|
|
Post by Minnesota Vikings (Matt) on Jun 4, 2019 10:39:05 GMT -5
I don’t know if I am the only one that feels this way but I am completely against the rule. We are going through a lot of assumptions to figure out if we can make a guy retired. Is there a difference between retired and quit? Right now we aren’t requiring an official transaction from the team to place a guy on the retirement list. And we are honoring a reputable source reporting it. I think there are too many interpretations and judgement calls in the rule.
Also, I feel like we as owners know this rule is out there so we will bid 4 years or higher than we normally would because we know we can mark a guy retired in a year and save the cap penalty. It’s the rule and I don’t blame owners for doing this.
I would vote to eliminate the rule completely and the normal waiver rules apply. There will be some unfortunate young guys retiring but it happens. I think this would make owners think about going 4 years on an older player or someone with discipline issues.
If we are set on keeping a retirement rule I would vote than an official transaction has to be made to qualify and this would remove any interpretations or judgements of what is retiring or what is a reputable source.
If I am on my own in this thought than that’s okay but I just wanted to voice my opinion since there is a current debate and each time someone “retires” we have the figure out if the rule can actually apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Lions (Christian) on Jun 4, 2019 10:50:41 GMT -5
There are bigger fish to fry. Imo, this is the last thing we need to be concerned about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Jun 4, 2019 11:57:51 GMT -5
Isn’t the goal of this league to make it as similar to the NFL as possible? If that’s the case then what you’re proposing is definitely not doing that.
In real life Calvin Johnson gave up a ton of money to retire. The Lions didn’t have to continue paying him for the rest of his contact, so why would we continue paying players in this league when they retire? Doesn’t make sense to me at all. And who cares if a team signs a player to a 4 year deal? Everyone has that option. The patriots could sign Brady to an 8 year deal tomorrow and then when he retires after 2 years people aren’t going to come out and say you guys were idiots for giving him an 8 year deal. He’s only getting paid for the number of years he plays so contract length doesn’t matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Vikings (Matt) on Jun 4, 2019 12:19:12 GMT -5
And I do understand that but NFL teams can’t go off only reputable reports of a guy saying he’s retired and then just stop paying him. I’m saying if we do want to keep the rule we should make it clear what retirement actually is by rule. Because now we are interpreting words and trying to decide if a report is reputable to see if we allow the rule to be applied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills (Salvatore) on Jun 4, 2019 13:15:50 GMT -5
Imo if a player annocences hes retiring that's good enough . The team loses the players rights and the contract comes off the books. If the guy comes back (like Witten this year) hes just a free agent, the team doesn't retain his rights and we move on. This isnt complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew) on Jun 4, 2019 18:42:06 GMT -5
If that’s the only thing up for discussion then i honestly couldn’t care less. Just go with whatever’s easiest for the league admins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Vikings (Matt) on Jun 4, 2019 18:49:41 GMT -5
I was just bringing it up because every year we have questionable retired players and it always causes arguments over if the player is actually retired. I’m okay with whatever we decide but just wanted to post my thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Jun 4, 2019 20:09:06 GMT -5
Who is arguing though? I’ve never seen anybody call anybody out for retiring a player. Maybe before my time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Vikings (Matt) on Jun 4, 2019 20:15:53 GMT -5
The disagreement on David Irving. We also had an argument over Jay Cutler. And maybe arguing isn’t the right way to phrase it but we have owners unhappy with a ruling because it’s not clear when someone retires or quits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Lions (Christian) on Jun 4, 2019 20:18:17 GMT -5
The disagreement on David Irving. We also had an argument over Jay Cutler. And maybe arguing isn’t the right way to phrase it but we have owners unhappy with a ruling because it’s not clear when someone retires or quits. It’s pretty clear that Irving is done |
|
|
|
Post by Jacksonville Jaguars (Jordan) on Jun 4, 2019 20:20:01 GMT -5
The disagreement on David Irving. We also had an argument over Jay Cutler. And maybe arguing isn’t the right way to phrase it but we have owners unhappy with a ruling because it’s not clear when someone retires or quits. Forgive me. |
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Vikings (Matt) on Jun 4, 2019 20:36:03 GMT -5
I agree Irving is done. But he basically said you can’t fire me I quit. He’s a free agent with an indefinite suspension and he’s saying I quit football. Is that the same as retiring?
Is telvin smith allowed to be considered retired? He announced he’s not playing in 2019 on Instagram.
I’m just saying it’s tough to know sometimes and there hasn’t really been a clear ruling on what the line is. I just think if we’re having this as a rule it should be defined clearly. Right now it’s a judgement call.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 21:33:33 GMT -5
It's still more consistent than the QB rule and the TRC.
|
|
