(03-08-2018, 04:32 PM)sapp2013 Wrote:Going with the 75 tpe / year example, there are still ways of exploiting that. Sign someone at 449 which is $2mil, then 524 for $2mil, and 599 for $2mil and they could be well over 750 by that time. Sign an extension at at 649 or before 849 to exploit again.
Not saying this is bad, but every plan can be exploited
Yeah to me that’s fine and not a big deal. Not nearly as big of a deal as what’s currently in place. You could bump that 75 assumes up to 100 if you really wanted but 75 is supposed to be conservative so that having someone go inactive doesn’t upset the balance too much.
(03-08-2018, 04:31 PM)timeconsumer Wrote:I think a big reason many voted no is that it would be far to punitive to implement it immediately. Too many teams structured their contracts with the next 2 seasons in mind, to suddenly change the rule on them would really screw them up. Had the proposal been designed to either grandfather in current contracts or at least implement some sort of soft and hard cap, or several other ways to ramp up the new rule it would have been received positively.
That’s a good point. Existing contracts should definitely be grandfathered in