|
Post by Washington Imperials GM on Dec 22, 2010 19:07:58 GMT -5
Just to document it I thik there should be a rule in place stating if an automatic contract would put an owner over salary cap the player is automaticly signed to the PS and if PS is full the highest paid player on PS is automaticly cut. if there is a salary tie the players are cut in alphabetical order.
Discuss if you wish
|
|
|
Post by AVERAGE HERO'S GM on Dec 22, 2010 21:42:49 GMT -5
If I'm right, then the automatic contract is a 1 year contract to the actual roster by rule. I would see just switching it to a PS contract to not really be a punishment, since the team did want the player they are getting on the PS and they are getting them. There is a chance that someone they want is dropped, but who knows.
Personally, I'd rather see the winning bid canceled and have a deduction for the winning bid amount be applied to that teams next year cap. If somone has a winning $2 bid on player X and fails to sign him. Then player X would be automatically awareded a 1 year contract. If there isn't cap in the current year to actually sign the player, I'd rather see the player go back into the pot and have the $2 bid amount be taken from the teams cap the following year as a penalty. The following year deduction is to attempt to avoid making teams want to bid on players and not sign them to block other owners from getting them. The cap penality also acts as a penalty for temporarily taking a player out of the free agent pot that shouldn't have been.
This is a contract/salary cap league. Having each team on the same playing field and working from the same salary cap amount is the most important thing in this league. If you can't afford a player you shouldn't bid. If you're close to the cap limit and an automatic contract would put you over, then that owner should make it a point to get back and take care of their business.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Imperials GM on Dec 23, 2010 10:47:31 GMT -5
Interesting take Glenn, the truth is even though your salary cap is full you can still bid on and sign players to the practice squad. I never wanted to limit that. Bidding players up is an accteptable action but there are consequences if you inaccurately gagehow much someone will pay. The PS has always been a fallback if you choose to use it. To be honest I have been too lax in policing things. The issue with Claymores neve should have happened. I was wrong, I apologize and I will make a signifigant effort policing things next year. We should not ever see anyone going over the cap again.
The issue I have with reducing salary with the cap the following year is that it is a cyclical problem if you reduce the cap number on the team they will be quicker in cap trouble the following year and causing the same problems all over again. I feel this leads to disinterest and we could lose owners over it. I hate replacing owners. I wish I never had to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Imperials GM on Dec 23, 2010 10:52:21 GMT -5
I also want to say I do not wish for this league to be highly punitive. This is a fun league and I want everyone to enjoy themselves. I do want the rules followed. I would prefer to have guidelines set to handle these situations though.
I do envision this league as an advanced league where owners should be experienced with ff with the salary cap adding a dimension of difficulty to keep it interesting.
|
|
|
Post by AVERAGE HERO'S GM on Dec 23, 2010 14:57:59 GMT -5
True... you can bid on players for the PS, but if you don't sign them they are active roster players. Maybe that rule needs amended.
We can have people specify in their big. Roster $1 or PS $1. That would end all confusion. If the player isn't signed, then we know where the intent was and there isn't a problem created with the active roster. Just need to figure out how to decide who gets dumped if the PS if full. PLayer on longest, shortest, highest paid, or lowest paid.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Imperials GM on Dec 23, 2010 23:03:54 GMT -5
I don't like making people specify right away where they put thier player. right now people can change thier minds or decide if they win the bids. Making a specification optional could work.The other problem then is you get into a $2 active roster bid being worth more than a $2 PS bid it logicly makes sense because players would want a chance to start if it NFL. then you get into well would a player accept less money for a chance to start ect ect
it could get really messy.
|
|
|
Post by Tulsa Roughnecks GM on Dec 24, 2010 21:39:13 GMT -5
Considering I use free agent bids as a way to instill psychiatrical terror into all of you, I am against showing your hand until you have to. The only part of this I'd suggest considering is are the limited options to renege on the highest bid, but fortunately no one has abused this yet. As much as I enjoy messin' with y'all, withdrawing any of my $1 bids is a line I would not cross. I do however make $1 bids in the expectation that I will be outbid and so make y'all max out your caps faster. I prefer the loss of draft picks. It is a common penalty in real football for this, though fines are in order as well. If it's just a penalty against next year's cap, I could see someone getting the crazy notion in their head to sell some of the future to win in the present. Heck, that is something I might do. I think the penalty of losing a second round pick is just, but then I am a notorious hardass when it comes to rules violations.
|
|