Proposal: Motivate PS signings

[Steve-LA Chargers]

I noticed that there really weren't any PS signings this time. Maybe there will be some later, but I'd like to propose a slight change for 2043 that might increase the odds we'll actually see someone try to sign a PS player in week 1.

Considering the player is FORCED to be on the active roster and costs a minimum of 1 point, I propose they are automatically signed to a two season contract regardless of the previous contract length.

My argument is that as currently written, we punish both the poacher and the matcher too much by limiting the contract to current season and also forcing them to keep them on the 53 all season. If the player is worth the trouble of a bid, there should be some value gained - especially if the player must be on the 53 man roster. I don't think a full 3 season contract makes sense here but I think a 2 season contract is a fair compromise.

Before you attack my proposal, please ask yourself: If I knew I could sign a PS player for this season and next season, would I be more motivated to make at least a 1 point bid?

[Justin-Chicago]

My question would be, why do we want more PS signings in week 1? Why incentivize them?

We just made a long overdue adjustment by allowing a few different players on the PS. Let’s give it a season or two with the current format before we get carried away.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

My argument is that the current framework for PS signings is too punitive. There is way too much risk and very little reward. I believe this can be fixed by simply making it a two year contract instead of current season only.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'm agnostic to this proposal. I think I see the PS differently than everyone else. I do not plan any part of the PS. I build the best 53 and only put leftovers on the PS if they are eligible. I do not believe in adding to the PS to add to the PS. It is a waste of resources in my opinion. I feel the PS players will never make the roster other than being inactive at best most likely. This means they are not worth any points to me and would likely not be enough value to resign.

I do occasionally scavenge from other teams PS. Steve is correct. Unless, I have a a real current season gap, the one year contract is not worth it. I would be more likely to bid on a PS player if the contract was longer.

[Neil-Raiders]

I would vote no on this for the simple reason that we'd be attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist, as our current method of PS poaching probably simulates the NFL pretty well. In any given year, how many times does a PS player even get poached? It happens, but not regularly, and not early in the season. I don't follow NFL practice squad poaching carefully, but I'm pretty certain that it is not a significant method of team-building or that it helps to establish/maintain parity by distributing player talent throughout the league. However, if those are the reasons behind this proposal, then we could better achieve those ends by being allowed to only carry a very small practice squad. For example, we could have practice squads of 3 players (2 young players, 1 vet) in which we could protect one player per week. This would allow us a little extra room to develop a prospect or two, but it would add a lot more talent to the post-TC FA pool. A mini PS would make it more difficult for heavily loaded teams to hoard talent or potentially even to hoard draft picks because of all the corresponding cuts that they would eventually have to make. Being limited to a three player PS would make roster management decisions more challenging and realistic. Did a single PNFL team have to make a difficult decision regarding post-TC cuts? In the NFL, cutting down to 53 is usually pretty difficult, in the PNFL we just throw anybody extra on the PS. Since we don't have practices where we actually need extra bodies on the scout team there is really no compelling reason to have a 10-man PS.

[Mitch-Oilers]

My opinion:

Why worry about spending points to get someone from a PS when you can spend 0 points and get a very comparable FA?

With player ratings so close, it makes more financial sense to get a 0 point FA for a short-term fix.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

That's just another reason to change things up a bit for PS acquisitions. It's currently better to do 0 bid contracts to FAs who also get single season contracts. Giving the PS signee a 2 season contract simply makes it more worth it to spend the point.

As an alternative, maybe we allow 0 point bids for PS players too. Minimum match though is 0.5 point if it's a 0 point bid. Player keeps their existing contract if matched. If the poacher wins, they sign the player for the current season just like a 0 point FA.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I agree with Neal and Justin. I say we table this for a couple of seasons. It's fairly rare that you see teams sign someone off another team's practice squad. I prefer to be allowed to use the practice squad to store some players who might be 1-2 TCs away from earning a spot on a roster and can fill a hole of a guy who may have an expiring contract. It sounds like more ammo for vultures wanting to pounce and an attempt at solving a problem I don't think really exists.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I am still agnostic, but if we wanted to simulate the NFL even more, we would have all players sent to the PS lose their contract. They should only have a current year contract since the NFL technically cuts them all and they go on a game to game salary for the most part when they are signed to the PS. This would force more decisions after camp and take away the "loss" of contract years

[Mitch-Oilers]

@Jerry - that would spice things up