Elimination of the Contract Cap

[bonscott]

So out of the ashes of the no roster limit thread and the rookie draft thread came an idea that seemed to have a lot of support so we should probably talk about it more.

Elimination of the overall contract cap (currently 80). Individual players still would be capped at 5. This seems to have broad support.

But I'd like to hear if there are any downsides to having no contract cap?

My first thought on that might be if I go all cheap guys I can lock them all up at 5 years each. However as time marches on there is still the roster limit and so guys will have to be cut to make room for rookies along with the caps hits (as small as they might be, they will add up over time). So maybe that really isn't an issue.

Also, I would suggest that if the change were passed that it would start at the beginning of the 2013 season as many of us have already made moves or assigned contracts based on the cap being there, although I could get behind making the change start with the start of the regular season.

Thoughts?

I think this is something we can move forward to a vote in the next week or two.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Something that I would worry about is hording of min salary lotto ticket FA's and undrafted rookies during the off season when there is no roster limit.

Sure, there's the cap penalty when you have to cut these players, but at the same time, having the contract cap makes you think about how many years you have left to assign to prospective pickups to go along with the number of roster spots during the season.

The cap penalty of 50% of a min salary isn't really much of a deterrent when it accounts for 0.5% of our cap space.

[braven112]

I think that is the only potential downside, but if you look at LB-DeCleaters lineup (34 players) for example, he's not even over 80 right now and I can't see a team hording more players than that.

The cap hits are relatively small but they do add up. If you have say 4-5 guys you have to drop at the cut down date that is still a million dollars in cap hits this year and then 35% next year. (if they are 5 year deals which is what we are assuming here.) And that is pretty average, if we are hording players and we are having to drop 8-10 guys, like LB-DeCleaters, the total cap hits double and we are looking at a couple million. For that money you can buy a decent player in free agency. I think a lot of teams will opt for that route, especially if other teams are hording. So I think there will be a few directions that teams can and will go.

The other thing that I think would help balance things out is the auction process. If there is a rush to hoard players then those UDFA will end up costing more than the minimum, which make the penalty steeper, so I think the rules we have in place already will naturally balance some of the concerns.

As always, if it does change the way the league works significantly then we can always add it back. I agree with Amish though, if this passes it should start Feb 15th at the start of next season.

[Poker in the Rear]

I agree on the 2013 start if it goes through. At the end of the day, thats the only fair option.

You may have guys that hoard but at the end of the day that will come back to haunt you. Like Brandon said, you can get a really good player for a couple million so taking those kind of hits can hurt. I can see where some guys really load up, and others don't. I'm still of the opinion as long as we have a 5 year max, a cap, and max roster it will all even out. Honestly I'm not sure there is a downside as long as those parameters are in place. If anything it's another strategic layer that adds to the league.

[Achon44]

I'm okay either way with the Contract Cap, but I just hope nobody screws the pooch so bad that they just say "screw it" and walk away leaving us with one gigantic mess to find a new owner for.

[bonesman]

LOL @ me being the poster child for hoarding.

[griblets]

When I first saw the contract cap of 80, my first thought was, "what's the point?" I guess it would allow for an owner to over stock low salary players during the off-season, but the salary cap penalty will be a natural deterrent for that. And, like Brandon said, if more than one owner takes that strategy, players that used to go for the minimum salary may go for slightly more than minimum.

I don't see any downside to it. The more freedom to manage our teams the way we want, the better.

[Poker in the Rear]

Seems like more and more of us like the idea of removing it. I think a nice change if it does indeed pass.

[braven112]

I just put this up for vote...

http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1229