Offseason Rules Discussion - Multiple Year Contracts - Signing Bonus Cap Hits

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

I would like to propose an accelerated cap hit on players who are cut with multiple years left on their contracts. Currently the penalty only applies based on their current salary. I would like the penalty to be higher if there are multiple years left on a contract for a player cut. Similar to an NFL team having to eat the prorated portion of a signing bonus if a player is cut with multiple years left on an NFL contract. Perhaps we could structure it so that the penalty = 20% of the current salary + 10% of the remaining contract value.

Example:

Emmitt Smith has a 4 year contract currently at 1000 cbs.

Year 1: 1000 cbs
Year 2: 1100 cbs
Year 3: 1210 cbs
Year 4: 1331 cbs

If he were cut in Year 2 the cap hit would =

1100*(.20) + 1210*(.10) + 1331*(.10) = 475 (rounded up from 474.1).

We could play with the numbers till everyone agrees what is fair. The reason I would like this instituted is there would be more risk in signing someone to a long term deal. Right now we only risk our contract years being tied up. I'm open to discussion on this issue.

[Preds]

I think your idea has a lot of merit Joe, I have a couple suggested modifications, but as a whole I like it.

Perhaps, when a player is assigned contract years, we could call 10% of the total contract value a "signing bonus", and then like the NFL, divide up the signing bonus by number of years, and have any unused years accelerated in with the normal cap penalty (whether soft cap or hard) when a player is released.

Using your example, a 4 year 1000cb contract would equal a total contract of 4641 cbs, with 10% being the "signing bonus" (465 cbs or 116.25/year). If the player was cut year 2, 1 year would have already been used up, leaving 3 cap years left for the signing bonus, so therefore an additional cap hit of 349 would be assessed on top of the standard 20% cap hit (whether a hard cap or soft cap release) for a total of 569cbs as a cap hit if released in year 2.

I don't think it'd be too hard for me to add a column called remaining signing bonus onto the roster app (which would reduce each year), and the formulas themeselves shouldn't be too hard.

I'd further suggest that the signing bonus cap hit follow the same rules as the 20% standard hit, that being 100% of the total (signing Bonus plus 20% cap hit) counts against the current years cap in the hard cap period, and 50% counts against the current year and the subsequent year during the soft cap period.

With a signing bonus structure, I also think we could eliminate the restriction on cap years per player (keep the team cap), since long term deals would hold significant risk (even at cheap contracts). A 10 year 100cb contract would have a signing bonus of 161cbs in year 1, which is not huge but still 60% more than the initial contract year, not to mention tieing up a ton of years.

I would further suggest we grandfather existing contracts, and only apply this to new contracts.

What do you think? I think we're saying the same thing (although mine is a tad pricier), I'm just trying to create a simplistic way to track it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I like the idea. I don't have a huge preference either way between the two proposals of how to calculate the penalty. I say for for whichever is the easiest to track and calculate.

I do not agree with Mike's suggestion of getting rid of the contract year limit though. Between the draft and the RFA, the best players are tied up way too easy as it is. We don't need to let the good cheap players be tied up long term as well.

[Mutts]

I like where this is going. The Dodgers have a point, however. I only see a down side to reducing the year cap.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

This would put us more in line with the way the NFL operates... making it that much cooler for us!!! Although, I have to admit, I've taken advantage of signing/cutting players with large contracts, knowing that it would only count for one year. But I'm willing to adjust my tactics! lol

[Liquid Swords]

good idea....either calculation.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I am fine with this idea (I like Joe's math better) but would like to try and incorporate the idea of the franchise player if we are going down this road.

Here is a link to that proposal (though it was voted down before). http://vbb.predatorsfootball.com/sho...&threadid=1873

Here is the jist of it:

I am wondering if it might be possible to discuss some sort of Franchise Tag that could be used? I am not dead sure how it would work, but maybe like the tender offers it would be the option to offer a deal to a player (one per team, can't have more than two at one time) once his contract expires (but before the RFA begins). Here is my first stab at how this could work:

The greater of 1.2 times last years salary or $1,200 for a QB, $1,500 for a RB, $1,100 for a WR, $550 for a TE and $450 for a K . I am not sure how many teams would take advantage of this but it might make for another interesting option, especially since a lot of guys were signed to deals before we made all of these changes. Some teams might figure that the cost is too high but for a lot of young guys that were signed for like $100 this presents them with the option of resigning one of their own players. This could work well since we have increased the contract years and cap space anyway.

The other twist that may be worth thinking about, again not trying to make the management end anymore complicated, but maybe these guys salaries also increase by 20% instead of 10% and the tag cannot be used on the same player more than once with the same team.

For example Corey Dillon currently had a one year deal for $1,772. If the Predators wanted to "Franchise" him he would get a 2003 deal for $2,126 since it would be higher than $1,500. Using the 20% escalator his 2004 salary would be $2,552 and his 2005 salary would be $3,062. This would offer the option of signing him before he hits the market but there is a price to pay for utilizing this option.

Another example would be Duece McCallister who had a one year deal for $110 in 2002. If the Freedom want to "Franchise" him he would get $1,500 in 2003 since it would be much higher than the 20% increase. Using the 20% escalator his 2004 salary would be $1,800 and his 2005 salary would be $2,160. Again, it is not a cheap option but it would allow teams to retain one of their own. In some cases the player may not be worth it and the team would not want to use option however with the possibility of more years and cap space this would allow teams to retain talent.

Sorry, I am kind of thinking on the fly, but it might add another dimension to the decision making process. Please feel free to post your thoughts.

I think this would be a good time to add this option as the increased cap hit also would play into the strategy involved.

[Flaxwless]

All these ideas are great. My current habit has been to sign any young players to as long a contract a spossible, knowing ahead of time that I could cut them and it would only affect me for a year.

The mutltiple year cap hits are a great idea and like teh Dodgers said, whichever one is simpler. I read through MIke's proposal and it seemed more cimplicated.

If this idea is passed it'll allow for more roster movement.

[Ypsilanti Undead]

I like the concept, but I will have to give some thought as to whether I prefer Joe or Mike's formula.

I'm not in favor of the Franchise Player Tag, however. I think there are already ample opportunities to lock players up for multiple years.

[Liquid Swords]

I agree with the Undead, no franchise tag....but either calculation for accelerated cap hits on players with multiple year contracts will work for me

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I think Matt's ideas have merit (and personally, I like the 20% increase addition to his proposal)... but in a league where it's hard enough to get "quality" talent (let alone at a decent price), I think most of us would like to see a quicker turnover of players from team to team. That would probably forgoe the Franchise tag... besides, in the NFL, doesn't the franchise tag mean a player can be paid the average of the top 5 or so at his position? That would be an interesting way to calculate things in the Frenzy!?! lol

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

One thing I wanted to iron out is how does this affect players traded with multiple years left on their contracts? In the NFL if a player is traded I believe the team takes an accelerated cap hit of the remaining portion of the signing bonus. For simplicity we could just leave the traded cap hit out but I think it would be cool if we had a provision like that in our rules. Thoughts?

[Preds]

Originally posted by Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers
One thing I wanted to iron out is how does this affect players traded with multiple years left on their contracts? In the NFL if a player is traded I believe the team takes an accelerated cap hit of the remaining portion of the signing bonus. For simplicity we could just leave the traded cap hit out but I think it would be cool if we had a provision like that in our rules. Thoughts?

I would say the contract gets traded as is, with the receiving team inheriting the future cap hit if cut.

I know the NFL assesses this hit against the trading team, but that rule is one reason why trades of players under contract in the NFL are so infrequent these days. I think if we followed the NFL on this one we'd see even fewer trades than we currently do, but I guess if the majority of the league was in favor I could live with it.

Brian, how about setting up a follow up poll on this.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I agree with Mike... contract goes to the new team "as is."

[Nittany Dodgers]

I can set up a poll, but....maybe I'll wait until we get a second on that motion by someone who would actually support it. I can't believe many of us would want to pass a rule making it harder to trade. I know I certainly wouldn't want to make it any more difficult that it already is to pry a superstar off another team. If that team has to take a huge cap hit on top of that...ouch.