General Thought

Wetter than Dutch Dikes wrote:The novel didn't work so i went quick hitters, point for point of your long retort.  Lastly, I can use any example I want needledick (needledick), and when my cap hit for a rbbc member would currently be larger than the biggest one year contract in league history, then it's a solid comparison.  you think an ELIte qb's not worth 18, but I can't compare to a guy who was 81? I didn't even care that Brady WAS backloaded when I made that comparison.  With that said, I digress...how was your weekend at Camp Lenox at the end of August?

Well clearly it would be bigger than Brady's because Brady's was before we fixed the issue. So hence why you can't use it...comparing apples to watermelon (not even oranges) it is so not even close in comparison. Brady WOULD HAVE BEEN $33K or something like that. That's like comparing what Sproles scores in standard leagues vs. PPR. Not even relevant. Different rules due to a change YOU WERE INSTRUMENTAL in wanting implemented. So, to compare an example of a guy who fell in the loophole to a guy you're angry about is downright silly.

Bottom line we see this 2 different ways...you think EXCLUSIVELY in terms of salary and I think big picture. I consider the fact to trade for a back-load contract you are taking on more risk in doing so and as a result you are not (OR SHOULD NOT) give up as much as you SHOULD for a straight line player. But again you VASTLY OVERPAID to acquire J.Stew and this is why I accepted the offer within seconds of it being received. So you don't grasp this notion.

likewise

This seemed to come to a quick boil! you asked for us to chime in Dutch. and I'm firmly on the other side of the fence. I don't think this will all of a sudden nullify backloaded contracts being traded. We all know what we're getting into cut-wise. and we're getting the player on the cheap. Shit I gave away Ryan Mathews for nothing. He's certainly worth a hell of a lot more than what I got, but that contract is atrocious! and Blake still took a chance, knowing full well of the new cap ramifications . I like the rule as is

This is a good example although Blake does get the benefit of the "cheap year" in yr 1.  So I know that this doesn't necessarily tie into Ryan's thought process.  But the idea is the same.  Ebner had to pretty much unload his arsenal of picks because of the atrocity of the contract he handed out.  And to take that contract on Blake pretty much given a pleothora of picks.

But still not technically what Ryan is going for here since he whole argument is about owners who acquire him AFTER the "cheap yr".  But I think the argument could be made that had this transaction took place in next off-season Blake or whomever would give up pratically nothing to acquire a player who would otherwise have value. And this is my point, if you are giving up nothing to acquire a player you need to understand that you assume the risk of the shit contract. You don't get the discount in terms of salary (Clearly not) but in terms of what you need to give up to get him absolutely you are.

Unfortunately for Ryan he paid a what he should of paid if it was a straight line contract.

So hypothtically speaking let's assume Blake and Ebner made this deal in next off-season when Ryan Mat had only the 1 yr and $60K left on his contract. It makes sense for Ebner to rid himself of the contract at all costs because for him to cut Ryan Mat his cap hit would be $23K. So in order to get out from that contract he gives Mathews away and throws in a shit load of picks just to make deal work. Then Blake says well I got all these picks and now I'll just cut Ryan Mat for 20% of $60K so my cap hit is only $12K.

In that case, I'd say, "Good job, Blake. Good value" If you keep the penalty, then people will be less likely to take on shitty contracts, but if you change it to what Bousquet wants, people will be able to take advantage of the people who gave the shitty deals to start with. Personally, I love to take advantage of peoples' mistakes.
To Keith's point, which I think is somewhat valid (but I have the answer to it). If two teams each have shitty contracts, and exchange them just to drop them and avoid a cap hit....I'd say that's the definition of collusion.