Tweet
Feels like a good time to once again bring up my revolutionary and much reviled idea to tie our FAAB (draft only) money directly to how much cap space we have, and also to tie how long a player gets signed for to how much you bid on them.
So, for example, if I enter free agency with only 1 year of cap space, I can only bid $1 for the 1 player I want. And then the player is signed to 1 year of cap hit because I bid $1 on him, assuming I get him.
If someone else has, say, 7 years of cap space, and 3 empty slots, they could bid up to $5 for a single player (leaving $1 for the other two spots) to try to win a bidding war for free agents. But if they use those $5 to outbid everyone for a desired player, they have to sign him for 5 years.
Would also shorten the draft, avoiding those annoying bids where we go $1 at a time up to $164 or some such. You are still stuck with whoever bids first winning the player, but we already have that problem, and we can equate that timing thing to the luck of the draw of where the player would prefer to play.
It would mean a system where teams with cap space actually have more money to offer free agents, like in real life. While teams already full up in cap would be left trying to use their minimum salary or mid-level contracts to fill in their roster around the edges or sign undrafted free agents. And outbidding everyone else would actually have meaningful long term consequences for the winning GM.
It mostly would eliminate or at least much reduce the situations where the best players are going in a single click, as it would be far more rare to have multiple teams with the exact same cap room than to have multiple teams with the same number of open slots (1, notably).
Then we could ideally use the same system for in-season bids (so teams with no cap space would have to get lucky on waiver bids, with $0 to bid, rather than having some wild amount of FAAB money to play with), but that could be phased in later.
Bring on the flames.
So, for example, if I enter free agency with only 1 year of cap space, I can only bid $1 for the 1 player I want. And then the player is signed to 1 year of cap hit because I bid $1 on him, assuming I get him.
If someone else has, say, 7 years of cap space, and 3 empty slots, they could bid up to $5 for a single player (leaving $1 for the other two spots) to try to win a bidding war for free agents. But if they use those $5 to outbid everyone for a desired player, they have to sign him for 5 years.
Would also shorten the draft, avoiding those annoying bids where we go $1 at a time up to $164 or some such. You are still stuck with whoever bids first winning the player, but we already have that problem, and we can equate that timing thing to the luck of the draw of where the player would prefer to play.
It would mean a system where teams with cap space actually have more money to offer free agents, like in real life. While teams already full up in cap would be left trying to use their minimum salary or mid-level contracts to fill in their roster around the edges or sign undrafted free agents. And outbidding everyone else would actually have meaningful long term consequences for the winning GM.
It mostly would eliminate or at least much reduce the situations where the best players are going in a single click, as it would be far more rare to have multiple teams with the exact same cap room than to have multiple teams with the same number of open slots (1, notably).
Then we could ideally use the same system for in-season bids (so teams with no cap space would have to get lucky on waiver bids, with $0 to bid, rather than having some wild amount of FAAB money to play with), but that could be phased in later.
Bring on the flames.
Comment