**** THIS RULE HAS PASSED ****
During those halcyon early days of the SCUFFLE Immersion, Adam and I spent many hours on the phone throwing around ideas. The crazier and more complex, the better. We were going to create a league that was so immersive that only the most die hard of football fans could hang. I believe that we have accomplished just that, and as the years have passed on we’ve continued to tinker, in an effort to make things even better.
We liked the idea of applying cap penalties for teams cutting players before their contracts expired. We landed on a 50% cap hit, applied the next year, and that was the end of the story. For the most part, that system has held up just fine. Owners like Jason Enright figure out ways to massage the cap every year and be competitive, and owners like Ryan Lindsay burn through players like a coke-addled gambler at the craps table as they rack up the kind of debt that leads to divorce and prison time.
Adam and I wondered, at the time, if we could be like the NFL and spread those cap hits over the remaining years of the contract. We decided to keep it simple, at least until everyone got a handle on participating in a very complicated league.
I remembered those discussions from time to time in the intervening years, but decided against suggesting any changes to the system, because there were always other new rules to implement. Also, the idea of figuring out a spreadsheet that would handle it was daunting, so I moved on with my life.
But the idea kept gnawing at me, the way great ideas often do. They refuse to go away until you fully flesh them out and decide if they are good or not. I went to bed thinking about it (because I am a very cool person who still totally does cool things on Friday nights,) and when I woke up I decided to see if I could make a spreadsheet to handle the task.
It turns out the challenge was not nearly as difficult as I had imagined it would be. You can see for yourself. The first tab is for recording the players who are cut, and the second tab keeps track of the cap penalties ten years out. I’ve only set it up to handle the Batavia Colliders and Bestine Banthas so far, but you can make a copy and play around with it. Basically, a cap hit is still 50% of the total salary, but it is spread out equally over the remaining years of the contract (and since we max out contracts out at ten years, we can carry cap penalties up to ten years forward.)
Rationale
Why should we adopt this new format for cap penalties? Let me enumerate the reasons:
- Um, it’s just kind of cool.
- It adds another layer of complexity to cap management. Owners will have to think more critically when they sign players to contracts.
- It might lead to more variation in the type of contracts signed. It’s rare these days to see any contract lengths outside of 1,2, or 3 years unless the player was signed for $1. If you can spread out the pain of a larger contract over the course of the contract, you might be more inclined to sign high dollar players to lengthier deals.
- It’s more like the NFL–which is always the goal.
- It will keep a running record of dead money over the course of multiple seasons, allowing us to compare owners and make judgments about their fiscal responsibility.
Considerations
Like any rule change, there are likely unintended consequences I’m not thinking of. If there are loopholes, Enright will find them. I invite everybody to chime in and let me know if there’s anything I’m missing. If the spreadsheet can handle this easily enough, I can’t see any reason not to do it. I’m sure Ryan Lindsay will wind up like the Mets, who are still paying Bobby Bonilla millions of dollars per year.
I also like the idea of mortgaging your future when you don’t know what your specific cap will be. If you get dropped to the Bronze Division in three years and you’re still paying off that big contract from the guy you chased in order to make a run at a title, that will be both terrible and awesome.
Let’s have a discussion in the comments. Then, if you don’t mind, vote below. Thanks!
Should we spread the cap hits over the remaining years of the contract?
- Yes (89%, 8 Votes)
- No (11%, 1 Votes)
Total Voters: 9
Loading ...© 2019, Josh Hammond. All rights reserved.
Cool idea! Can we choose to eat the entire cap hit the very next year? Or is it mandatory to be spread out?
I think in terms of actually making it work on my end (with limited time) we should have to spread it out (mandatory.) I wonder if we could figure out some formulas to pay it down based on number of years left, like 70% the first year, 20% the next year, 10% the final year. That would take some spreadsheet skillz that I think are beyond my current capabilities. We’d have to agree on some formula for decling percentages based on years left, and since that would vary by player it might be too complex.
Im not trying to make it complicated for you. Just thinking as a simple one of the other. Default is as you suggested and what happens if they don’t specify (that day? before the next game?) that they want to eat the whole thing next season. I myself am all for making this as easy as possible for you, however, I just like options.
Nevermind–just leave it as is
My thinking is that I’d be looking at the Years Remaining column on the roster page. So, let’s say you’ve got a guy you signed to a 3-year deal last year. This year, his contract status is 2 of 3. If you cut him at any point during the 2019 season I would take his cap hit and divide by 2.
This was my thought, too. I’d like to have the option of eating the entire cap immediately. This is the “Post-June 1st Cap Hit” idea from the NFL.
Jason’s approach is my vote. At the time of the cut, the owner simply declares “Eat it” (entire cap hit for the next year) or “Prorate it” (cap spread over the life of the cap). You’ll have to be in Excel anyway to add the player’s name, so there’s not THAT much work involved in simply dividing by 2 instead of allowing the default prorate to play out.
Yeah, if an owner said “eat it” I’d just set the years left to 1 so that they’d eat the entire contract in the first season. I suspect that most people would choose this option because they are afraid of change and because they don’t want to burden themselves with years of cap hits.
If you gave them a choice, and they all chose to do it the old way, it defeats the purpose of the rule.
What about this as a twist, to add some interest to the June 1st cap deadline?
How about if you cut a guy during the season, his cap hit is prorated. But if you hold on to a guy until the offseason, you can cut him then for the one-time cap hit on the following year.
In this scenario, you might be holding on to guys later in the season because you don’t want to pro-rate their cap hit, thus hamstringing your roster flexibility. Or if there’s that guy that makes it into your offseason and you’re not sure about keeping him, you have to decide to pull the bandaid off and cut him, or accidentally hang onto him past the June 1st deadline, realize he sucks, and have to prorate his cap hit.
In this scenario we just continue with the 50% on one season cap hit.
One other consideration – a potential drawback to this system. Due to rounding, it’s possible that a team will wind up paying a few cents less or more than the cap hit, depending on the number of years. When I tried the same cap hits spread out over 1-10 years, there was some variation in how much the cap hit would ultimately cost. The biggest swing I could get over multiple tests was three cents. The swings went both ways, however, so it could be that some cap hit discrepancies will cancel each other out over the long term.
I mean, we are talking pennies here, but it’s still annoying.
Let me see if I can figure out an IF statement that will take the difference in the total and add or subtract it to the first year so that the correct amount is paid.
OKAY – This issue has been solved. Whatever rounding difference occurs is added to or subtracted from the first year of cap penalties. Hooray!
I’m trying to figure out if this is going to limit player movement by encouraging longer contracts. I guess not since the salaries go up so much year after year and even if you get a player on the cheap, he’ll hold out if his play is exceptional.
I think the opposite would be true. Right now I sign a guy to a 7-year deal because there’s essentially no difference between doing that and signing a 3-year deal if it’s a $1 player. If he blows up and holds out, then I’d use the REDUCE YEARS option.
My thinking is that I’d be less inclined to sign a super long term deal if I knew I was paying on it years later, if it didn’t work out.
Another angle that might make this work better is to make the cap penalty 50% of total remaining deal instead of 50% of whatever his salary is for that year. Then people might be more inclined to prorate the cap hit.
Example: I sign a guy for $1.00 to a 5-year deal. The cap penalty would no longer be $0.50. Now it’s 50% of the remaining deal.
Year 1: $1.00
Year 2: $1.10
Year 3: $1.27
Year 4: $1.52
Year 5: $1.90
Total Value of Contract: $6.79
If I kept the dude for 2 years and then cut him in year 3, I’d have to pay 50% of his remaining contract, or 50% of $4.69, which would be $2.35.
To Adam’s point, this might make players less inclined to sign long term deals, which would mean more player movement. I think if that were the case, you’d want to definitely have prorated cap penalties, so those two ideas might fit hand-in-glove.
OH, and maybe, just maybe, we could do something like the June 1st deadline. Instead of owing on the rest of the contract, maybe if you cut before June 1st you could do like an 80% cap hit on the current year’s salary. Something like this, for the example above:
Prior to June 1st: 100% of $1.10 salary equals $0.88 on the next cap, one and done.
After June 1st: 50% of remaining deal equals $2.35 spread out over three years ($0.78 per annum)
Or, let’s take a high money player like Todd Gurley. Suppose he was bad, and only logged one season before Ben wanted to cut him.
Salary:
Year 1: $85
Year 2: $93.50
Year 3: $107.53
Total Contract: $286.03
Cut before June 1st: 80% of $85 = $68 cap hit next year. Big tough pill to swallow but gets him out of the rest of the deal.
Cut after June 1st: 50% of $201.03 = $100.52 divided over the two remaining seasons is $50.26 per season.
In that scenario, the choice is rip the bandaid off and suffer a painful cap hit next year (and save over the long term) or spread it out over two years (less pain per year) but pay more. That’s not a totally easy choice. If you’re hoping to re-sign a guy next year the $68 hit might hurt, whereas you’d have $18 more to play with if you spread it out.
I think THAT could be very cool. It might discourage owners from signing those mega deals with RBs, for one. Secondly, it would put people in decision mode. Take all the hits now and tank the season in hopes to have more flexibility the following year, or spread the pain out in hopes to keep that playoff window open a little longer. FUN!
And if 80% of the last completed season’s salary doesn’t feel like a big enough hit to get out of the deal, we could play with that percent or make the owner pay a percent of the upcoming (higher) salary.
Hate this. I already make payments to no one in penalties. If this is how it’s played out, I revoke my vote. Otherwise, I’m digging it.
To clarify:
1) You like the idea of prorating the traditional 50% cap hit (one season) over the remaining years of the contract.
2) You have no interest in a scheme where we pay a higher cap penalty.
Is this correct?
Yuk, no. 50% of salary for that year only, same as current.. You’re making your own proposal more complicated and less appealing.
My vote would be the same as I proposed and Adam liked–all at once (same) or spread out. If I can eat the whole thing I’m still probably going to do it but if I’m living on the edge of cap room this gives me flexibility to cut someone I otherwise couldn’t.
This proposal does potentially open the door for more Gurley shenanigans, when you can spread the enormous salary out
I admire the vociferous opposition to paying a player 50% of his total contract. Just straight up admitting that you suck at managing money. 🙂