FanGM

It annoys me, but it's within the rules. I'm not opposed to the change, and I voted yes.

Zapotek wrote:

Jared A wrote:I believe a 1 year no trade clause should be only if the SB is more than 10million dollars.

Agreed.

Edit: Voted for the first option in the poll, but the above is what I'd really prefer.

Same here. Voted for the first option but I prefer Jared's suggestion.

So just so I understand I want to throw this out there. In the AFFL Phillip Rivers is about to sign a 1 year contract for $51 Million, $32 Million guaranteed. We’re saying that if this is slow played for a year wit the new proposals, we are going to be okay with it if next year QB ABC hits free agency and is signed to a 2 year $102 million contract with $64 million guaranteed and then traded for draft picks when there is once again 1 year left on the contract?

tino38 wrote:So just so I understand I want to throw this out there. In the AFFL Phillip Rivers is about to sign a 1 year contract for $51 Million, $32 Million guaranteed. We’re saying that if this is slow played for a year wit the new proposals, we are going to be okay with it if next year QB ABC hits free agency and is signed to a 2 year $102 million contract with $64 million guaranteed and then traded for draft picks when there is once again 1 year left on the contract?

While still annoying, at least that spreads the impact on the signing team out to two seasons - they would have to have a cap hit of $51 million in year 1 and $32 million in year 2.

I mean I understand what we’re trying to do here, I just don’t think we’re going to see it stop completely, especially for those GM’s that feel like slow playing success, if they ever get success.

I think the slow play is a little more realistic though because a guy could sign a contract in real life and then there is a coach change and he doesnt fit the system anymore. Now a big name guy with a huge cap hit...in the NFL they stay on the team until the cap hit is minimal.

I like Jared's suggestion.

One I thought of is putting the restriction on the grade since this is happening with higher players anyway...

The idea isn't to restrict trading, in my opinion.


It is to prevent teams from using salary cap to obtain picks.


Ex: I sign a player to a 3 year deal 1 mil per year, and 30 mil SB. I'm not competing, so I'll eat that 30mil, and land some pretty good value for giving away a player signed for 1mil per year.



Players signed for 2mil per year with 500k SB, that end up doing well... but the team doesn't work out, we don't really care to discourage trading. Just the abuse of salary cap space.



This coming from someone who LOVES to do exactly what I'm proposing we try to get rid of. I view everything as an asset designed to obtain more assets.

Depending on the current state of a bad team in dire need of assets, waiting a year to trade the player isn’t going to hurt that team trying to rebuild up to a competitive team. Regardless, I would still do it, I’d just wait for the 2nd year and then try to cash in on the draft capital.

This will hurt the new GMs that take on a new team with one of these multiple year ugly contracts like what tino38 had mentioned earlier after a previous GM is a no show after 1 year much more than it will a guy like me who has been here for a few years now and plans to be with a plan.

I'm for the 1 year no trade. Plus, if a team signs a player to a 30 mil SB, the team that trades for him already has to eat the salary, why have to eat part of the SB as well, especially if it's something I wouldn't do personally, and why acquire a player, trade him 15 minutes later and eat dead money? NFL owners wouldn't think of doing that.

In rabbit's example they would be able to trade that contract since it would be after 1 year

And to Jareds point again I dont think it is to restrict trading either but rather using your 130 million cap space to help rebuild your team instead of jacking up the price of a player with a high SB just to trade them for picks.