Lol. Maybe you didn't read what I responded to. I understand the trade thing. Somewhat. I responded to if someone gets a raise. I'm fine cap wise. I'm not worried about the 2 mil I didn't save. I just think its ridiculous rule period.
I'm not reporting when players renegotiate, it's the GMs own responsibility. If they want to up their players base salary based on a new deal a player received (if he was originally on their team from the start), then go for it. But because it's the GMs own responsibility... common sense says that they won't report that. You get paid $20 cash every two weeks to mow your neighbor's lawn... would you include that in your income? It's cash... no one would know... Same thing applies, if it's your responsibility and you see someones base salary has went up... are you really going to tell me?
What we mean is: In my case for example, later today, the Eagles restructer Vicks deal so instead of 12m a year its 7m....I ca LOWER it..... Now example 2: Mccoy is >1m, say tomorrow he resigns a monster contract with the Eagles, hes not a free agent, and his cap goes UP to 5m a year.....do I have to RAISE the cap the same way I lowered it for a restructer?
Essentially it's on an honor system and you can tell me when a player's base salary went up... but I'm not going to go check each team's salary on rotoworld to see if someone's salary went up... like I said, it's like reporting the $20 cash you make from mowing lawns every other week... you can report it on your tax income... but you likely won't.
Ok cool, I have no problem with that Mat, but you know people will complain that "team y" got to lower their cap, but "team z" didnt have to raise theirs You know SOME people will complain about this.
No. As the GM if the player is amicable to a lower salary you would accept such a deal, but as your own GM if you don't want to agree to a raise you don't have to. This is all self reported after all.
Having said that, I am fine with how it is. Lets continue, it's been real fun so far this year. And it hasnt really even started yet.
I do understand... but people will always complain about something (look at the exclusive franchise tag, small uproar there to start). I have learned that I can't please all you guys (especially FinO... crabby old man) so I am not going to go out of my way to try.
If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now. It's just a Spring clean for the May Queen.
I think Nappy pictures me scouring over every single team's roster page looking to see if anyone's salary went up. THAT is when I know I hit rock bottom.
So Ike Taylor is listed at 6.25M in this league. However Rotoworld lists has different numbers being reported. What is his actual salary? Per rotoworld: Keep in mind that "reworking" deals does not constitute a pay cut or make these contracts easier to handle in the long run. Taylor, Timmons, and Woodley are becoming even bigger long-term cap burdens. Per PFT's Mike Florio, Taylor's scheduled $5.75 million 2012 salary dropped to $825,000, and he was immediately paid a $4.975 million signing bonus to make up the difference. That new "signing bonus" will be prorated into 2012, 2013, and 2014.
I would like to announce in this thread because my pm's are full, in real life the Seahawks restructured Matt Schaubs contract. He's actually playing for free. So it will save them $7 Milli towards the cap....I dodged that bullet
This is the stuff that IMO will make the rule not worth it. A roster freeze is a roster freeze. And the rule may really benefit me as there is no way Jason Smith is going to get his full 10M with the Rams...but I still stand by my original observation.
Well this is what it is dude. We all have the same rules. I think it's a good rule that makes sense. If Ike Taylor is nice enough to rework his deal in real life why shouldn't we reap the benefits? I previously was going to trade Ike Taylor because of his cap number, now I can afford to keep him. It's not like we arbitrarily get to choose who restructures and who does not...that would be unrealistic. This just adds another element of realism to the game. The thing would bother me is that we dont increase a players salary if he gets a raise. But i understand why we don't do it as we aren't real gm's. If say Rashard Mendenhall got a raise in mid April and I had to cut other players it could shoot my entire strategy to poop because we don't get to negotiate the contract structure so it would a severe disadvantage for said team.
I'm not leading a pep rally against the rule, I just happen to think it makes no sense. You argued against the "raise" stating we are not real GM's, but then pointed to "realism" as the argument FOR the rule. And like I said Smith and Bartell are 2 strong candidates to restructure for MY team, so the argument I'm pissed because it doesn't help me at all.
I never made the argument that you were pissed because it doesn't help you at all. Though if you don't particularly think highly of Bartell or Smith then an planned on better utilizing the roster spots anyway then no it doesn't help you. I made a statement about the fact we can't control the negotiations with how player salaries get reworked but I happen to think the element of realism it adds is pretty cool. I don't think you really understood what I was trying to say there bro. I never argued against the rule. I think you misconstrued or misinterpreted what I was saying.
I'm not "pissed" at all....just laughing at the rule to anger people into not voting for me again. I'm the living Al Davis of this *****.
I vote for who deserves it, I think it's obvious not everyone does...there were some guys who were snubbed for more "popular" posters (in their eyes anyways) I won't name names but I have had private discussions with some other GM's who agree. Let's not get it twisted though this league is fun and does a good job of passing time, so no matter how ridiculous I think some things are, you all will be graced with brother Fin-omensls prescence.
