 |
|
|
|
|
|
jd
Tape Junkie
55 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 3/24/2004 7:48:06 AM |
 |
 |
Free agency & quid
|
|
|
|
While I understand the concept of bringing Quid value into context, I don't think it is necessary to "compensate" teams who blew their wad. One of the reasons I didn't spend a huge amount of Quid on free agents was to conserve it for future signings. I vote for keeping the current Quid total as is, and reducing the amount to 50 for each season. If you think about it, we all started with the same amount . . . why should we feel sorry for the teams with little or no Quid (Vultures!). However it shakes out . . . I'll go either way.
As for off season free agency . . . I like the idea, but I'd also like to see us reduce our rosters first. If we are going to open things up, then people will have to drop to make room for new acquisitions. Why not reduce everyone by 5 players to make the free agency more interesting. I don't think we need to show our whole hand now, but at least make it where some people can free up some space and possibly help someone else get something they want. Does any of this make sense?
Scott - I remember trading coaches, but I seem to remember a S. Alexander being thrown in . . . j.k. . . . if you want Vermeil, he's yours. I was thinking that David Boston would look good on your roster . . . got any thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 3/24/2004 8:51:07 AM |
|
|
Quid
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with no compensation for the over spenders as I agree with Jim that we all knew what we were doing and me being one of the biggest spenders does not bother me because Clinton Portis is going to roll all over the rest of you punks so it will be money well spent. However, if we do want a % compensation for transactions spent then I absolutely want the same % back for money spent in trades. I agree with Keith that they are two different things on some levels but ultimately they served the same purpose, to aquire players and they were spent under the same preconceptions. I'd be fine with no compensation but it would have to be across the board or perhaps we could go down to a lower percentage, say 20%.
As far as reducing our rosters first, I'd rather not. Let's just have a normal add/drop free agency period prior to our predraft drop day. The more players a team aquires in off season free agency the less they will be able to draft unless they turn around and drop them again. I don't foresee too much movement anyway, but it might be fun when the inevitable offseason cocaine indictments, paroll violations and trade rumors start to fly. Let the quid roll!
David Boston for Dick Vermeil?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 3/31/2004 8:13:34 PM |
|
|
Free Agency and the Economic Model
|
|
|
|
I reckon that as a group we should make a decision on these issues as soon as possible.
In light of the one accepted concept of reducing our annual Quid revenue from 100 to the 50 Quid, it seems to me that there are two options to consider in order to achieve this reduction:
1) Change it effective 2004. I think the only fair way to do this, without throwing the entire economic balance out the window, would be to have a 50% rebate on 2003 free agency purchases as well as trades. I don't think it is fair to say that "I didn't spend much in order to save it for later," as A) every team has different needs, and B) if anyone DID want to be aggressive when pursuing free agents, they'd have done so with the knowledge that they'd get another 100 Quid next season.
In order to have the annual 50 Quid take place this offseason, it would also need to require those who made trades with deals to adjust their income from those trades by 50%; I know this is sticky, and that is why there is Option "2" below, but it would be necessary for game balance. So if a trade involved 25 Quid, the receiving team would actually have only received 13 and the paying team would have paid 13. Everything across the board would have to be adjusted by 50% if we wanted to fairly have the annual reduction to 50 Quid take place for the upcoming 2004 season.
Keep in mind, though, that while on the surface this may seem drastic, it is actually as neutral as can be. The relative funds for every team would mathematically have the same financial leverage against other teams if a universal 50% adjustment took place.
While this is mathematically balanced, it may be prone to controversy and that is why Option 2 exists.
2) Change it effective 2005. All free agency spending and trades from 2003 would remain the same, and everyone would get 100 Quid to start the 2004 season. In 2005, the TV contracts go down to 50 Quid, no reflection upon the ratings of Aces High, as the remaining 50 Quid from Fox and CBS will go to charity.
So in the opinion of the Sticksville Illuminati, these are the two options that we should vote upon. Can we take an official vote, and unless it is universal for #1, shall we go with Option #2?
|
|
|
|
|
|
