* THIS RULE HAS PASSED *
Continuing with the theme as we head into the weekend, I put forth a second proposal, this time regarding when players are able to hold out on our asses.
Proposal II: HOLDOUT Modification
Rule: Under this rule, originally proposed by Tom Rothfus, a player may not hold out until AFTER the second year of his contract OR until AFTER 50% of the contract has expired, whichever comes first.
Rationale: This rule would better reward owners for craftily signing players before they explode. The goal of the holdout is to ensure that some owner isn’t sitting on a superstar with a ridiculously low salary, but making a player play out SOME of his contract seems reasonable.
Example A: RB Ahmad Bradshaw could not have held out after the first year of his contract (4 years, $4 starting salary) when he finished as RB7 in 2010 and thus would have played 2011 under the terms of his original contract. Then, since he did not finish as a top 10 back in 2011 (RB 23), he would continue to play in 2012 under the terms of the original contract rather than the holdout price he continues to demand ($6.07 original; $24 holdout).
Example B: CB Patrick Peterson could hold out after the first year of his contract (2 years, $4.88 starting salary) because he’d completed 50% of his contract after the first season.
Example C: RB Darren Sproles could hold out after the blowing up in the second year of his contract (3 years, $6 starting salary) to finish as an RB3.
Mechanism: The official contract ledger already contains all of the information we need. When deciding which players are holding out after the season, we simply include the above contract criteria before posting the list.
Seems fair to me and fairly easy to impliment – thoughts?
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.© 2012, Adam Franssen. All rights reserved.
I’m intrigued by this. I think I like it. (I wish we’d done this before I had to ditch Bradshaw…thanks for opening old wounds). I think this is the death toll for 2 year FA contracts.
I’m not a big fan of this one, especially in light of seeing the next proposal. I don’t want to ADD complexity to the holdout qualifications…we already have “holdout proof” players and having to go through and check the top-10 salaries against the top-10 finishers, then take out the RFA eligible players, and then see how far along players are in their contracts just seems like a bit much.
I’m open to keeping WHO holds out the same as ever, but then giving owners more contract restructuring options IF their player does holdout (see next proposal.)
With due respect to your time to figure out who is holding out, we’re simply adding one step to the holdout determination process – which needs to be completed sometime between January and July. It’s not a big deal and certainly no reason to penalize owners for scoring a good player.
I’ve created a google doc to illustrate the current process and how it changes with this rule proposal (Step 4, in italics):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y9lGnbgx_OJ6GSEyxifJrrrat2lDIVq0zOLwewvz1ZE/edit
Yes, I get the idea of adding one more step to the process…which I find to be totally unnecessary. The holdouts won’t be so onerous if we have the salary modification option. Sometimes a holdout is supposed to be painful. Pay the guy or don’t. If we continue to water down the holdout rules we might as well just get rid of holdouts entirely. The percentage of holdouts decreased from last year to this year. I think as salaries normalize themselves and we get the hang of it, the holdouts will continue to decrease naturally.
I mean, Jesus, we’re already giving the owners the option to cancel 2 contracts without penalty. I don’t know that we need to keep pushing salaries down with artificial interventions.
You and your pain.
By your logic, we should do away with the no-holdout clause for rookies. Why should an owner get credit for a good draft pick but not a good FA acquisition? Pay the rookie after 1 year if he’s so great.
In the NFL, draft picks are part of a slotted salary schedule, so they will play out their rookie deals before getting another contract.
Free agents are different. Do you think Kurt Warner made the league minimum during his second year? The Rams got a good FA acquisition, and then paid him when he turned out to be amazing.
If you are so concerned about paying your “amazing” FA acquisition then take the sting out of it by adding years (per your other proposal.) Or just get another amazing FA next year, tough guy.
I sort of wished I had waited to vote. I think I voted yes but after thinking about it, I am a maybe. I see both sides.
You are free to change your mind. Just let me know what your final decision is, and I can go back in and change it (I think I can, anyway.)
I still can’t decide if I should change or not.
I’m somewhat if favor of this, However one big drawback (shit maybe i should change my vote too) is that there is no reason not to sign cheap FA to max term contracts. you get them cheap, they can’t hold out for years if the blow up and they’re inexpensive to dump (cap penalty-wise) if they suck.
Ok, change my vote.. the 50% rule would only harm the league
oh and now i see that it’s whatever comes first. regardless, everyone will just write 4 year contracts.. eh.. maybe it’s not so bad.
Question: If this passes, are the holdouts for this year subject to this rule?
I assume that all of these rules would go into effect immediately. Thus my email urging haste.