• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

2018 Forum Mock: Discussion Thread

Truth said:
Yes, but theoretically, a scenario akin to the one above wouldn't be overly feasible. The restructure rule was introduced at roughly the same time as the cuts and tenders thread was created. It was mentioned after one release was made, that being Lardarius Webb, whose savings were 2 Stars, so he was unaffected by the implementation. The trade thread wasn't created until 13 hours after the rule was placed into the rule book and explained in the Discussion thread. Since then, three teams have chosen to restructure. Collectively, they saved 15.5 Stars. After the tweak, collectively, they save 16.5 Stars. Two of the three contracts remain unchanged and the remaining contract gains one additional Star in savings. That's because the ceiling cap prevents significant leaps in savings due to the sliding scale. This means that teams' approaches towards their contracts would've been mostly unchanged in contrast to either version of the rule. It'd be different if it were a massive change in savings, but given its minor impact on a fiscal level, it'd be difficult to fathom it having a significant effect on whether or not any move thus far has been affected by the change.
Click to expand...

How dare you insinuate that I didn’t want to restructure Webb and keep him around instead of getting much more cap savings elsewhere...
 
Well it definitely influenced my decision making when it came to trading JPP that it was only 25%. If it was 50% then I may not have traded him and used the exemption.

Either way what's done is done.
 
RavensMania said:
agree, it wouldn't have made a noticeable difference to change someones mind one or the other. At least with the restructures that were already in place.

@Giants56Ravens52 It's also more realistic restructuring contracts using base salary as that is how it's done in the NFL. They take the base salary and convert it to guaranteed money, which allows them to spread the guarantees over the life of the contract, cutting down on the initial years cap hit.

The reason for the maximum is to keep teams from taking advantage.
Click to expand...

Of course, and I get how the contracts work for the most part and the realism.

My issue is not with the rule itself, but the change in the rule after trading has been open for a while.
 
Giants56Ravens52 said:
Well it definitely influenced my decision making when it came to trading JPP that it was only 25%. If it was 50% then I may not have traded him and used the exemption.

Either way what's done is done.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it wouldn't have due to the ceiling cap, which states that no restructure would save higher than .30% of the cap hit. This means that in his case, the difference between the two would've been exactly 1 Star. The initial rule saved 25% of the entire cap hit. This one saves 50% of only the base salary and it also caps the savings at .30% of the cap hit. The former would've saved 4.5 Stars. The latter would've saved 5.5 Stars.
 
Truth said:
Hopefully it wouldn't have due to the ceiling cap, which states that no restructure would save higher than .30% of the cap hit. This means that in his case, the difference between the two would've been exactly 1 Star. The initial rule saved 25% of the entire cap hit. This one saves 50% of only the base salary and it also caps the savings at .30% of the cap hit. The former would've saved 4.5 Stars. The latter would've saved 5.5 Stars.
Click to expand...

I get it. Made my point already and don't want to sound like it is more of a big deal than it is (it really isn't). I just generally don't feel it is right to change rules mid-game.
 
In real life this sucks and @Simba , because the Ravens were only offered a 6th round comp pick.
But as the Ravens GM I was awarded 4 6th round picks (36, 38, 42, & 43)
 
RavensMania said:
In real life this sucks and @Simba , because the Ravens were only offered a 6th round comp pick.
But as the Ravens GM I was awarded 4 6th round picks (36, 38, 42, & 43)
Click to expand...

I’m so unhappy lol. Only reason I was willing to trade a 3rd was because I thought a comp would replace it. I call BS.
 
giphy.gif
 
29BmoreBird22 said:
I'm guessing it's because of Jefferson and Carr canceling out Wagner.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with carr - nfl has decided that Jefferson’s contract and play was equivalent to wagner’s which seems ridiculous to me given the whole extra $1mill difference in per year average - this is the first time I’ve seen spotrac get the comp pick formula wrong (and they thought they had it figured out)
 
rossihunter2 said:
Nothing to do with carr - nfl has decided that Jefferson’s contract and play was equivalent to wagner’s which seems ridiculous to me given the whole extra $1mill difference in per year average - this is the first time I’ve seen spotrac get the comp pick formula wrong (and they thought they had it figured out)
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have mentioned Carr. I meant Carr for any other potential picks. But yeah, Jefferson's contract is the one I figured would hit it hard.
 
rossihunter2 said:
Nothing to do with carr - nfl has decided that Jefferson’s contract and play was equivalent to wagner’s which seems ridiculous to me given the whole extra $1mill difference in per year average - this is the first time I’ve seen spotrac get the comp pick formula wrong (and they thought they had it figured out)
Click to expand...
Also, PM me back.
 
Sandtown said:
Wow The Ravens got screwed.
Click to expand...

In recent years, we haven't done so well in comp picks lately. I think the NFL finally told Ozzie that he had to share his compensatory picks with the rest of the league. Thus..... less compensatory picks than usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top