Posted by MikeT23 on 4/17/2014 4:52:00 PM (view original):
Oh, c'mon.  You won 65 with a 57m payroll.  You weren't left with a 100m payroll and no talent.   You were left with low payroll, no talent.   That allows you to build a team from scratch, more or less.

Posted by mongoose_22 on 4/17/2014 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by willsauve on 4/17/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
IMO you'll never be able to institute a rule that takes away a teams top 10 draft pick.. People will just leave.. Now if you create a different penalty for the following season they will probably stick around since they get to keep the draft pick that they may've tanked to receive.. You'll never find a rule that will make everyone happy.. 

Actually, we have yet to have someone leave.

And Mike has pointed out potential loopholes. While all theoretically true/possible, in practice, none of that has happened. We've had the rule in place now for about six, maybe seven, seasons now. We've had three teams loose picks so far, and two more this season. Haven't had a problem yet. Not to say we won't ever, but the early returns on our draft forfeiture rule have been overwhelmingly positive. I think its a very nice alternative to kicking a guy out. 

Posted by shobob on 4/17/2014 4:00:00 PM (view original):
I don't understand why the witch hunt against people who divert payroll to prospect to sign a good IFA.  If you are really worried about that, set a prospect cap.  If you can spend no more than 25-30 M on prospects, that leaves you with no choice but to spend money elsewhere, such as training, medical, draft scouting and player payroll.  All of those things would lead to a healthier, more competitive world, because players would develop and maintain ratings better, recover from injury better, duration and impact of injuries would be lessened, and veteran free agents wouldn't be left to rot and retire.