2014 Forum Mock: Announcement Thread

[NFLfan123]

Because I have so much cap I'm wiling to trade draft picks for high priced players for you to save cap

[FreckleNate]

Because I have so much cap I'm wiling to trade draft picks for high priced players for you to save cap

Out of curiosity... how did you become a regular of the Ravens forum being a Raiders fan? haha

[NFLfan123]

Out of curiosity... how did you become a regular of the Ravens forum being a Raiders fan? haha

Courtesy of SAM lol

[FreckleNate]

Courtesy of SAM lol

lucky you haha

[gabefergy]

gabe, sorry for bothering again, but want to get things right in my head lol

I understand the issue with sizzle being not such a good example, nothing really was/is easy with him, his salary and our cap hit, but one can only love the man lol

in the Rules Thread you only refer to the above (bold text) as "Special Cut rule", can you please add the Trade wording to it, so it reads "Special Cut/Trade rule" (and wording "Each team is allowed to make ONE CUT / TRADE...")

so now for the first question lol... let's say I trade a certain DT we Ravens got lol... so by applying both the special and the trade rules, it should give me a saving of 8.5 stars (player's base salary) that then gets paid by the team that will acquire the player; still this player's cap hit for 2014 is $16, so I'd have to settle for paying the other 7.5 stars that becomes dead money/stars in my books?

also, can we please have a 48 hours window for signing own FAs as per proper life? pretty please! as this will get owners (like me lol) a bit more time to get themselves in better terms with their team; I know, me and my questions lol, still a novice in this so appreciate all help

now to Franchise section... will I be able to sign Monroe to a contract in the first seconds of free agency (if no above 48 hours window approved), thus immediately creating some cap space I can work with?

the Rules Thread says that one "cannot restructure contracts"; so am I right to assume I cannot extend Webb's by two years and level this year's cap hit?

phew that's it! so far...

For your first question, you are spot on. I will edit the rules thread to make that distinction.

As for your second suggestion, I'm not sure how that can happen with the format we use. Since we use a bidding system, its simply not possible to allow each team to keep their own FAs.

And yes, no extensions allowed for players already under contract.

[gabefergy]

Oh I know where my confusion comes from :

In the announcement thread it states trade away a player and you will save his base salary.

Now it has changed.

I am not in favour of that as I was negotiating using the "old" rules now the agreement looks very bad from my point of view.

Sorry about that. The announcement thread was just poorly written.

[ravensdan]

For your first question, you are spot on. I will edit the rules thread to make that distinction.

As for your second suggestion, I'm not sure how that can happen with the format we use. Since we use a bidding system, its simply not possible to allow each team to keep their own FAs.

And yes, no extensions allowed for players already under contract.

Why would a trade be treated the same as your one cut? That makes no sense. Not realistic at all. Only encourages more crazy unrealistic trading. Why would that be added to the rule???

[The Oakland Cathedral]

Why would a trade be treated the same as your one cut? That makes no sense. Not realistic at all. Only encourages more crazy unrealistic trading. Why would that be added to the rule???

Its also not realistic to not be able to sign your own FAs or restructure/extend players. Maybe it's a sort of makeup for that problem.

[T3hRaven]

Why would a trade be treated the same as your one cut? That makes no sense. Not realistic at all. Only encourages more crazy unrealistic trading. Why would that be added to the rule???

Guaranteed money acceleration might be delayed depending on when the trade is made, similar to using a June first cut. I don't remember the cap nuances off the top of my head, but I think that's one of them.

[rmw10]

For your first question, you are spot on. I will edit the rules thread to make that distinction.

As for your second suggestion, I'm not sure how that can happen with the format we use. Since we use a bidding system, its simply not possible to allow each team to keep their own FAs.

And yes, no extensions allowed for players already under contract.

 

I'm not suggesting to implement it this year, but next year maybe, what if we allowed each team to keep 2-3 of their own free agents if they want?  Have people do their best to "re-sign" them to fair deals, subject to approval by the CoCo.  I know it's somewhat hard to define "fair" but I'm sure it's something that could be figured out over time.

[gabefergy]

Why would a trade be treated the same as your one cut? That makes no sense. Not realistic at all. Only encourages more crazy unrealistic trading. Why would that be added to the rule???

A trade or a cut is essentially the same thing when it comes to the players contract. If you want to get rid of someone via trade instead of just cutting him that is you prerogative. You can still only use the "special" cut/trade one time. That doesnt change.

[stm85]

I'm not suggesting to implement it this year, but next year maybe, what if we allowed each team to keep 2-3 of their own free agents if they want? Have people do their best to "re-sign" them to fair deals, subject to approval by the CoCo. I know it's somewhat hard to define "fair" but I'm sure it's something that could be figured out over time.

Too much room for interpretation. This is why I proposed the idea of a set number of times a team can match a winning bid.

[gabefergy]

Let me make something clear. You get one exception whether it is a trade or a cut, only one where you can ignore dead money.

[rmw10]

Too much room for interpretation. This is why I proposed the idea of a set number of times a team can match a winning bid.

 

But then a team devotes all of its resources to a certain player, but their old team matches, and they get left with nothing.  Pretty much everyone else at the position is already signed so it's not like they can resort to a plan B.  It's a tough situation.

[ravensdan]

What if you had a one day period you can offer up to 3 of your own ufa a contract and all other teams have a couple days to outbid for those guys. It could serve as a chance to resign a couple key guys. Everyone can still bid on them but. And it would cut down a bit on the open free agency madness.

[ravensdan]

A trade or a cut is essentially the same thing when it comes to the players contract. If you want to get rid of someone via trade instead of just cutting him that is you prerogative. You can still only use the "special" cut/trade one time. That doesnt change.

There is a real nfl precedent for this type of cut. None for a trade. Imo trades of big money players should be more difficult to add to the realism. Not easier.

[gabefergy]

There is a real nfl precedent for this type of cut. None for a trade. Imo trades of big money players should be more difficult to add to the realism. Not easier.

Oh well. Its the way we are doing it.

[ravensdan]

Oh well. Its the way we are doing it.

Did you at least put it to vote on the council?

[gabefergy]

Did you at least put it to vote on the council?

We already voted to pass the rule the way it is. I understand what your point is, but we made a pretty massive change to actually involve dead money in the process which received a lot of friction. Making one minor concession to teams does not seem like a big deal.

[rmw10]

We already voted to pass the rule the way it is. I understand what your point is, but we made a pretty massive change to actually involve dead money in the process which received a lot of friction. Making one minor concession to teams does not seem like a big deal.

 

I agree.  It's impossible to do this accurately.  Most teams are in the business of offering extensions or restructuring contracts to get under the cap.  For the sake of this game, we can't do that.  We have to implement other ways to cut salary since the way they really do it is impossible for us.

[FreckleNate]

Come on Challenge!! Let's finish this!

[T3hRaven]

I'm surprised the Bills have hung around for so long. They're in decent cap shape. Cowboys are no surprise, but the Saints are a minor one considering their offensive talent even with their pending FAs.

[The Oakland Cathedral]

Come on Challenge!! Let's finish this!

but on the brightside

[Clutch Ravens]

So sorry about missing the deadline guys. Girlfriend had family stuff that needed seeing to.

 

I'll go have a look at who's left.

[JO_75]

If rosters are locked, this should be what everyone is getting for their starting cap space not including draft picks:

 

Arizona Cardinals - 17.5

Atlanta Falcons - 25.5

Baltimore Ravens - 17.5

Buffalo Bills - 25.0

Carolina Panthers - 21.5

Chicago Bears - 13.0

Cincinnati Bengals - 29.5

Cleveland Browns - 52.5

Dallas Cowboys - -22.0

Denver Broncos - 17.5

Detroit Lions - 1.0

Green Bay Packers - 32.5

Houston Texans - 9.5

Indianapolis Colts - 39.5

Jacksonville Jaguars - 56.5

Kansas City Chiefs - 9.0

Miami Dolphins - 38.0

Minnesota Vikings - 33.0

New England Patriots - 12.0

New Orleans Saints - -6.5

New York Giants - 19.0

New York Jets - 28.5

Oakland Raiders - 70.0

Philadelphia Eagles - 27.0

Pittsburgh Steelers - -4.5

San Diego Chargers - 4.5

San Francisco 49ers - 11.5

Seattle Seahawks - 9.0

St. Louis Rams - 7.0

Tampa Bay Buccaneers - 17.5

Tennessee Titans - 12.5

Washington Redskins - 33.0

 

It looks like a good portion of you did the math right so far.  Some of you might have forgot your rollover or made a rounding error in the calculations.  The teams still available are bolded.  There will be audits!

 

So are we using these numbers instead of spotrac's numbers?

[ravensdan]

We already voted to pass the rule the way it is. I understand what your point is, but we made a pretty massive change to actually involve dead money in the process which received a lot of friction. Making one minor concession to teams does not seem like a big deal.

If it makes a difference I like the change that was made to involve dead money. A step in the right direction. IMO.

[rmw10]

Come on Challenge!! Let's finish this!

 

Sorry, Nate.

[Mt. Crushmore]

Clutch is back!

 

And in other news, FreckleNate just started to cry.

[FreckleNate]

Ahhhhh!!!! Darn it!!!

[FreckleNate]

Hopefully challenge gets skipped!