minimum offers and maximum lengths for RFA's
* Contract extensions for franchised players (lower anual salary the higher the signing bonus)
* Home-town discounts for players who have spent 1 full year or more on their roster
* An affective, grade/age/position based way to offer player extensions prior to free agency
* The ability to front load a contract

[Onyxgem]

One big thing that I think needs changed is that if a team has say 6 mil cap space they should only be able to make bids up to that cap space. They should not even be able to make a bid on a guy/s that will put them over the cap. We can't sign out rookies that would put teams over the cap why can they make bids that would put them over the cap.

[Royce R]

One big thing that I think needs changed is that if a team has say 6 mil cap space they should only be able to make bids up to that cap space. They should not even be able to make a bid on a guy/s that will put them over the cap. We can't sign out rookies that would put teams over the cap why can they make bids that would put them over the cap.

I think as long as we have good gm's we shouldn't have to worry. I often bid on a higher player with intentions of cutting another if I sign him. But don't want to cut the player unless I sign the replacements.

[Goodell]

I often bid on a higher player with intentions of cutting another if I sign him. But don't want to cut the player unless I sign the replacements.

Yeah, that's why we haven't done that. If you have a could old expensive RBs, maybe you are willing to live with them another year but if you can sign a top young RB replacement then you'd dump the old guys. But if you HAD to cut players before even negotiating or placing any bid (that you have no guarantee of winning) we'd probably get even more inflated bidding because that team would then be desperate for that bidded player having had to cut the other guys already and having no RB at all otherwise.

Placing a bid isn't signing, and no guarantee that you'll get that player amongst other teams negotiating.

Teams have to quickly take action or the player's contract would be invalidated and put back into free agency. We may at some point create a "pending" type status for those types of situations where he wouldn't join the team until room to do so, but it's not too difficult to delete the signing and make him UFA again currently if needed.

[Onyxgem]

See i know that is what we are doing, but I think we should change it.

It is not like we can sign our rookies and then cut guys, we can't even sign them till we are under the cap why make it different for Fa's?

[Ben C.]

See i know that is what we are doing, but I think we should change it.

It is not like we can sign our rookies and then cut guys, we can't even sign them till we are under the cap why make it different for Fa's?

The difference is that you are not placing a bid on your rookies. You are signing them to a contract immediately.

With rookies, when you cut other players to clear cap space you KNOW you will be signing the rookie. With free agents if you cut other players in order to BID on a player, then you may end up being out the free agent along with any players you cut in anticipation.

[Onyxgem]

See i know that is what we are doing, but I think we should change it.

It is not like we can sign our rookies and then cut guys, we can't even sign them till we are under the cap why make it different for Fa's?

The difference is that you are not placing a bid on your rookies. You are signing them to a contract immediately.

With rookies, when you cut other players to clear cap space you KNOW you will be signing the rookie. With free agents if you cut other players in order to BID on a player, then you may end up being out the free agent along with any players you cut in anticipation.

And I think that is a chance they should have to take.

[larry linke]

I like it the way it is now. In real life, once a team reaches an agreement with a player, they can cut a player. We don't have that ability. Is there a problem with teams being over the cap for 24 hours ??

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

[sportznut]

I like the way it is. I also think there is an issue with teams being over the cap for long periods of time, and I think that time frame should be 24-48 hours maximum, or the roster move(s) that put them over the cap will be reversed.

I imagine this could be complicated to write the logic for it, but it would be nice to be automated at some point.

The way I would do it is an "alert" much the same way you get one for a trade offer.

This alert notifies you that you are in violation of the salary cap, and have such and such time to get under the cap, or all moves will be reversed.

Also, in response to what the Chicago GM did, if you're in debt, ALL trades that put you further in debt are automatically denied. Heck, you shouldn't be allowed to make any deals that put you in debt AT ALL anyways IMO.

Perhaps even on top of the alert, instead of Troy always having to notify someone through a PM, he could eventually set it up to send an automated PM in those instances as well.

[Royce R]

I agree. I wonder if it would be possible to do something like the signing of franchise players, where it is announced on a certain date the team went over cap. Then they have 2 days from that to get back under cap.