One Contract Restructure Up until the start of free agency (or thereabouts), teams will have the opportunity to restructure one contract on their salary list. What that means is that you take a high salary cap player and CUT that player’s cap charge in half. Since we are only doing this on a one year basis, future years aren’t calculated. There is a penalty for doing this however. You will lose ONE free agent bid for the first 72 hours of free agency. Which means you have the potential to lose three free agents. You also cannot trade this player after you have designated him for restructure. I will create a thread (after salaries have been posted for all teams) where each team lists their ONE restructure player. Once you’ve announced your player, it cannot be rescinded. As always, any questions ask away here before voting
I would only vote yes to this if we were including some sort of 25-50% of dead money owing on cuts/trades applying. Otherwise with no dead money it's easy enough to keep who you want....and we wouldn't have as many free agents with such.
I think that's a good idea (dead money) but it might be too hard for everyone to keep track of. Either way, you have a level playing field within the confines of the team's cap you are inheriting.
I don't see a problem with this rule. Anyone who doesn't like it obviously doesn't have to use it, and anyone who does want to use it knows they'll be doing so at a cost.
I voted no just because it would be mostly used on starting QBs and the Peyton Mannings and Tom Brady's shouldn't be able to go from 20mil to 10mil.
But at the same time, no one should have to pay $17 million for Mike Wallace just b/c of the way the contract was structured. Or perhaps $22.0M for Suh, $18.0M for Mario Williams & Julius Peppers, $16M for Ngata & DeMarcus Ware, $13M for Lamarr Woodley, $10M for Josh Morgan, $18M for Fitzgerald. I think it stinks for the GMs of these teams to be faced with making some of these guys cap casualties just b/c the salary is too high and/or because they're already sitting in a bad cap situation. We could put some more parameters on it. How about omitting QB from the list or changing it so that people can only reduce a player whose 2014 year outweighs the average of their overall contract like Wallace's does? Or make All Pro players exempt from the list. Or make this option applicable to any GM whose team is within $5 million of the cap or something like that.
looking at our cap #'s... the top 32 cap $... how they break out by position: 2 CB's 4 DE's 3 DT's 3 LB's 1 RB 4 WR's 15 QB's keep in mind that's top 32... not highest # by team.
I personally don't like it. If implemented I hope you take my next idea into consideration. In real life a player restructuring is a crapshoot. Some do some don't. I'd prefer if we were able to choose three players we would like to restructure. Those three can then be put in a randomizer and the one chosen can be restructured. The other two can not be, and are just there to add a bit of chance.
If passed I just think there should be some type if restriction. Whether it's not allowed on QBs or some other idea that were mentioned by others
I think a simple solution is QBs can only be restructured at 75% if you want to use it on a QB. That would accurately reflect the demand on QBs.
Hope this doesn't go through. It's easy enough to shed cash as is. Will just lead to more bloated FA contracts.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of this one. I would imagine everyone will take advantage of this option and the loss of one bid isn't punishment enough.
I like the rule only if it applies to non QBs. Also if a player restructures in real life, we get the "credit" here correct??
I recall that being a touchy subject last year. Paul's call but he might just go with the figures as is when the spreadsheet goes up.
When the salaries are posted, everything is final unless there's a mistake. Have to draw the line somewhere.
I really dislike this rule. I think one of the more interesting parts of this is working around salary limitations as well.
What I don't like about this rule is the inability to now trade the player which reduces some of the action of the league b/c in the past, many of the high dollar players were often either traded to create cap room to GMs who could afford it or were cut altogether, which increases league activity via the trade & FA market. Giving GMs all these reasons to keep players on their own team could be viewed as boring. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with these two rules being passed, that's the potential for 64 players either not being traded or hitting the FA market, right? I might as well just sit back, kick my feet up, and keep my Super Bowl Seattle roster fully in tact if that's the case. LOL.
well... there you go again... it's one player, not your top five highest paid players. I would imagine, being a GM, you'd still be looking to cut / trade high $ players to save cap space before free agency starts. . Not being able to trade the reconstructed player this year makes it more realistic IMO. Adding... you can also restructure a player you just traded for (but that would be your only one). That might make players with high cap #'s more attractive.
Ahh. Wasn't aware of that. Should'a made it clear in your opening post, Pauly. On second thought, let's pretend you didn't just mention that part. Just between you and I, eh? :wink-nudge:
I didn't make it clear because I shouldn't have to The important thing to keep in mind is that once you've designated a player to restructure, you can't trade or cut him!
Alright so because we can restructure 1 contract does that mean if a player restructures in real life it wont apply?
up until the time I post the rosters, they can restructure and it WILL apply. So the Cardinals GM should be happy about Fitzgerald restructuring today. Once rosters are posted, you're on your own, everything is frozen.. no occurrences in the real NFL can help you.
