Eliminate Cap on DS, and expand to 5 players

[Preds]

OK, I think Brian's proposal has merits and is a votable issue...

Here's my take on a compromise of his proposal...

Eliminate the Cap on the DS and make it 5 players to allow growth of both previous years rookies and current years

Make only drafted rookies eligible for the DS (grandfather existing players on the DS in until cut or activated). Making only drafted rookies eligible will eliminate the possibility of unfair bidding wars on DS prospects since having no cap would prevent that from happening.

Institute a 20 year cap on the DS (an avg of 4 per player) A compromise on the years vs. no years concerns.

Keep the rookie scale as is now and in the future Since we've created room for rookies to grow into their contracts by eliminating the cap on the DS/

What say yea all... Yea or Nea?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Hey Mike, where's my "I like it but I still think you're on drugs" option?

[Ypsilanti Undead]

At first blush, I have to say this strikes me as a brilliant solution -- I think it will be effective and far simpler a solution than trying to hammer out a new salary scale in a hurry. I see some consequences which may not have been anticipated, but none of them strike me as bad:

* Overpriced rookies can be dumped from the DS with no cap penalty whatsoever. This could have the effect of encouraging more risk-taking in the rookie draft.

* The Active Roster replaces the DS as the ideal place to stash young UFA sleepers.

I also agree with Mike's suggestions in the top post. I vote to implement this for 2003.

[Preds]

I'd like to see a supermajority vote on this before pressing on... i.e. at least 8 votes in favor.

Brian's brilliant (as the Undead put it) and simple solution is cruising through right now in a 7-0 vote.

I can see the Undeads point in terms of possibly altering draft strategies a bit, since their is less risk, however we'd still have to fit these salaries under the cap to activate a player, so I think those concerns should mitigate hoarding of RB's and whatnot.

In all, it was so simple the rest of us missed it.

BTW, the Toxic Waste's recent suggestion in another thread of freezing rookie salaries from increasing until they are activated was a pretty darn good idea IMO (albeit late on the scene today), but I like this one better.

I think we can allow Matt to move on with slection 1.1 as soon as (or if) we get at least an 8th vote in favor on this poll.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I will make my selection in the morning. Since I will not have access to my computer for the rest of the day.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Hudson Valley Undead GM
* Overpriced rookies can be dumped from the DS with no cap penalty whatsoever. This could have the effect of encouraging more risk-taking in the rookie draft.

* The Active Roster replaces the DS as the ideal place to stash young UFA sleepers.

I also agree with Mike's suggestions in the top post. I vote to implement this for 2003.

You know, we could insititute the cap hit against the active roster to help prevent this type of scenerio. Maybe not the full 20% hit but say 10%?

As to the last point, I do think the active roster is where young RFA's will be kept, and I don't view that as a bad thing (see my roster with players like Barlow and Santana Moss). They still hurt you with the loss of a roster spot, but are often cheap enough to make that worth the risk.

[Mutts]

Sorry, was out seeing a client... but my vote puts this through.

Matt, any chance you're ready to make your selection? It would be nice to get this draft rolling today.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Philadelphia Freedom
I will make my selection in the morning. Since I will not have access to my computer for the rest of the day.

Go ahead and pick now Matt.. the 8th vote just rolled in. A supermajority is satisfactory from my point of view. We can still work out the details (i.e. whether or not to assess a cap hit for releasing players) without having a huge impact on the draft.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators
I'd like to see a supermajority vote on this before pressing on... i.e. at least 8 votes in favor.

Brian's brilliant (as the Undead put it) and simple solution is cruising through right now in a 7-0 vote.

In all, it was so simple the rest of us missed it.

Come on now, give me a little credit. ;)

I agree we should wait until 8 votes, though I'd love to see near unanimous consensus by tomorrow (maybe that's a pipe dream).

Mike (and others), what about combining the Toxic Waste proposal of freezing rookie contracts until activated with this proposal? If the concern is waiting for potential to catch up to contract value, accelerating rookie contracts while on the DS doesn't necessarily make sense. Since we are doing away with the CB Cap on the DS in this proposal anyway, we could still freeze salary increases. This will accelerate the time between when the rookies are drafted and when they catch up to the value of their contract? I don't think the ideas are mutually exclusive.

I also would agree with a lessened cap hit against the active roster for a dropped player. I suppose it could happen in the future, but I doubt this system would create an undo run on RBs. This year and last year really suffered from a lack of RB quality at the top of the draft. I can't imagine a team not in need of a RB taking a chance and passing up a solid prospect at another position. That said, in any year where there is deep quality at the RB position, RBs will dominate the draft based on their value in the game. I don't think there is any system that will effectively reduce that. It's just part of the game.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers


Come on now, give me a little credit. ;)

I agree we should wait until 8 votes, though I'd love to see near unanimous consensus by tomorrow (maybe that's a pipe dream).

Mike (and others), what about combining the Toxic Waste proposal of freezing rookie contracts until activated with this proposal? If the concern is waiting for potential to catch up to contract value, accelerating rookie contracts while on the DS doesn't necessarily make sense. Since we are doing away with the CB Cap on the DS in this proposal anyway, we could still freeze salary increases. This will accelerate the time between when the rookies are drafted and when they catch up to the value of their contract? I don't think the ideas are mutually exclusive.

I also would agree with a lessened cap hit against the active roster for a dropped player. I suppose it could happen in the future, but I doubt this system would create an undo run on RBs. This year and last year really suffered from a lack of RB quality at the top of the draft. I can't imagine a team not in need of a RB taking a chance and passing up a solid prospect at another position. That said, in any year where there is deep quality at the RB position, RBs will dominate the draft based on their value in the game. I don't think there is any system that will effectively reduce that. It's just part of the game.

I could go for the Toxic Wastes proposal in conjunction with this... I'll start a poll.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I assume since it has not been specifically addressed, we are not making any changes to the fact that only players in their first three years of NFL experience can be on the DS, right?

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
I assume since it has not been specifically addressed, we are not making any changes to the fact that only players in their first three years of NFL experience can be on the DS, right?

Correct, I see no reason to change that qualification.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

opihi have voted

[Preds]

FYI, with this proposal passing (hopefully unanimously) I think we need to discuss 1 other related topic.

What about drafted rookies who are cut and then subsuquently signed by the same or another team? Are they allowed back on the DS? Or do they have to go straight from the draft to the DS?

I'd say any drafted player (this year or last) should retain DS eligibility, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Well, I like this comprimse. It makes sense. I did want to point out that implimenting this change this year will basically handicap me as I was hoping to fill my DS slots with FAs after trading all my draft picks this year. Not being able to sign and designate players to DS makes sense as teams could just bid players up with no cap to hold them back. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet on this one.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally posted by Parkwood Predators
FYI, with this proposal passing (hopefully unanimously) I think we need to discuss 1 other related topic.

What about drafted rookies who are cut and then subsuquently signed by the same or another team? Are they allowed back on the DS? Or do they have to go straight from the draft to the DS?

I'd say any drafted player (this year or last) should retain DS eligibility, but I want to see what everyone else thinks.

Isn't this the exact reason why we got rid of the CB cap on the DS? Because only drafted players were going to the DS and there was no free market? I'd say once a player is cut, they are DS inelligble. A player needs to be drafted to be put on your DS, or traded to you by another team from their DS. Once activated, 'I'd say they are DS inelligble. I could go with trading from another team you could put them on your own DS if they were still elligble.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers


Isn't this the exact reason why we got rid of the CB cap on the DS? Because only drafted players were going to the DS and there was no free market? I'd say once a player is cut, they are DS inelligble. A player needs to be drafted to be put on your DS, or traded to you by another team from their DS. Once activated, 'I'd say they are DS inelligble. I could go with trading from another team you could put them on your own DS if they were still elligble.

I can see your logic in that Brian. Nuff said.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I agree with Brian... once cut, no longer DS elligible... traded, then okay!