Carryover TPE

[Beaver]

That's helping to prove my point. Even if this change was implemented, GMs would need to be allotted about 2 seasons to get their finances sorted out.  There's no way to make the change and immediately force contract changes.  This is why it should have been addressed 2 seasons ago. 

Also, it probably shouldn't be left to a GM vote anyways but HO is vehemently against taking any proactive actions.

Yeah you definitely couldn't impose it immediately. Just from the 32 players with 700+ TPE that I looked at, an immediate change to established contracts would add a total of $28m to teams' caps this season. Baltimore in particular would be heavily hit with $9m in unbudgeted increases, it'd be NHL-level incompetence to spring that on teams without a couple seasons' warning.

Looks like another $9m in increases from players in the 600s, $5m from players in the 500s, and $4.5m from 400s. That's nearly $50m total.

[manicmav36]

My only concern would be players being priced out of the league. Some postions, say RB for example, aren't nearly as important to some teams as they are to others.
Take Owen Taylor for example. What if teams that want a high paid running back can't afford him, and other teams, who don't see the necessity of a good running back, don't want to eat the cost? Would there be a fail-safe in place? E.g. no bids so their minimum is allowed to go lower?

[bovovovo]

My only concern would be players being priced out of the league. Some postions, say RB for example, aren't nearly as important to some teams as they are to others.
Take Owen Taylor for example. What if teams that want a high paid running back can't afford him, and other teams, who don't see the necessity of a good running back, don't want to eat the cost? Would there be a fail-safe in place? E.g. no bids so their minimum is allowed to go lower?

Honestly I have a hard time imagining this situation happening as long as the cap is expanded.

Teams should have the make hard decisions eventually... otherwise the cap is pointless. I don't think there will be a situation where a player won't be signed by any team in the entire league because of their cap hit though.

[manicmav36]

Honestly I have a hard time imagining this situation happening as long as the cap is expanded.

Teams should have the make hard decisions eventually... otherwise the cap is pointless. I don't think there will be a situation where a player won't be signed by any team in the entire league because of their cap hit though.

I agree the cap situation and minimum pay needs to be fixed. I think a situation like I explained above should be planned for though. Seeing how it requires ALL teams to not bid, there's no way to abuse it, and the rule doesn't hurt anyone. Plan for the worst, hope for the best, and all that.

[AdamS]

I'm still flat out against anything that changes a contract during the contract unless its the team and player deciding to do so themselves. I voted against it and also campaigned against it. Successfully. I still believe what I did then. It will limit player activity when people lag off so as not to hurt the team. And if you don't think that's realistic, you need to remember that we're in this situation to begin with because of tremendous player loyalty t teams. It will create a ton of complexity in contracts. And it punishes teams for successfully having active players.

Also worth noting...this is the first season where we've actually seen what it looks like to have a draft class at their top tpe potential. So any "why didn't we fix this earlier" can be pointed at that. Much like the qb/rb conversation that was happening at the time. And also as noted, the oline bots take up a ton of the extra cap space too.

All that said, what I AM in favor of is forcing contracts to move upwards in ways that do NOT involuntarily interfere with a contract that has been signed. I think there are a variety of other options that could help with the salary situation and whose entire function isn't to punish teams because their players are high earners. Here are some of them.


-Adding more salary bumps in the breakdown for starters. Currently we have it at a very lenient total which has allowed ridiculous contracts (including most of those mentioned and mine, which wasnt as ridiculous at the start but is rapidly heading that way). If we adjust the scale, we create a higher base to start with every time a new contract gets signed.

-Shrink max contracts to 2 seasons for anyone under 500 or 600 tpe (depending on what number a min raise is broken down at), and 3 seasons for anyone under 800 tpe. Even if people are "getting away with it" at the high end, they're still doing so at a much higher level than currently exists.

-Lift the ban on performance bonuses. Let gms use them to sweeten contracts.

-Limit each player to one minimum contract during their career. Obviously this would require deciding on a percentage over minimum that the other contracts were required to be.

-Make players on inactive single season contracts cost an extra 500k every single season they remain on the team. Make the "safe" options less attractive.

-Stop allowing NSFL drafted players that are still in the DSFL to be paid by the DSFL. Right now, it's free money that NSFL teams commit to without having to pay it.

-Allow contract renegotiations. It will allow GMs to try to keep their stars as they rise, but also trigger any new minimums. Note that this is a gm and a player choosing to change their contract. Not a league mandated penalty.

-The last season of a contract is currently the time when teams can negotiate extensions with players. Allow other teams to negotiate with them during this time period. This will create more free agency possibilities and force GMs to work to keep their players a bit more.



I'm not saying let's throw all these in at once. But every one of these helps with the situation. And does so in ways that allows more freedom of choice for gms and players. And I'm sure there are other things that could help as well without messing with contracts during their life.

We have more at our disposal than one idea repeated over and over.

[AdamS]

Oh. And no to carryover TPE. Recreates already have significant advantages in bank accounts, experience on how to build players effectively, and attractiveness to NSFL GMs. That's a lot of advantages as is. There is already movement to try to stifle the advantages recreates have, so seeking more is probably not prudent at this time.

[White Cornerback]

-The last season of a contract is currently the time when teams can negotiate extensions with players. Allow other teams to negotiate with them during this time period. This will create more free agency possibilities and force GMs to work to keep their players a bit more.

So the bosman ruling from association football then? @Jiggly_333 knows.

[ADwyer87]

What is the point of carryover TPE? I’m sure there’s stuff I’m missing, but seems to me it’s just to encourage early retirement? (People want to keep their TPE up so they retire before regressing a significant amount)

Also, if implemented, and someone let’s say has a TON of $$$, does that mean we could see DSFL rookies (recreates) with 500 TPE?

Idk how it would be handled in this hypothetical situation, but every league I know of that does carryover TPE uses total TPE earned all throughout your career. So if you retired at 1000 TPE before regression, you would get less than if you retired at say, 600 TPE in year two of regression, because it would count all of that TPE you earned post regression

[ADwyer87]

P.S. the salary cap in this league is a joke since the contracts are basically grandfathered shit.  1000 TPE players making $2M a season?  WTF is up with that.

I agree. While I haven't checked tonight due to computer issues, I can confirm that this is something HO was talking about just today on working out

[ADwyer87]

what no

Can always count on Wozy for the deep analysis