Re: Waivers for released players
 

Did we ever get clarification on Brian's question? I would agree with his view. The team that claims the player would only be responsible for the 20% cap hit and not the remaining signing bonus that the previous team already dealt with.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I'd concur with that. But I think the cutting team should still have to pay the signing bonus hit even if the player is claimed. Much like they do in the NFL.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

What Mike said makes sense to me.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Agreed.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I'm on board with this.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Sounds like a solid proposal to me. I still think we need a longer window for claims in the offseason.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I think a 48 hour window in the off season makes sense. I wouldn't want to drag it out any longer than that. Most people are here just about every day throughout the off season, save vacations and the like.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I could see allowing 72 hours or more in the off-season. I mean, come July the Frenzy slows down quite a bit.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

No need to rush things in the offseason... 72 hours would be okay for me, too. I'll be gone for practically the whole month of June anyway... this would allow me to seek out some internet cafe every 3 days.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

Mike (and others), I'm working on updating the league rule file document, and I need a clarification here. In this proposal, you state that the waiving team would not "be subject to paying the 20% cap hit, although any applicable remaining signing bonus would still be charged against the original team." As we reworded the signing bonus language, the actual cap hit is only 10% of the current year salary, and the signing bonus is 10% of each remaining year's contract (so, in essense, 20% of the current year, and 10% thereafter for the total hit). However, since we have it worded that half of the 20% for the first year is technically signing bonus, do we want to change the language here so that the waiving team receives the full signing bonus hit (10% for the current and each future year), and the team claiming the player would then only be charged for 10% of the current year if the player is again waived?

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

Eww, that's a muddy picture.

I believe this is the specific reference you're referring to in the rules... After reading that, I'd say we should be consistent, meaning that if a team cuts a player, they must pay any and all remaining signing bonus, including the current year. The cap relief would thus be 10% if the player is claimed by another team. Subsequently, the claiming team would then be subject to a 10% cap hit if the player is cut at a future date.

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

It seems like we need to be clear as to WHY we're having this waiver claim. There are two primary advantages that I can think of: 1. Other teams can have "first crack" at a released player, while keeping their current salary/contract years. 2. The releasing team can save a bit on the cap hit.

At first, I was inclined to say that a team that makes a successful waiver claim then inherits the entire contract (and future cap hits). The team which released the player takes the hit only for the current year...

BUT THEN I GOT TO THINKING ABOUT THE NFL... and there are players that are released & they still have cap ramifications for the releasing team in future years. Do NFL teams get any advantage when other teams pick up their waived players? I don't think so, right? So then, we should probably have the full cap hit (for the entire length of the contract) for the releasing team. This will insure that this waiver claim is an advantage only to the claiming team, and not the releasing team.

Or am I missing something?

Re: 2005 Rules Discussion - Waivers for released players
 

NFL Teams are always responsible for the Signing Bonus hit, but not the contract itself. Thus a claiming team picks up the contract (which isn't guarenteed) and no cap ramifications.

All that being said, OUR contracts ARE GUARENTEED. I personally have no problem giving the cutting team a portion of the cap relief...

In the past, a team had 2 options when they no longer want a player... cut a player (with a cap hit, but available immediatly to be resigned as a UFA) or trade a player (with no cap hit).

Now those options are slightly different as we've added a new variable to the mix. Now if a player is cut, he cannot be immediatly resigned/bid upon by his team, as the other 11 teams in the league will have 1st crack to claim said player off waivers. Cutting a player with the hopes of resigning them now has an element of risk.

Also, the original vote was all about providing cap relief if a guy was claimed off waivers. The conflict that Brian is brining up is that we thought it would provide a full 20% relief of the base contract when we voted, when in reality, according to the rules we updated last year it'd only be 10% (which is fine IMO... as I stated earlier).

Does this make more sense to you now Jim?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Somewhat... I'm fine with a 10% savings of the players base salary to the releasing team, and the rest of the "cap hits" will incurr accordingly. But I am clear in thinking that the claiming team assumes the remainder of the salary & contract, right? So if I cut Steven Davis with a contract of 3 years and 1200cbs... and the Predators claim him, they'll have him at 3 years and 1200cbs. I'll take whatever the regular releasing hit should be...

Now, if the Preds release him, the process continues, right? And they'll have a cap hit and Davis goes back on waivers? If no one then picks him up, he becomes an UFA. Tell me I'm on the right page, here.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Jim, you are right in that the contract stays in tact for the same years and cb. In your scenario, when Mike claims Davis, and then cuts him, the only cap hit Mike would have would be 10% of the current year salary. If another team claimed him, and cut him, the same 10% hit would apply again.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

So if Mike claims Davis, and cuts him... he doesn't have to pay for years 2 and 3 remaining on the contract? That seems a bit strange. What's the reasoning there - that my team (original owner) has already paid it up? Maybe this is no big deal... but it seems, then, that claiming a player with a multiple year contract off of waivers can be economically more prudent than signing an UFA (granted, you have no control of a player's salary from waivers).

Hmm... okay by me... but I just wanted to be clear.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Correct. The original signing team is responsible for the signing bonus and pays it upon release. The following teams aren't responsible for that portion of the contract.

In a way, claiming a player can be more economical, but how many players are going to be picked up with the future plans of cutting said player?

Re: Waivers for released players
 

Further, the odds are that a guy claimed off waivers won't exactly have a bargain contract. In some cases they might (players who've yet to emerge) but in many cases, the players we cut are generally cut because nobody else would take them off our hands at the current contrat they're at.

Re: Waivers for released players
 

I agree with Mike and Brian's assessments. If a cut player is picked up by another team, the original team will should only be responsible for the signing bonus (10% of the current year + 10% of each additional year). If the 2nd team cuts the player againt they will only be responsible for the current salary. They should not be penalized for a signing bonus that has already been paid. I believe that's how it works in the NFL too.