You may render them now. The Rfa period is as you said it, for making offers on rfas.
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
2018 Forum Mock: Discussion Thread
- Thread starter JO_75
- Start date
I think it makes sense to finally be added. I know there's been push back in recent years because it requires player approval and we could obviously never simulate that, but in all reality, players are going to restructure because they get more money up front and likely a longer leash on their team.
It's become so commonplace in the NFL nowadays that I think it's a good addition, especially when it's limited only to 1. I mean, it certainly helps me out. That's what the Ravens are going to have to do in real life so I think it gives a better simulation.
Also, might need to add an additional stipulation that it can't be anyone in the last year of their deal, either. You'd think that would be obvious, but you never know.
Exactly that. With respect to the player approval, it also should be noted that our free agency is done solely through the presumption that each player will base their future entirely on their upcoming salary, so it's not an aspect that has remained untouched until the restructure came along. Obviously if it's panned, we'll be right back at the drawing board. But considering that the savings aren't steep enough to entice members to completely avoid the June 1st designation, it could stick. Terrific point on the latter. It should be made concrete and I will update the parameters right away.
thanks - that makes sense - was struggling to wrap my head around it
I also think at the time, restructuring was generally frowned upon because it was only those teams in cap hell that did it, and it just pushed them into further cap hell. Nowadays with bloated QB contracts, you can't have a team without restructuring.
Speaking for a friend.
It's a bit complex to explain as it stands without Free Agency upon us. Free agency is a bidding process where each bid has to quote the highest bidder prior. There's a natural flurry of bids within the last five minutes, and quoting isn't necessary. To help establish competition, we have the Final Five rule, where if a team was the leading bidder before the final five minute mark, and somebody outbids them thereafter, they can request to go to a bidding war with the winning team. That was sometimes combated by teams putting in bid just before the final five and then outbidding themselves in the end to make sure that their winnings were uncontested. Yours truly did that several times. That action is no longer permitted. The short story is, if you place a bid on a player and your bid is the last before the Final Five mark, you cannot outbid yourself and thereby freeze out competitors from securing rights for a bidding war, or a bid-off. Without context or an example, this explanation is liable to make your head spin.
Just checked out the rules thread, and just a thought, but shouldn't it apply only to base salary? Don't get me wrong, I'd love the save 18 stars on Flacco but in real life that bonus money is stuck no matter what. Feel like that would just open up ridiculous savings for myself and other teams, making FA insane like it used to be before dead money was factored in.
You’d only save 6 stars. You save 25%
Ah I misread.
Still, I think that rule might need some work. I'm obviously not CoCo this year so I know I have no say, but I think a rule would need to be crafted up to apply to base salary only.
Restructures are typically taking the base salary, dropping it to $1M (1 star), and converting the rest to a signing bonus. I wouldn't propose dropping to 1 star base salary in this game because I know there are some ridiculous contracts out there, but maybe that's where the 75% comes in - or even 50%. So, Flacco (12 stars base salary) would save 6 stars under a 50% restructure, or 9 stars under a 75% restructure. Same savings with the 50% number as the current crafted rule, but maybe a little more realistic to real life in that case. Even 75% would be a good amount less than teams would save in real life.
Hopefully that makes sense.
I think in future years if we decide to continue with the restructure and maybe add to it by allowing the team to do both a restructure and June 1 then I’d definitely want the restructure to be based on salary. The current rule kind of makes you think and in many cases the June 1 exclusion will work better for the team. It all depends on if they want to keep the player or not.
Definitely appreciate the input
i guess i have another question - in a trade - i get that savings = cap hit - dead money but does the person receiving the player just take on the base salary or is it base salary + bonuses (i.e. is it base salary or yearly cash?)...
Trading partner just receives base salary
okiedoke - can i edit the trade block post i made to reflect a slight change in the stars?
Apologize, but due to fairness with our friends across the pond, the trade thread will not be coming out until morning.
@RavensMania @allblackraven - am posting this in the discussion thread just to get clarification because i didnt want to clog up the ERFAs/RFAs/Cuts thread...
I asked Ravensmania this:
And his response was this:
I asked Ravensmania this:
And his response was this:
Last edited by a moderator: