Looking for imput on house rules

[iBomb1st]

I am in a league with the standard house rule of no renegs until last year of contract. In said league, there is an exception... cap out deals are allowed regardless of years left. We are discussing a rule change (either getting rid of the last year rule or also banning cap outs) Some said that cap out deals are completely different then what the last year only rule is trying to accomplish and we should keep both rules. I posted saying 5 of leagues Im in have the last year only rule, yet none of them allow cap out renegs. I was asked to include more info... like WHY a league would also ban cap outs.

I could be wrong but isnt the last year only rule in place because it was perceived that it was too easy to free up cap space with renegs? Doesn't cap out renegs do just that? Deferring the contract to later years in order to save cap? Perhaps I am missing something or am completly off-base.

Please share some imput about leagues that you are in. Does your league have the last year only rule? Do you feel it's necessary since 6.3? Are cap outs allowed in your last year reneg only league and If not, Why? It would seem to me that they contradict themselves greatly... but I have been known to be wrong before :-)

[ozias]

The league I'm in has both.

The reneg in the last year only makes it harder for teams to just re-sign every player on their team.

The Cap-out will free up some cap space for the current year, but turns the salary into BONUS money, which then makes it harder to keep the future years salary in check.

Example of a player

Current salary, bonus, amount of salary cap.
11,590 5,030 16,620
12,680 5,030 17,710
13,240 5,030 18,270

If changed into a Cap-out offer.
Salary, bonus, applied to the salary cap.
1,780 900 9,490
9,870 12,680 21,270
11,700 13,240 21,830

Notice the first year the cap amount reduced from 16,620 to 9,490?

But the following 2 years the cap amount increased significantly.
17,710 to 21,270 and 18,270 to 21,830

And did you notice how much the Bonus money went up?

from 5,030 a year to 12,680 and 13,240 for the last two years.

So cap out will give you some freedom in the current year, but you will pay for it in the future.

[iBomb1st]

The league I'm in has both.

The reneg in the last year only makes it harder for teams to just re-sign every player on their team.

The Cap-out will free up some cap space for the current year, but turns the salary into BONUS money, which then makes it harder to keep the future years salary in check.

Example of a player

Current salary, bonus, amount of salary cap.
11,590 5,030 16,620
12,680 5,030 17,710
13,240 5,030 18,270
If changed into a Cap-out offer.
Salary, bonus, applied to the salary cap.
1,780 900 9,490
9,870 12,680 21,270
11,700 13,240 21,830
Notice the first year the cap amount reduced from 16,620 to 9,490?

But the following 2 years the cap amount increased significantly.
17,710 to 21,270 and 18,270 to 21,830

And did you notice how much the Bonus money went up?

from 5,030 a year to 12,680 and 13,240 for the last two years.

So cap out will give you some freedom in the current year, but you will pay for it in the future.


Thank you for your input. Can you show both offers for the same player the following year after the cap out deal? I would like to see exactly what happens when you keep doing it year after year.

[imdashep]

Ibomb, I think I posted the exact same thing on our board, but I guess you don't believe it when I say something ;).

If you do it year after year, the same effect will happen; you'll lower it one year, but raise it the next year by the same amount, and pay a bonus to do it.

[fireems14]

so then is there potential to do this year after year, lowering the cap in that year and then eventually when you can do it no longer you leave a league with a team in financial shambles?

[imdashep]

Well, if someone stupidly does it repeatedly you might. But that's the case if someone signs a back-loaded contract too...also cap outs don't extend a deal, and can only be done until two years left.

[iBomb1st]

our league has a rule against backloading contracts... is that a contradiction?

[imdashep]

No, our league has a rule against back-loading contracts over a certain %. Everyone backloads contracts, and you can obviously screw yourself if you do it too much. That was my only point in saying that arguing against a cap out on those grounds doesn't makes much sense. The argument that is reasonable (that is actually the one you've made) is that it allows good teams to clear up cap, perhaps too much. I'm curious what other leagues allow. I know e-nfl allows cap outs, haven't seen any other constitutions that don't. You said you did; does anyone have links? Just curious.

[iBomb1st]

No, our league has a rule against back-loading contracts over a certain %. Everyone backloads contracts, and you can obviously screw yourself if you do it too much. That was my only point in saying that arguing against a cap out on those grounds doesn't makes much sense. The argument that is reasonable (that is actually the one you've made) is that it allows good teams to clear up cap, perhaps too much. I'm curious what other leagues allow. I know e-nfl allows cap outs, haven't seen any other constitutions that don't. You said you did; does anyone have links? Just curious.


Im floored... I dont know that I disagree with anything you just said. I am fine with cap-out deals... it's just when you combine it with certain other house rules i don't understand it.

I always figured the last year only reneg deal's intention was to make it harder to clear cap room. It was mentioned here by a veteran FOF owner that it's intent was to keep you from signing all your FA's... but I feel like the only thing that will keep me from re-signing someone I want is $$$.

[iBomb1st]

Here's another question. Does your MP league allow sign and trade deals? At this point, our league does and that concerns me.

These debates had me thinking of a convo I had with one of the biggest names in the community that completely changed how I looked at house rules. His quote:

" My frustration right now is that the folks who have figured out how to "game" FOF the most are also the ones pushing for all the cap-crunching rules like this league has to try and make free agency more "interesting" and they don't seem to get the hypocrisy / inconsistency in their positions. If the league is going to have house rules, then I agree that deals like this should not be allowed. If people want to allow things like this, then stop pushing the house rules.

This double-standard is why I'm leaving all my leagues. FOF has too many weaknesses people want to exploit, but those same people want to close some of the loopholes, which I think just gives them an even bigger advantage. And I'm tired of arguing it. "

[imdashep]

I always figured the last year only reneg deal's intention was to make it harder to clear cap room. It was mentioned here by a veteran FOF owner that it's intent was to keep you from signing all your FA's... but I feel like the only thing that will keep me from re-signing someone I want is $$$.

I think this is only partially true. Clearing cap space was not the main problem; the main problem was the renegotiated deals were COMPLETELY unrealistic. Cap out would do the following

Original Deal
Year 1: 5 million
Year 2: 6 million
Year 3: 7 million

Cap-Out
Bonus: 3 million
Year 1: 3 million
Year 2: 7 million
Year 8: 8 million

So you actually don't benefit, and in fact you lose money by paying the bonus. So no real unrealistic effect. The problem with renegs is that before 6.3, players would offer to do the following to the original deal:

Year 1: 2 million
Year 2: 3 million
Year 3: 4 million

So there literally would be no reason NOT to do it, unless you maybe wanted to cut/trade the guy.


I think the quote by that guy is a bit silly. On one hand, yes, it would be ideal if people didn't exploit loopholes (ala, the absurd bonus rule). I know I don't, even though it would help me, because I think it's kind of beside the point. But I don't blame people for doing it, since it's in the rules. I see no reason not to use whatever you can inside the rules if it's legal, given that others are going to do it. Obviously, ideally the game would regulate itself.

[iBomb1st]

I think you are missing the point as we were discussing cap laundering that would be legal without a sign and trade rule. I would prefer to argue with you in our league forum though as the purpose of this thread was to hear from owners in other leagues. If we litter it with bickering, I doubt we will get any reputable opinions or feedback. Thank you though for your contribution.

[imdashep]

I didn't realize it was bickering, I was just pointing out the cap out exemption. I agree we need a sign and trade rule, not sure why you wouldn't.

[Ben E Lou]

...the renegotiated deals were COMPLETELY unrealistic...Well, since you chose to throw down the gauntlet with emphasis, the only proper response, I suppose, is to say that your point is COMPLETELY incorrect. There are cases in the NFL where players accept a new contract with less money because the alternative (getting cut, getting nothing, and having to move to a new city *if* someone will sign you) is worse. The problem was that the cases were too broad, not that it should never happen--as you seem to be claiming in this thread and the other one.

[stevew]

As far as I KNOW, "imput" isn't a word.

[iBomb1st]

As far as I KNOW, "imput" isn't a word.

Yeah, that was borderline retarded of me.

[imdashep]

Well, since you chose to throw down the gauntlet with emphasis, the only proper response, I suppose, is to say that your point is COMPLETELY incorrect. There are cases in the NFL where players accept a new contract with less money because the alternative (getting cut, getting nothing, and having to move to a new city *if* someone will sign you) is worse. The problem was that the cases were too broad, not that it should never happen--as you seem to be claiming in this thread and the other one.

What gauntlet did I throw down? I understand exactly why players would take such a deal (given that its something I dealt with in real life). I've acknowledged it in other threads. I still think the prior re-signs were unrealistic. I didn't mean they NEVER happen, just that a majority of the types done in the prior version WOULDN'T have happened. I'm making the same point you are, not sure why you are arguing.....