Finances

[Zyme]

The point of this proposal seems to boil to one thing: you want to keep higher quality players in house.

A few issues here:
1)raising the hard cap only pushes this issue down the road and further increases the value of rookie contracts.
2)capping vet contracts allows a significant rise in the number of max players a single team can keep in. This would further allow concentration of talent, not good for the league as a whole
3)capping the vet contract would also decrease the need to pay attention to the contracts you offer.

The only way this vet cap idea makes sense is if the cap was something like 25 mil. It would keep those massive 2nd contracts at least vaguely reasonable.

[jibbajabba614]

Personally I was 50/50 on both sides. Ultimately hard cap is 75 mill. That leaves you with 7 players max 6 years or less experience. 5-6 max players in their prime. Or 5 vet max players. I think the cap is fine. Anyone able to get 7 max players on their roster is too much. And not fair. If you want to offer a 1 year deal just know you risk the chance of losing them. So thats not the problem. The problem is finding 30 active GMs.

[dave]

The point of this proposal seems to boil to one thing: you want to keep higher quality players in house.

A few issues here:
1)raising the hard cap only pushes this issue down the road and further increases the value of rookie contracts.
2)capping vet contracts allows a significant rise in the number of max players a single team can keep in. This would further allow concentration of talent, not good for the league as a whole
3)capping the vet contract would also decrease the need to pay attention to the contracts you offer.

The only way this vet cap idea makes sense is if the cap was something like 25 mil. It would keep those massive 2nd contracts at least vaguely reasonable.

You're slanting the view on vet caps.

It's not about hoarding it's about fluidity. How many vet max players are traded at the back end of their contracts? Hardly any and it's because of the disparity in money to other players. If they weren't as inflated or as long they'd be more valuable in the market. Teams could become buyers/sellers more frequently.

[Skyhooker]

The point of this proposal seems to boil to one thing: you want to keep higher quality players in house.

A few issues here:
1)raising the hard cap only pushes this issue down the road and further increases the value of rookie contracts.
2)capping vet contracts allows a significant rise in the number of max players a single team can keep in. This would further allow concentration of talent, not good for the league as a whole
3)capping the vet contract would also decrease the need to pay attention to the contracts you offer.

The only way this vet cap idea makes sense is if the cap was something like 25 mil. It would keep those massive 2nd contracts at least vaguely reasonable.

You're slanting the view on vet caps.

It's not about hoarding it's about fluidity. How many vet max players are traded at the back end of their contracts? Hardly any and it's because of the disparity in money to other players. If they weren't as inflated or as long they'd be more valuable in the market. Teams could become buyers/sellers more frequently.

Raising the cap won't keep people from signing 32 yo superstars to 7 yr mega deals that have huge numbers at the back end of their careers. It just makes those back end numbers bigger. More deals would happen if people didn't want so much for their aging superstars. But that ain't gonna happen either.

[dave]

The point of this proposal seems to boil to one thing: you want to keep higher quality players in house.

A few issues here:
1)raising the hard cap only pushes this issue down the road and further increases the value of rookie contracts.
2)capping vet contracts allows a significant rise in the number of max players a single team can keep in. This would further allow concentration of talent, not good for the league as a whole
3)capping the vet contract would also decrease the need to pay attention to the contracts you offer.

The only way this vet cap idea makes sense is if the cap was something like 25 mil. It would keep those massive 2nd contracts at least vaguely reasonable.

You're slanting the view on vet caps.

It's not about hoarding it's about fluidity. How many vet max players are traded at the back end of their contracts? Hardly any and it's because of the disparity in money to other players. If they weren't as inflated or as long they'd be more valuable in the market. Teams could become buyers/sellers more frequently.

Raising the cap won't keep people from signing 32 yo superstars to 7 yr mega deals that have huge numbers at the back end of their careers. It just makes those back end numbers bigger. More deals would happen if people didn't want so much for their aging superstars. But that ain't gonna happen either.

Which is my point to ending them.

If vet max deals were only 3 yrs in length from 13-16 mil we'd see a lot more movement in trades, more active gm's, and more teams trying to win. It would be so good for the league.

It doesn't prevent you from getting your guy back nor does it prevent you from signing a FA either.

[Zyme]

Or if the cap stayed like it is an your idea was approved you would see teams be able to keep 4-5 max contracts on the team at the same time. This would be a disastrous concentration in talent for the league. You say the large vet contracts are untradeable cause people cannot match, well why not have it more known that the 10 mil/1 year contract on random player X allows for the trading of such players. Or why not have the number of of years on the contracts be capped (IRL 4 years with a PO is the max contract length).

I will say this plain: Your plan is short sided and would lead to less trading. If teams can keep 5 starters at max they will trade less as their needs will have been met from within.

[dave]

Or if the cap stayed like it is an your idea was approved you would see teams be able to keep 4-5 max contracts on the team at the same time. This would be a disastrous concentration in talent for the league. You say the large vet contracts are untradeable cause people cannot match, well why not have it more known that the 10 mil/1 year contract on random player X allows for the trading of such players. Or why not have the number of of years on the contracts be capped (IRL 4 years with a PO is the max contract length).

I will say this plain: Your plan is short sided and would lead to less trading. If teams can keep 5 starters at max they will trade less as their needs will have been met from within.

You could have that many maxes as of right now then too. Who here has it? So there wouldn't be this monopoly on players and the turnover with a 3-4 yr vet max would allow them to re-enter the free agent pool more times.

Also I'm not a fan of the 1 yr deals. It's basically a game glitch but you're right they are valuable for trade assets.

[Brophdog88]

Or if the cap stayed like it is an your idea was approved you would see teams be able to keep 4-5 max contracts on the team at the same time. This would be a disastrous concentration in talent for the league. You say the large vet contracts are untradeable cause people cannot match, well why not have it more known that the 10 mil/1 year contract on random player X allows for the trading of such players. Or why not have the number of of years on the contracts be capped (IRL 4 years with a PO is the max contract length).

I will say this plain: Your plan is short sided and would lead to less trading. If teams can keep 5 starters at max they will trade less as their needs will have been met from within.

You could have that many maxes as of right now then too. Who here has it? So there wouldn't be this monopoly on players and the turnover with a 3-4 yr vet max would allow them to re-enter the free agent pool more times.

Also I'm not a fan of the 1 yr deals. It's basically a game glitch but you're right they are valuable for trade assets.

Yes, but it's much harder to keep 5 maxes over the course of the deal, if you sign 5 guys to a rookie max, you can afford them at the front of the deal, but not at the end. That's actually why I think the HC is probably too lenient though, because lets be honest, the odds of all guys coming up at once is unlikely, which means you probably can find a way to afford at least 4 through their rookie max, maybe 5, til one becomes a vet.

However, if we institute your "limit", there is no large cost increase as guys get older, so no need for them to work to fit those salaries in with the rookies, they essentially ARE a rookie deal, without the downside of just coming off the 4 year rookie deal, and being potentially unproven. The salary cap is intended to make it HARD to keep older guys while managing salary, because that keeps the league more even. If a player goes to FA, and has already started to decline, giving him a 7 year deal because you are "terrified" to lose him is idiotic. You have the ability to exploit exactly what makes the 1 year deals so good in FBB, MORE FIRST YEAR MONEY. Teams aren't afraid to offer big one year deals for the obvious reasons, they expire soon, which typically means the salary is higher than a two or three year deal, and FBB loves that (a cap on non bird rights 1 year deals is probably smart) Of course, you probably aren't gonna offer a 1 year deal (its not weighted THAT heavily, typically), but you do have access typically to around 4 million over anybody else in that first year. You don't have to start there and increase, you have that 4 million right off the bat, and every year the raises don't overtake. Since later salary is given much less importance, you don't even have to bother with those 2 extra years you seem keen to remove as an option, and you will keep the guy at least 9 times outta 10. You know when a guy expires, its not like it just randomly happens, you can plan your team around that point to be prepared to give them the money, or, if they walk, have a plan to move on.
You complain teams don't trade because cap management is hard, I contend that when teams don't trade because of salary, its because for the most part too few know to sign guys with Birds to big one year deals, so they CAN trade for guys with bigger salaries. That isn't changed by decreasing the amount of money, in reality, MORE teams should be near the Hard cap, because if you don't have cap space, there are no financials in the league, so you should burn most of the money you can to have more flexibility. I am not 100%% on who had expiring birds, but look at Utah, he has no reason not to have 15 or so million more in expiring contracts, Miami, Toronto (may be vacant), Sacramento, etc. These teams have room, are around .500, but don't have large expirings to move for guys they could probably afford.

[dave]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

[DrBradBuss]

This discussion seems pointless to go any further. If we're going to vote, lets vote. Otherwise it's just a daily pissing match.
It doesn't seem like there's much support for this change and/or increase in max.

[Brophdog88]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

[Zyme]

I have to wonder if all this stems from you losing so many talented players so far. If so this is a naked attempt so try to no longer lose talent in FA.

[dave]

I have to wonder if all this stems from you losing so many talented players so far. If so this is a naked attempt so try to no longer lose talent in FA.

My suggestion promotes more players to enter FA so that debunks statement above.

Regardless anything I suggest is for greater good of league.

[dave]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

You didn't answer the question.

[Brophdog88]

So what do 6-7 year vet max deals add to the league? What are the positives?

a downside to having vets. You keep acting like you HAVE to give these contracts out or something

You didn't answer the question.

Again, teams are not FORCED to offer 6 or 7 years, so they add flexibility for GM's to use those years, and, if GM's do a poor job managing their situation, its a punishment for needing to offer that to keep the team safe.