2014 RULES: Additional Restructure During Season

[Goodell]

Teams currently can restructure 2 contracts per year (cutting current season salary in half and deferring it to their last year under contract while adding some signing bonus). Restructurings happen in reality, but teams don't restructure every player on their roster every year, as our sim teams could try to do with the simple click of a mouse, so we limit that to something deemed fairly realistic.

During the season it's very difficult to cut costs. As games get played, salaries get paid, and once you get through much of the season cutting a player actually COSTS more money than saved because you've already paid them most of their salary on top of having to pay for their active roster replacement as well. Putting a guy on IR costs money because you're paying his salary entirely plus paying for a new guy to be added to the roster replacing his active spot on the 53 man. So tough to do anything during the season for cap savings.

Most teams close to their caps going into a season can't really make any moves as the season gets deeper or it'll put them over. That's on them, and maybe should have planned to have more cap space available for in-season maneuvers (I can't judge that too harshly as I was close to the cap myself much of the year in AFFL), but I had a thought as I was working with some GMs on fixing cap problems mid-season that perhaps we could allow one additional contract restructuring that would only become available during the regular season and couldn't be used up earlier.

Thinking of it as a team is in a real bind during the season with no cap space and after a ton of injuries and giving them a chance to approach a player to restructure under those conditions of need during a season. If support for it, we'd start out with the usual 2 restructurings per year during the off-season. Once regular season comes, all teams would get 1 extra option to restructure added to their available choices (whether they use them or not just as now teams can restructure twice but don't have to).

Restructurings can help in the short-term but also can create problems potentially down the road for teams. A counter-point might be that we shouldn't encourage more restructurings or bail teams out of problems if they didn't prepare to have in-season cap wiggle room.

[JonC]

I think 2 is enough. I would perhaps say one during the off-season and one during the season.

I'm sure it will happen to me at some point, but GMs need to be aware of long term commitments to players and how those commitments gobble up their cap. I think we see too many players cut who wouldn't be in real life simply because a GM restructured them one year and didn't plan for the last year of that deal to jump in salary. Then that same GM tries to sneak them through FA at a discounted rate after FA has slowed down. I don't think that's healthy.

[redsoxfan31x21]

I think 2 is enough. I would perhaps say one during the off-season and one during the season.

I'm sure it will happen to me at some point, but GMs need to be aware of long term commitments to players and how those commitments gobble up their cap. I think we see too many players cut who wouldn't be in real life simply because a GM restructured them one year and didn't plan for the last year of that deal to jump in salary. Then that same GM tries to sneak them through FA at a discounted rate after FA has slowed down. I don't think that's healthy.

I'll second that.

[Joe]

I like the extra. It could very well come in handy if I need that extra little bit at the trade deadline to help land me the one or 2 guys that could put me in serious contention. I understand it could put a damper on future plans, but its a nice option to have.

[tino38]

I am all for the extra during the season. I think more good will come of this than bad.

[Strategist]

I have had some dire salary cap situations in my early years of owning the DFFL cowboys because of some real life contracts the cowboys had signed.

So that being said I think 2 is plenty. Of all my seasons I think only twice have I used both in a season. To me to use more is just really bad planning and like others have said leads some unfortunate cases.

[Ben C.]

I have had some dire salary cap situations in my early years of owning the DFFL cowboys because of some real life contracts the cowboys had signed.

So that being said I think 2 is plenty. Of all my seasons I think only twice have I used both in a season. To me to use more is just really bad planning and like others have said leads some unfortunate cases.

Well, some of us plan on using the restructures. It's one way to pay more some years of the contract than others.

[redsoxfan31x21]

I have had some dire salary cap situations in my early years of owning the DFFL cowboys because of some real life contracts the cowboys had signed.

So that being said I think 2 is plenty. Of all my seasons I think only twice have I used both in a season. To me to use more is just really bad planning and like others have said leads some unfortunate cases.

Well, some of us plan on using the restructures. It's one way to pay more some years of the contract than others.

Even with that being said Ben I think 2 is plenty to plan for. Teams need to be smart about spending and planning on restructures is fine but just like spending, you need to be smart about it. If we allow 3 or 4 then teams can spend more carelessly in FA because they can plan on just restructuring in a few years and if it doesn't work out, restructure enough where they can eventually just cut the player.

[whteshark]

I have had some dire salary cap situations in my early years of owning the DFFL cowboys because of some real life contracts the cowboys had signed.

So that being said I think 2 is plenty. Of all my seasons I think only twice have I used both in a season. To me to use more is just really bad planning and like others have said leads some unfortunate cases.

Well, some of us plan on using the restructures. It's one way to pay more some years of the contract than others.

Even with that being said Ben I think 2 is plenty to plan for. Teams need to be smart about spending and planning on restructures is fine but just like spending, you need to be smart about it. If we allow 3 or 4 then teams can spend more carelessly in FA because they can plan on just restructuring in a few years and if it doesn't work out, restructure enough where they can eventually just cut the player.

I'm with Ben on this one. All your doing is shifting money but it still has to be paid either way in the end or you lose a player to the free agent pool. Some teams, like Ben and I, put a good team on the field every year and we're strapped for cap space because of it.

Good players with SB's get cut sometimes here as in the real NFL. I don't know how it works in other leagues but in AFFL if you cut even a marginal player there's no sneaking him through FA. Sometimes a player is being paid more than he's worth, even with a back loaded contract. When you cut him you're just spreading the wealth because some low budget team who's been rebuilding for years will swoop in and pay him more than you can probably afford.

I just don't see a problem with adding a third restructure. Either way it makes the league more competitive and puts more players in the free agent pool when those GM's can't afford those backloaded contracts.

[Royce R]

Very rarely do I use my 2 restructures. I'm one of those guys that looks at the long run and hate to think about cutting a guy.

When you do restructure it is near impossible to trade them that last year of their contract. Which means they are likely to get cut. I don't have a problem with this because it gets them back to fair market quicker, and doesn't let a contender trade for so many 1 year contracts to try and win the SB.

I'm up in the air on this rule and will wait for more discussion before voting. But leaning towards letting it happen, because if a GM cant plan right to keep his players he is in trouble without this anyway.