Post by Cincinnati Bengals (Chris) on Mar 4, 2021 14:36:48 GMT -5
One process that I want to perform over the next few weeks and months before our season gets underway is to go over the rule book with a fine-toothed comb, and pull out anything that our first Commissioner, Mike, put in place. Mike, despite his erratic and pompous personality, along with the original members of the league, set us up for success (As we're now entering our 13th season). But, too often I find, when we ask the reasoning for why we do something or don't do something, it goes back to "Mike did it that way." Sometimes the thing in question is good, and other times it's not. I think we should at least examine why we do what we do--especially as we're now out from under the thumbs of an authoritarian. If we decide to keep things the way they are, that's absolutely fine. But, we should at least consider why we do them and if we should continue doing them.
So, with that in mind, I think we should look into the prospect of trading re-signing years. I don't know why we've never been able to trade them, other than that Mike said we couldn't. I understand having a cap, and five years seems fine, and has seemed to work well for us--but I don't understand why we've never been able to trade them. Most teams use most of their re-signing years, but every year we have teams leaving 2, 3, 4, or even all 5 years on the table. That's fine if that's what they want/they don't have anyone they want to use them on. In fact, I've managed some teams before where I struggled to find someone to extend. But I also think it's true that some of those teams--if possible--would want to trade those unused years to recoup something of value, as effectively, they're throwing an asset of some value away. The value is dependent on how many years, and what team was trading for them. I simply see a market inefficiency here: Someone has something they want to sell for a value, but can't, and vice versa. If one party is willing to pay a price to acquire an asset, why should we stop the seller from capitalizing on that?
Full disclosure, this would benefit me this year and possibly next--but it's actually not my idea, and is something we've discussed behind closed doors for years now. I think it's finally the time to bring it to a vote. It may seem extreme considering how we've always done things, but again, that's not a good process of evaluating whether or not things are good or bad. If you'll recall, Mike also forbade us from trading during the Rookie and UFA Drafts--an obvious error, that we've since remedied.
So, let us know what you think. Time is a factor here, so for all trading parties, once trading is reopened shortly, please keep in mind that this may be an option this year, and monitor the results of the poll. If it receives a majority in time, we will institute it for this season. If not, we'll table it for now at least. Thanks for your consideration.
So, with that in mind, I think we should look into the prospect of trading re-signing years. I don't know why we've never been able to trade them, other than that Mike said we couldn't. I understand having a cap, and five years seems fine, and has seemed to work well for us--but I don't understand why we've never been able to trade them. Most teams use most of their re-signing years, but every year we have teams leaving 2, 3, 4, or even all 5 years on the table. That's fine if that's what they want/they don't have anyone they want to use them on. In fact, I've managed some teams before where I struggled to find someone to extend. But I also think it's true that some of those teams--if possible--would want to trade those unused years to recoup something of value, as effectively, they're throwing an asset of some value away. The value is dependent on how many years, and what team was trading for them. I simply see a market inefficiency here: Someone has something they want to sell for a value, but can't, and vice versa. If one party is willing to pay a price to acquire an asset, why should we stop the seller from capitalizing on that?
Full disclosure, this would benefit me this year and possibly next--but it's actually not my idea, and is something we've discussed behind closed doors for years now. I think it's finally the time to bring it to a vote. It may seem extreme considering how we've always done things, but again, that's not a good process of evaluating whether or not things are good or bad. If you'll recall, Mike also forbade us from trading during the Rookie and UFA Drafts--an obvious error, that we've since remedied.
So, let us know what you think. Time is a factor here, so for all trading parties, once trading is reopened shortly, please keep in mind that this may be an option this year, and monitor the results of the poll. If it receives a majority in time, we will institute it for this season. If not, we'll table it for now at least. Thanks for your consideration.
