2023 RULES: Trades covering portion of salary

[Goodell]

Since we started the leagues many years ago, cash hasn't ever been allowed to be part of a trade. That was based upon some NFL salary cap rules as understood at the time of cash not being allowed in trades. However, in recent years there seems to be more articles about teams willing to cover a portion of a highly-paid player's salary in a trade. It's a topic that was sent in as a suggested rule change to look at, and something I am still researching but as it seems to be part of the options in reality in the NFL these days it's something I wanted to put a poll out there to view opinions.

If traded during a season, the trading team will always still have a prorated portion of the salary on the books for games the player was on their team, but this option would allow teams to also pay even more of the remaining salary in hopes of making the player easier to trade or fetching a higher return if not as much salary is required to take on from a trading partner.

If anyone finds some research on the NFL salary cap rules for that and some of the more recent trades/rumors that included talk of teams covering a portion of the salary of a player involved in a trade, let me know.

[JonC]

Until we get a salary floor for teams, I'm WAY against this. Teams with 100M in cap space after FA because they are in full tank mode shouldn't be able to help create even more imbalance.

[Danny - BRFL Packers]

I agree with Jon.

[bbrown85]

What Jon said, keep the competitive balance in play. You'll always have a few teams tanking every year but let's not amplify that by giving extra ammunition.

[Ben C.]

I voted for the “yes but limit” because I think this option could incorporate some of the above concerns mentioned by others. The limit could be tied to how much cap space a team has before the trade, which could be a way to help encourage a cap floor.

[sportznut]

I voted for the “yes but limit” because I think this option could incorporate some of the above concerns mentioned by others. The limit could be tied to how much cap space a team has before the trade, which could be a way to help encourage a cap floor.

I'm the one who brought this to Troy, and in my PM, I said we had to have a limit, whatever that is.

I agree with the sentiment that it would get out of control, if not limited.

The NFL allows salaries to be covered, but here, with no GMs getting fired, or financial repercussions of putting together an awful team full of rookies, while paying off salaries, is a bad move too.

So, my suggestion would be to allow coverage of 50%, or maybe only 25%, whatever that was.

Another way to incorporate it possibly, would be to tie it to your cap number. Let's say 10-20% of your cap could be tied to salary coverage.

Idk how any of this is easy or hard for Troy to write the logic for, but that's where I kinda was with it.

Allow teams to cover SOME salary, but definitely put limitations to that spending, whatever that might be. IMO, it has to be 50% OR LESS.

I can certainly see arguments for as low as 10%.

You don't want to see a 250M cap number, with teams paying 200M on contracts no longer on their teams.

[soonertf]

I voted no, basically because too many GMs are constantly looking for loopholes to take advantage of the spirit of the game(can't prevent them all unfortunately). I can just see this getting out of hand quickly. Perhaps if it's limited then maybe. If not we will see even more ungodly FA contracts so GMs can use them as another tool for draft picks.

I am a huge fan of accountability and would love to see a 3 yr minimum win total or at least some sort of salary cap floor (though I can see that just being manipulated as well). I just don't think that will ever happen...so unfortunately we can't match everything NFL does IRL (in my opinion).

[sportznut]

I voted no, basically because too many GMs are constantly looking for loopholes to take advantage of the spirit of the game(can't prevent them all unfortunately). I can just see this getting out of hand quickly. Perhaps if it's limited then maybe. If not we will see even more ungodly FA contracts so GMs can use them as another tool for draft picks.

I am a huge fan of accountability and would love to see a 3 yr minimum win total or at least some sort of salary cap floor (though I can see that just being manipulated as well). I just don't think that will ever happen...so unfortunately we can't match everything NFL does IRL (in my opinion).

I don't really disagree with what everyone is saying, and its not a hill I"m going to die on for.

I only suggested it b/c its become a thing in the NFL, but I agree it would have to have strict limitations on it to work in these leagues.

[JonC]

Nut, I think it's a great idea if there are bumpers to keep things from getting out of hand. What you proposed is something that I think at least makes a good starting point for conversation.

[bpboguta1483]

I voted yes on this but I also agree there should be limits, and also it should be about individual players and not teams, let's say team A has only $30 million in cap space and team B has $150 million, even if there's a percentage of say a 25% cap, team A has $7.5 million it can allocate versus team B which would have $37.5 million, does the team that has $150 million need the savings? Nut, I think you mentioned 25-50% range which seems pretty accurate to me as well, just my two cents worth.