Oh Man!!!!

[Jared A]

I agree that we should be in the same park as the real owners.


However, just making the cap 120million does NOT do that. Real life teams were allowed to load contracts in last year's uncapped season. We were not. So, that's not realistic. I'm not saying make the cap 135 or anything like that. I'm saying that we might have to adjust our line, to reflect REALITY. In reality last year, teams had a lot more to spend than us. It would make sense if this year we had a little more to spend than them.


I'll get more in depth with the numbers once the "cap" is actually figured out. But, going to a straight 120mil might not be what's best to keep this league as realistic as possible.

[Nathan S.]

I'm saying that we might have to adjust our line, to reflect REALITY. In reality last year, teams had a lot more to spend than us. It would make sense if this year we had a little more to spend than them.

That doesn't make sense to me. Why would we increase ours this year cause they did last year? I say we just go with $120 and if you gambled and loss then that's your risk. All of us new the CBA would run out and things would change and some people just didn't plan to keep pushing the cap to the limit.

[Ben C.]

[quote=Ben C.]In FanGM, the question is whether we were using the salary figure or the benefits figure back in 2009. In that year, the salary cap was $128. What I can't figure out is whether that included things like Minimum Salary Benefit, Player Performance Benefit, etc. If it did, then it might make sense for us to use the $140+ figure.[/quote]

I asked Andrew Brandt about this today and he told me that in 2009 the cap (before the special adjustment they did that raised it because of the expiration of the CBA) was $123 plus benefits. This year the cap will be $120 and then a $3mil "exception" that is still being worked out.

So the answer to my original question is that the $120 figure would line up with what we used in 2009 - though $123 may be better depending on what the exception is.


But that still leaves us with the point that if we go straight to a $120 or $123 cap, we may be left with a significant number of high grade players on the market for significantly low salaries. I do not think that is best for the league. I'd be happy with a number that leaves up to half of the league above the cap for this year and take the NFL's figure for next year.

I assure you no matter what the cap is I will field competitive teams in both the AFFL and CFFL. I've been planning the last 2 years for every cap possibility.

[larry linke]

While the $120 M or $123 M cap will hurt me, I always vote to mirror the NFL in real life so I can't pick and choose when to mirror real life, I'll just have to deal with it.

Larry
Minnesota AFFL

[Jared A]

I'm saying that we might have to adjust our line, to reflect REALITY. In reality last year, teams had a lot more to spend than us. It would make sense if this year we had a little more to spend than them.

That doesn't make sense to me. Why would we increase ours this year cause they did last year? I say we just go with $120 and if you gambled and loss then that's your risk. All of us new the CBA would run out and things would change and some people just didn't plan to keep pushing the cap to the limit.

Simply because contracts aren't yearly. How many big one year contracts were signed last year? How many probowlers that were free agents were signed for less than 4 years? I'd guess it was less than 10%.

So, to reflect/mirror the NFL, we should spend close to what they spend in a yearlly basis. Otherwise, contracts will become unrealistic. What's more important... mirroring the NFL with one number? or mirroring the NFL with realistic contracts? I say, the more we mirror the NFL, the better... and that means we should spend very close to the same as they do on a 3-4 year average.

[vikingfan]

Statistical Cap numbers
Mean = 101,406,250
Median = 99.5M

120M Cap puts 28 of 32 under
123M Cap puts 29 of 32 under

In FanGM, the question is whether we were using the salary figure or the benefits figure back in 2009. In that year, the salary cap was $128. What I can't figure out is whether that included things like Minimum Salary Benefit, Player Performance Benefit, etc. If it did, then it might make sense for us to use the $140+ figure.

I asked Andrew Brandt about this today and he told me that in 2009 the cap (before the special adjustment they did that raised it because of the expiration of the CBA) was $123 plus benefits. This year the cap will be $120 and then a $3mil "exception" that is still being worked out.

So the answer to my original question is that the $120 figure would line up with what we used in 2009 - though $123 may be better depending on what the exception is.


But that still leaves us with the point that if we go straight to a $120 or $123 cap, we may be left with a significant number of high grade players on the market for significantly low salaries. I do not think that is best for the league. I'd be happy with a number that leaves up to half of the league above the cap for this year and take the NFL's figure for next year.

I assure you no matter what the cap is I will field competitive teams in both the AFFL and CFFL. I've been planning the last 2 years for every cap possibility.

[Nathan S.]

I actually like the thought of teams having to make the tough decision to cut a stud player in order to have room to sign someone else. Adds realism to the game. It's a part of the system that we will have to deal with.

Even my own team who will be under may have to cut some players who were signed to large contracts to free up more space.

[Jared A]

I also like the idea of teams having to cut players.


But, what I don't like is a great player making next to nothing. When, in reality, he wouldn't sign the contract. It's unrealistic. EX: AFFL Michael Vick

[Nathan S.]

Me neither but I truly do not believe that would be the case if we go to $120/123 right away. More so, I think it would create more competition for signings without such top-heavy SB contracts. The signing bonuses and two-year cap splitting is what is killing teams. From what I remember from the past year there have only been a few ridiculous contracts in the AFFL, at least.

ex. Vick for $435K for 7 years - Nut got a steal - and Manning this past year for $22 million with no SB.

And only the Manning one was controversial at the time. If anything, it could create more parity in the contracts. A-Level stars would earn top-tier contracts while B-Level would be a step below. In the past, with such a high cap, there have been awfully inflated signings, by myself included.

ex. Lions WR a few years ago who had one good year and went for like $6 million and a few others because of the money that was allowed to be spent.

The only negatives would be the struggle some teams would have to get under the cap number; however, this league is full of smart, crafty GMs who could find away.

[Onyxgem]

I also like the idea of teams having to cut players.


But, what I don't like is a great player making next to nothing. When, in reality, he wouldn't sign the contract. It's unrealistic. EX: AFFL Michael Vick

I agree with this, we don't want pro bowlers signing for next to nothing, because that is not realistic at all.

But the other question will be if the 120 mil is just for straight salaries and SB, then we should not have to add in the 3mil we have right now for "Workout, Reporting, Misc Bonuses and Practice Squad" either.