Take the full cap hit for Smith in 2019

[goskins10]

19 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I've thought this too. It'd be kind of cool if after a player is put on IR who is afterwards gone for the year that his cap hit is halved. I agree with you that this should trigger only for a major/catastrophic injury, but you could trigger this by listing types of injury or surgery or have the team specifically apply and state its case why this particularly player rates the cap return.

 

This is a flaw in the CAP. To me, anyone that is gone for the year on IR should not be counted against the CAP. This is just for the owners to justify not paying players. If you bring them back, then you need to account for their CAP if they play. It should really be that simple. 

 

If you put a player on season ending IR, they should not count against the CAP. You could make it proportionate to their playing time. So if a player goes on IR gm 2, their CAP is 2/16 of their salary. If they go out game 15, their CAP hit is 15/16 of their salary. This would apply only to players on season ending IR. If you want to keep the right to bring them back from IR, they continue to count against the CAP. If their status changes, you only CAP credit from the time you declare them out for the season. For example, say a player goes out gm 2, but you think they may come back. But after gm 10, you see they will not and you put them on season ending IR. 10/16 of their salary counts against your CAP. 

 

The idea of having a guy that can't play count against the CAP is ridiculous to me. I felt this way a long time, not just because of Alex. 

[CjSuAvE22]

25 minutes ago, sempre_victrix said:

Sometimes, I think the NFL needs to create a Cap rule to partially insulate teams from the scenario that we have been place into by our wonderful FO.  In the case of catastrophic injury to a player with a Smith or Cousins type contract, give the team some sort of Cap relief.  Obviously, it would need to be closely monitored and an exception to the rule.  Maybe even give a team 1 relief option per 10 years.

 

This should also be a wake up call for every FO in the league, but it won't be.  It had better be a wake up call for OUR FO.  First. we gave up the future for RG3 and he was a flash in the pan until his injury and now we mortgage our Cap future by overpaying an aging vet and dump him behind a weak OL.

They dont have rules like this because no FO is as poorly put together as ours.... theres only one team that continually puts themself in this position

[wit33]

2 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

I'd go with postseason W L record if you are going to pay a 13 year vet franchise money.

 

But then we might end up with a Trent Dilfer or Mark Sanchez because the team is ran by certified buffoons.

 

Remember he’s being paid an average salary. Yes, he was awarded a long term deal, but long term deals lose value as each year passes, provided the team more leverage. Even the first years of deal land him league average in terms of pay. 

 

Sanchez and his family would much like your post season record argument. 

 

** Smith has won some games in postseason

[OVCChairman]

On 3/1/2019 at 9:00 AM, goskins10 said:

 

This is a flaw in the CAP. To me, anyone that is gone for the year on IR should not be counted against the CAP. This is just for the owners to justify not paying players. If you bring them back, then you need to account for their CAP if they play. It should really be that simple. 

 

If you put a player on season ending IR, they should not count against the CAP. You could make it proportionate to their playing time. So if a player goes on IR gm 2, their CAP is 2/16 of their salary. If they go out game 15, their CAP hit is 15/16 of their salary. This would apply only to players on season ending IR. If you want to keep the right to bring them back from IR, they continue to count against the CAP. If their status changes, you only CAP credit from the time you declare them out for the season. For example, say a player goes out gm 2, but you think they may come back. But after gm 10, you see they will not and you put them on season ending IR. 10/16 of their salary counts against your CAP. 

 

The idea of having a guy that can't play count against the CAP is ridiculous to me. I felt this way a long time, not just because of Alex. 

 

 

The concern then is that the team COULD be quick to send an high $$ player who may be under performing, to IR when it may not be necessary.  Teams could take advantage of this... Josh Norman being the perfect example.  He had a bit of a hamstring injury going into the Saints game last year.  At that point he was VERY underwhelming.  Whats to keep the team from putting him on IR, with the idea that we'll be releasing him at the end of the season, and freeing up his money toward the cap prior to the trade deadline?  That's not fair to the player.  

[goskins10]

25 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

The concern then is that the team COULD be quick to send an high $$ player who may be under performing, to IR when it may not be necessary.  Teams could take advantage of this... Josh Norman being the perfect example.  He had a bit of a hamstring injury going into the Saints game last year.  At that point he was VERY underwhelming.  Whats to keep the team from putting him on IR, with the idea that we'll be releasing him at the end of the season, and freeing up his money toward the cap prior to the trade deadline?  That's not fair to the player.  

 

All players designated for season ending IR could have to be cleared for it by an independent doctor, similar to the concussion protocol. Also, you could make it so the player has to agree to it. So the team cannot do so arbitrarily or to an unfair advantage. 

 

 

[OVCChairman]

1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

 

All players designated for season ending IR could have to be cleared for it by an independent doctor, similar to the concussion protocol. Also, you could make it so the player has to agree to it. So the team cannot do so arbitrarily or to an unfair advantage. 

 

 

 

 

I dont hate the idea, mostly just playing devils advocate.  I actually love the idea.... and it would help the competitive balance, allowing teams ravaged by injury to then attempt to maintain... also allowing them to possibly trade for short term options to remain in a playoff run.  

 

Another piece of this would be to ensure the player isn't part of it.  Find some way to make sure a situation where Antonio Brown doesnt come to the team and say "put me on IR, i'll sign off on it, then trade me in the offseason."  Thus allowing Pittsburgh AND Brown to game the system to get what they want.  He still gets paid and gets to leave, Pitt gets to save his $$ pertaining to the cap, and neither side has to truly live out the deal of the contract...

 

Again, I like it, just throwing out potential concerns.  

[goskins10]

2 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I dont hate the idea, mostly just playing devils advocate.  I actually love the idea.... and it would help the competitive balance, allowing teams ravaged by injury to then attempt to maintain... also allowing them to possibly trade for short term options to remain in a playoff run.  

 

Another piece of this would be to ensure the player isn't part of it.  Find some way to make sure a situation where Antonio Brown doesnt come to the team and say "put me on IR, i'll sign off on it, then trade me in the offseason."  Thus allowing Pittsburgh AND Brown to game the system to get what they want.  He still gets paid and gets to leave, Pitt gets to save his $$ pertaining to the cap, and neither side has to truly live out the deal of the contract...

 

Again, I like it, just throwing out potential concerns.  

 

I get it but I live by a saying - Never let perfect get in the way of really good. You can always find ways around doing the right thing. But for me that's not a good reason to do nothing. 

[OVCChairman]

Just now, goskins10 said:

 

I get it but I live by a saying - Never let perfect get in the way of really good. You can always find ways around doing the right thing. But for me that's not a good reason to do nothing. 

 

I like that

 

I agree, nothing is going to be perfect, and this would be a really good thing to put in place.  I think something does need to happen to allow MORE teams to have MORE stability, even in the event of an injury.  Something like this does that... so if a team loses their QB, they can afford to go after a replacement without having to consider the injured QBs cap hit.  It allows them to go after a big time WR if their guy goes down... it allows them to bring in the 'best' available player at a position of need in the event of an injury, instead of forcing them to take a lesser player because of cap ramifications.  

[sempre_victrix]

My thought process was more along the lines of potentially career ending or multi-year injuries, or God forbid, a death.  Hamstrings, broken arms, even torn ACLs would not qualify.  Those are the cost of doing business.

[Riggo-toni]

Looking more and more like most of us were right about this, especially since Trent held out...