Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 25 of 25
  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    8,176
    Quote Originally Posted by rjohmit View Post
    I

    We've made other significant changes, such as the contract structure. And we still didn't change existing contracts.

    But if people want a new poll, I can do that.

    I think just letting the owner choose from a couple options (like SuperHawks suggested) could work.

    It's obvious someone is going to be pissed by the result, so I'm done arguing about it. At this point I'd just prefer to leave defensive scoring alone.
    I don't necessarily believe (the bolded part) will be the case with 100% certainty because it seems like we're making some progress in the discussion here today. But yeah, leaving things at the status-quo is definitely the least invasive option of all the evils if it ends up as that or one party going nuclear.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,325
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperHawks View Post
    ...or one party going nuclear.
    A defense is hardly worth it...hardly even worth all this arguing.

    But at least there's some discussion...considering there was almost none after X-White's post in the voting thread.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    29,544
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperHawks View Post
    My whole entire thing is that a team with a defense already signed shouldn't be forced in to anything. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in saying they should have options considering, you know, the team is under contract after all. It boggles my mind that an owner could be penalized for changes that were unforeseeable when the original contract was signed. As long as it's the owner deciding which of the options they choose and not having something forced on them for no reason, I don't see what the issue is. To be honest I can't see why anyone would have a problem with the controlling owner having the option to do as they please as long as the endgame accomplishes the goal of every team being paid at fair market value.

    One option could be to keep said Defense at franchised rates. Another option would be to cut the defense with no cap implications. Hell, the 3rd option should be your suggestion to renegotiate with compensation if you lose your team. Three options that reach the same result one way or another.

    Would you see a problem with that?
    Nope. I'd be fine with teams having a couple options (e.g., franchise price, renegotiation). I just didn't think it would be fair to all the other owners with a defense to implement the franchise price option, since some of the options likely aren't worth that much. I would add the caveat that the franchise option shouldn't be allowable as a means to extend a defense, just keep them for the current contract years.

    Quote Originally Posted by rjohmit View Post
    A defense is hardly worth it...hardly even worth all this arguing.

    But at least there's some discussion...considering there was almost none after X-White's post in the voting thread.
    The outcome isn't a huge issue. This thread is more about throwing out a vote, than it is about how we handle the defenses themselves. Whatever happens, it should happen via vote.
    Last edited by Xulu Bak; 06-08-2014 at 11:55 PM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulu Bak View Post
    Nope. I'd be fine with teams having a couple options (e.g., franchise price, renegotiation). I just didn't think it would be fair to all the other owners with a defense to implement the franchise price option, since some of the options likely aren't worth that much. I would add the caveat that the franchise option shouldn't be allowable as a means to extend a defense, just keep them for the current contract years.
    That's fair...so are we okay with an owner having the following options? Am I missing any?

    1) Cutting their D with no cap hit (even if they have a bonus contract, there are only a couple anyway).
    2) Renegotiate their defense (on top of the ONE renegotiation each team is allowed).
    3) Choosing the "franchise tag" salary (average of top 5) for defenses at cutdown day (Sept. 1st)...contract years cannot be changed.

    The outcome isn't a huge issue. This thread is more about throwing out a vote, than it is about how we handle the defenses themselves. Whatever happens, it should happen via vote.
    That's fine, but the "franchise tag" option got pretty much no discussion...nor did X-White's post in the poll thread.
    Last edited by rjohmit; 06-09-2014 at 12:05 AM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    8,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Xulu Bak View Post
    Nope. I'd be fine with teams having a couple options (e.g., franchise price, renegotiation). I just didn't think it would be fair to all the other owners with a defense to implement the franchise price option, since some of the options likely aren't worth that much. I would add the caveat that the franchise option shouldn't be allowable as a means to extend a defense, just keep them for the current contract years.
    This is all I've asked for the entire time. It's a shame there was miscommunication somewhere along the line that prevented us from arriving here a long time ago.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,325
    .......

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,325
    Seriously...where is everyone now that we've seemingly reached some kind of compromise on this? I'd like to get it up for a vote....ya know, before the offseason activities start.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,193
    Maybe it's because I'm travelling but what the hell ever man. Take KC away from me, make me pay a bunch, who gives a ****, it's so unimportant in the grand scheme.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyndham View Post
    Maybe it's because I'm travelling but what the hell ever man. Take KC away from me, make me pay a bunch, who gives a ****, it's so unimportant in the grand scheme.
    I'm with you...but it clearly matters to some.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    8,176

    Defenses under contract

    Quote Originally Posted by rjohmit View Post
    Seriously...where is everyone now that we've seemingly reached some kind of compromise on this? I'd like to get it up for a vote....ya know, before the offseason activities start.
    Just put it up for vote. Since nobody wants to bother adding anything else and a compromise has seemingly been reached it seems like this would be a no brainer since this compromise encompasses all the proposed solutions anyway.

    A vote against this would essentially mean you're against the defensive scoring change in any fashion, and that's already passed so this seems like kind of a moot point.
    Last edited by SuperHawks; 06-11-2014 at 04:55 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.