FanGM

I still think that if you don't have a 53 man roster, not only do you get the minimum salary applied, but when its filled, you take the game check cap hit for those games. Teams are getting out of paying a player by not filling this space. Sure there is the min of 320K charged but it drops off when you pick up a player.

It's definitely a topic to think about. When it was discussed before in previous off-seasons, a potential problem is that thousands of transactions would be involved and what a mess that might could make all over team transactions, as well as system having to track thousands of empty slots precisely (this empty slot was empty from this date until that date). Empty roster spot #11111 from 9/1 to 9/9 $1,000. Empty roster spot #111112 from 8/1 to 9/1 $12,000. Empty roster spot #999999 from 9/1 to 9/2 $500. Lots of times that's just momentary empty slot when a team has 53, goes down to 52 temporarily while putting a guy on IR or cutting someone as they put in a bid for a new replacement, and then that spot goes away once replacement comes on board. Can't not start tracking when empty spot comes up as no guarantee what'll next happen if it stays empty or not, so it's thousands of instance records started even under normal conditions even if all teams at 53 most of the time but have to put guys on IR and generate even temporary instances.

There's another side to it too where empty roster spots are much more expensive to have, not always cost savers. It hits both ways depending upon the situation. If someone puts a guy on IR from his 53 in the last weeks of the season, he gets the full 320K. Not a partial season payment (as he'd have if he signed a guy to a partial season contract). It's much more expensive to have that empty spot than signing a guy for a fraction of the cost. So empty spots cost much more often, perhaps zeroing out sometimes where they cost less and sometimes they cost more.

Maybe there's a way track this that isn't so large with a massive list of hundreds of thousands of transactions. Maybe it's a big deal that we really need to track even if it's a massive amount of data and complication involved, where teams not sure about their figure listed need to look at their list of hundreds of records of such instances.

Having empty spots hurts teams. It costs more in many cases especially as the season goes along. It's a huge opportunity cost where you aren't developing or taking a chance on young talent. Teams that maximize their rosters arguably tend to do better GM job and have better talent long term because some of those real players (especially if researched well) will develop where teams with lots of empties have zero chance of an empty roster spot developing.

To me, that's been enough compared to the alternative complication, but it's definitely something to continue thinking about. There are potential benefits to maxing out roster if you're playing to win long-term, while little benefit to an empty roster spot. But some people can't spend hours and hours researching undrafted free agents or lesser named guys to sign. Maybe they don't want to dig that deep but still love playing the game anyway at more of a fantasy sports level and not quite all the way down to full 53 player evaluations of third-string guards. Maybe their life is hectic right now and they plan on filling out their roster more later. We setup the league for both kinds of players, those who can and those who can't. So I don't have frustrations about teams with some empty roster spots, and we'll only have more variation in activity if we grow. But for fairness for all, you can't just pay 22 guys massive contracts and no depth. Everyone pays 53 all the time no matter what. So that's the empty roster spot charge where you have to have a minimum contract guy paid at that spot even if you don't have one signed. You're right, and others right who've mentioned before, that we could do more with tracking empty roster spots.

To me it's a matter of how complicated that gets and how much data that takes and how critical it is. It might be more important and should be a higher priority, but if so just have to find a way to integrate it into the systems efficiently. Haven't been sure of the benefit vs involvement there just yet or found the right solution to doing it better easily. It's definitely something to keep looking into to try to find a workable solution, though, and open to thoughts/suggestions on that.

I'm a strong proponent of 53 man rosters, being a GM is why we play this game so we should be willing to play within the parameters of what NFL GMs do to some extent but I understand the Commish's perspective about the casual GM who just loves to play here.

To me the solution is simple, we need to place a greater incentive for a team to fill their 53 slots. I wouldn't waste time and effort tracking, no need to take a hard line approach here and require 53 man roster monitoring at all times. Increase the cap hold from 310K to the veteran's minimum of 730K. That way it pays for the team to find someone cheaper. As it stands there is almost no financial incentive, and certainly not enough if there is any, to fill an empty slot. Allow GMs an opportunity to save money by filling a spot and it's very likely this issue fades.

It would move to 420K at least this year along with the young player minimum. Moving it to the veteran minimum instead would certainly be incentive to go sign a young player instead. I'm not sure if that would be too big of a change along with all the salary minimums for new bids jumping also this year to where we'd have a lot of salary cap issues rising. It's something to consider for sure.

I think we should move the minimum to the veteran minimum. At least that would force GMs to get off their duff and fill the spot with someone (assuming a rookie at a lower salary).

I understand the tracking issue with empty slots. This idea would be a good step in right direction. We want to act like the NFL, then we have to assume we have a union to deal with and no union would allow a team to have less than full roster. Its keeping there players unemployed.

RyanM wrote:I think we should move the minimum to the veteran minimum. At least that would force GMs to get off their duff and fill the spot with someone (assuming a rookie at a lower salary).

I agree with the veteran minimum.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL