 |
|
|
|
|
|
illuminati
Football Freak
3323 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 3/31/2004 8:19:35 PM |
 |
 |
Free Agency Signing
|
|
|
|
If we are going to do this before the NFL Draft, we should try to take a vote and resolve the economic issues first.
I like the Vultures' point about how we wouldn't need to cut anyone until July 15th. The other option (and cleaner from a programming/administrative side) is to just handle it like regular season free agency, where you can specify who gets cut if you acquire anyone. This would keep our roster size the same year round, and would be my preference.
Saying that, I think both ideas for roster size sound fun, and regardless of the outcome of the economic vote, we could have a free agency signing on April 7th. We just need to have that economic vote take place first, and either voting outcome would only affect the bidding strategy, not the existence of the bidding itself.
Does April 7th sound good? That only gives us a few days to resolve our economic model...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 4/1/2004 5:42:07 PM |
|
|
Vote for #1
|
|
|
|
The Vultures vote for option #1 and April 7th sounds good.
Thanks for offering a concise and clear cut vote for us Keith and I hate to cloud it but since I do want it to happen this year and at the same time to be fair to everyone I feel it important to mention that really Jaimie gets the worst deal on this since he got 80 quid in the deal for Portis and I don't think anyone else rec'd any quid in a trade and though I agree that an even % across the board is fair, whether it's for money spent or gained, it sucks more for Jaimie then for the rest. Most owners didn't spend much, didn't trade much and so are not affected much but Jaimie might not have made the trade for 40 quid. He was trading his #1 pick for the future in a bold move that most owners would not have considered. I'd be happy to include a special % for him at say 75% since he was the only person to really gain quid from a trade but I want to hear from him first. I'd hate to punish him for being willing to be agressive and imaginative in trading which far too few are and I wish more were.
If we do go with option #1 would that mean that we would only have the one week of free agency this offseason or would it continue up until the NFL draft? I like the idea of just handling it as we would normal free agency. Next year I'd like to start it sooner and have it run longer. I would also like to see a gradual reduction in the amount of yearly quid to the 20 to 30 range. Just food for thought for now but we should figure it all out before next season to avoid any repeats of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 4/1/2004 5:53:55 PM |
|
|
actually, April 17 may be a better date?
|
|
|
|
the Draft is the 24th, so I tossed out April 7th like a doofer.
as far as the vote goes, either #1 or #2 is fine by me, whatever everyone can agree upon. we should make sure it is unanimous if we change the economics now. as far as Jamie getting a raw deal, i respectfully offer that it may actually be up for debate, as 85/100 = 85% of annual revenue, and 43/50 = 86% of annual revenue, virtually exactly the same financial leverage vs. every other team in the league. nonetheless, this adjustment to our economic model is a big deal, and we should only proceed if every one of us is comfortable with it. any uncertainty or controversy is not worth disrupting what is a good thing going. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 4/1/2004 6:38:54 PM |
|
|
The Human Element
|
|
|
|
| Keith, I don't doubt the mathematics nor the overall equlity of the percentage but I do still think it is unfair. I would not say this if everyone had been active with their quid and with trades in particular but they were not. I know you see things in more of a mathematical world in which the human element is eliminated (you Vulcan bastard) but in this case I think it is not right. To compromise I would be willing to give up my rebate from the quid spent in my trade with Jaimie so that he could keep his full 80 quid in order to pass this thing through even though I don't think that's really fair either. But I will do it and tie it to my vote for option #1 if that's what it takes. 85/100 = 86% and 43/50 = 86% but when one owner spent 10 quid and gets 5 back and the other aquired 80 but loses 40 and they both started at 100 then who is the loser? I think it punishes the person who did what makes FFL the most fun for me, make big trades and in this case that would be Jaimie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawkeye
Water Boy
42 posts
 |
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 4/1/2004 8:11:07 PM |
|
|
Sunday night games
|
|
|
|
| I really thought ESPN was going to pick up the contract. With Suzy Kolber on the sidelines we should make megabucks. Hmm... Suzy, oh wait. What the hell were we talking about? OK I vote for option #1 and we need to figure out rebates so no one gets screwed. I think the issue is the trade between Scott and Jamie, because we all expected to get 100 quid for next season and free agency was nowhere on the horizon. I don't think Scott would have offered everything if he knew of possible changes. Maybe this year we should go down to say, 80 quid and next year 50. Jamie has a crapload of quid, so hopefully option #1 is ok with him. I think this is a learn as we go kinda thing, and I think this is the way we improve our league. I very much want to do the FA thing and most importantly we need everybody to weigh in and vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 4/2/2004 8:01:06 AM |
|
|
Further review
|
|
|
|
| OK, so as not to get bogged down in further debate which could prevent us from doing anything this off season, I vote for option #1 with trades not included in the rebates as Keith originally suggested, only transactions. Just give me the damn 50 quid! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 4/2/2004 11:05:40 AM |
|
|
my vote on quid is 'whatever'.
|
|
|
|
| seriously, i don't care at all which option we choose. i'd like to know that owners like Erik and Jamie are happy with whatever option is eventually chosen, since they seem likely to be dramatically affected. |
|
|
|
|
|
