Salary Cap Rules Finish

[Jerry-Redskins]

Here's the next thing that needs fixing. We all agree that the actual $$$ cap is gone for good I believe. To finish that transition, we need to go back to the rules that governed that practice as well. The points are now 100% of the dollars. This means, we need to revert back to points not being tradeable. We only allowed it after we created the actual $$$ cap system.

Teams can trade actual assets (players, picks) that can make a difference depending on the contracts left on players, but no longer be able to trade actual points. This would also throw more players in FA probably. Your annual allocation and the weekly contest is your total annual allotment in which to manage your roster.

I propose the old rule be reapplied starting the next contract year for 2043. Simple rule. No trading of points.

[Mitch-Oilers]

I agree with you Jerry on reverting back to the no trade of points rule, if we look at points as the "cap".

However, if we look at points as our "cap", what about the teams that have a stock pile of points or those who don't use all their points in a season? Do we limit the amount of points a team can have overall as a method of "cap" enforcement?

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'd have to check, but I believe trading points played a little hand as well in increasing those totals. Only two teams really blew up their rosters to accrue the cap space. The others are more point trading or just being cheap related I think. I do not believe in punishing folks for the decisions they made under the rules current at that time. I would hope that they did good enough in the draft to have to use 10M in points to sign the large amount of good young players.

[Rich-League Officer]

I don't see points as a salary cap because they are infinite.
Teams carry them over year after year.
They are a currency.

And the trading of points played zero role in certain teams accumulating a large total.
The trading of points is also not a significant event.
39.5 points has traveled league wide which is not a lot.
I do currently have an imbalance of 2 points I need to sort out.

The benefit of trading points has been that I no longer have to chase down coaches who go into negative.
They can go out and secure a deal with a coach who has points.
Also it's been a useful tool for balancing trades.
So, yes they are very important and some coaches do not treat them as such but I see this as a non issue.

Plus, that salary cap could come back at any time.
We routinely swing back and forth with what we want.
Now is a period of no cap, 2 seasons from now 14 coaches might be screaming for a cap.

Perhaps the best argument with regard to points is the carryover itself.
If there was no carryover and we did a use it or lose it approach, that might be interesting.
It eliminates hoarding and makes teams spend their money to better their team.
I believe that is where the conversation gets interesting.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Same here. It is the principle. The points are not and should not be infinite. If a team goes negative take a pick. That's the whole idea. The cap is soft to not create a ton of extra work for roster management, but to actually create some. Some teams like to sim a million games each week the best, some like making plays every week, and some like some roster management fun as well. All about the principles and allowing everyone to experience their favorite parts of the cycle and not forcing any one piece to be the most important part. Let the cap work as a soft cap and deal with it.

[Rich-League Officer]

Well there is the argument, the carryover.
I do not think trading of points has hurt the league at all.
No team has seriously neglected their points and traded 25 points for a player.
Perhaps coaches, especially new coaches need to be told to guard their points a bit more closely.

But to eliminate the carryover, there will be significant pushback from the hoarders

[Charlie-49ers]

Eliminating excessive carryover sounds like a good idea. Phase it in over two/three seasons. Pick a base number at the end of three seasons (let's say 12). So, in the upcoming season, you can carry over 36, in the second season you can carry over 24, and in the third season, you can carry over 12 and thereafter. These are not necessarily the correct numbers, but rather a concept.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

The points system is working fine except a couple of teams having massive carryover. No point in halting the trading of points. It's not really impacting things. In fact, allowing the trading of points will continue to chip away at those massive carryovers.

If you want to create more Free Agents, you must increase the cost for restructures. Instead of simple price increases to the current scale we should use the player's salary cap value to add to (or decrease) the minimum restructuring cost. Not every player is equal, so why should the cost be the same?

Let's say we use this simple model to reduce or increase restructuring costs.

Player salary range Additional cost/discount
<=1.5 million -1 points
<=3 million 0 points
<=5 million +1 points
<=7.5 million +2 points
<=10 million +3 points
<=15 million +4 points
>15 million +5 points

So if I use QB Kizer for example who has a 14 million salary, I would have to pay 4 additional points plus the restructuring cost of 2.5 points for a total of 6.5 points to keep him for one season. This would increase to 8 points for two seasons. My motivation to resign him longer than one season diminishes instantly.

If I want to resign HB Breida who has a 5.5 million salary, I would have to pay 2 additional points plus 2.5 points for a total of 4.5 points to keep him for 1 season. This increases to 6 points to keep him for two seasons.

If I want to restructure S Poyer who has a $500k salary before the season is over, I'd get a discount. I would be discounted -1 points for a one season restructure for a total of 1.5 points to keep him for 1 extra season. This increases to 3 points to keep him for two seasons.

Doing this will drive an increase in the use of tags and the number of players being let go into free agency. Rich could also stop the point allocation decrease if we increase restructure costs. Trading of points becomes helpful with these increases, not the problem. In fact, coaches would trade more points as the cost of keeping players goes up.

[Neil-Raiders]

Points are revenue. Revenue is derived through yearly "profit sharing" (the number of points allocated equally to each team on an annual basis) which is reasonably in line with the NFL. In addition, teams can accrue revenue through trades and sports betting. It's not perfectly analogous, but it helps to capture a little of how NFL teams acquire additional revenue through sponsorships, PSL's, etc. However, revenue does not expire in the NFL. There are teams in the NFL that are better at creating additional revenue and historically there have been teams in the NFL that have chosen to hoard revenue as opposed to spending it. As long as those dichotomies exist in the NFL they should be able to exist in the PNFL. However, the NFL has a salary (or spending) cap. No matter how much of an advantage a team may have in revenue they can never spend more than any other team in any given season which helps to promote parity. A simple yearly points spending cap is the easiest and most realistic solution. 1) A cap exists in the NFL so some form of a cap should exist in the PNFL, and 2) it's easily adjustable as we try to find the right balance between the yearly allocation of points received vs. what can be spent per season.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

If we go with Neil's idea, then we would potentially need to put a cap on the restructure spending or the total spending (or both).

If you look at our current point spending, maybe a simple cap is you can't spend more than 50 points on restructuring and you can't spend more than 65 points overall. Based on these hypothetical spending caps, LA would have had to restructure one less player or reduce the years in its restructure allocations. LA would be barely under the overall spending cap too. Trading of points would play a part too. If you trade points away for picks or players it would go against your overall spending cap and if you trade players or picks away for points it would help you stay under the overall spending cap.