FanGM

Per recent discussions, we're checking the overall opinions on whether the empty roster spot charge should remain at the rookie/young minimum or move up to the veteran minimum. This year, those will change to $420K and $730K for players over 3 years experience.

We have an empty roster spot charge so all teams are forced to pay 53 active players at all times during a season, not allowing someone to pay larger salaries to 22 stars and not having to pay any depth behind them.

We've historically used the rookie minimum for that, but some sentiment expressed the switching to the veteran minimum might be preferred, and likely could steer many teams toward signing more young real players making much less than having higher empty roster spot veteran charge.

Any decision on this? Obviously affects planning headed into free agency.

RyanM wrote:Any decision on this? Obviously affects planning headed into free agency.

The empty spot charges don't factor until we get down to the 53 man active roster during regular season. In the off-season there is a note at the bottom of the team roster page that quotes a figure that would be used for empty spots if the season was underway just to give people a head's up on that to either factor in those charges for when the season starts or to get signing players to avoid those coming charges in the regular season.

It says 420K empty roster spot charge there now using the lower figure conservatively. A couple of days ago I thought the poll was swinging the other way with the higher figure ahead, and was planning on switching it to 730 but looks dead even now or a little to the lower. So we'll still give this some time to see if one preference starts to take more of a lead.

Spend in free agency without a worry for that empty roster spot charge, as this figure won't matter in salary cap totals at all until the regular season approaches months from now. Hopefully it doesn't matter at all for most teams as they hopefully will sign a team full of real players as they nail down their 53 man roster later, but for teams that don't end up with a full real roster that empty spot charge will go up this year. Probably to 420K as it states now on the team roster page, but possibly up to 730K if votes build for that.

During off-season free agency also note that last year we instituted the Rule of 51 during the off-season where only the top 51 salaries are counting against your cap in off-season figures and no empty roster spot charges until we get to final roster.

I understand a reasoning for wanting the lower salary being that you are likely just going to sign some random rookie to the rookie minimum and hope he turns into something.

Are there other reasons out there for wanting the lower salary?

Full disclosure: I voted for the higher salary because I feel like teams with 43 and 45 man rosters are unrealistic. I'd rather everyone need to have a 53 man roster. No sound reasoning, just personal preference.

I voted higher too so it provides GMs with incentives to actually fill their roster with players. Honestly, I believe the higher should come down from the commish. In my opinion this doesn't need to be voted on. Either fill your roster, which every GM should do, or pay the price.

And I don't understand how this impacts free agency. I'm looking to add around 30 plus players this offseason to put me around 90.

Knighty Knight wrote:And I don't understand how this impacts free agency. I'm looking to add around 30 plus players this offseason to put me around 90.

I think the alternate argument is that some GMs can't/don't/won't scour free agency to try and add extra players and are comfortable getting their starters/backups and calling it a day.

I'm not trying to call anyone out for a different line of thinking, I just would like to know if what I assume to be correct is right or if there are other reasons for not signing 53 players.

Not that I'm aware of. I always want more room in my squad, but I can understand that some people just want to play the game as a game, and for them worrying about the last 5 spots on the roster is just a hassle. I can't see any reason why they should be penalised by a higher than base wage for those slots.

Zapotek wrote:Not that I'm aware of. I
always want more room in my squad, but I can understand that some
people just want to play the game as a game, and for them worrying about
the last 5 spots on the roster is just a hassle. I can't see any reason
why they should be penalised by a higher than base wage for those
slots.

If they were to play a GM simulation game in Madden or anywhere else they would be required to have 53 plays. I'm not suggesting penalizing them but having them pay the veterans minimum for those slots to encourage all GMs to fill out their rosters since they could do it cheaper with younger players, especially since we don't mandate or regulate 53 man rosters.

Knighty Knight wrote:If they were to play a GM simulation game in Madden or anywhere else they would be required to have 53 plays. I'm not suggesting penalizing them but having them pay the veterans minimum for those slots to encourage all GMs to fill out their rosters since they could do it cheaper with younger players, especially since we don't mandate or regulate 53 man rosters.

Sorry, only just noticed this. What I'm saying is that if someone chooses not to have a developmental player in that slot, they already disadvantage themselves. I agree that they should still have to pay for the roster slot, but I can't see a good reason why it should be more than the rookie minimum.

The only reason to make them pay more than the rookie minimum is, as you say, to 'encourage' them to fill their roster. However you phrase it, making someone pay more if they don't act in a certain way sounds like a penalty to me, and I just don't see that it creates any benefit.

Maybe we just agree to disagree on this one