Offseason Free Agency

Ok an idea for next offseason. Currently we allow teams to go over both cap and rosters spots during the offseason, partially because there was no fair punishment that really fit (a high draft pick seemed too much, a low one didn't seem like enough, blah, blah, blah)

But we could make it more like the NFL, The new idea would be if you win a player, but it would put you over cap and/or roster spot limit, you would have a week to make a move to free the cap and/or roster spot, if you fail to make a spot on your roster in that amount of time, the player would return to the free agent pool (starting completely over, therefore $1,1 year would be acceptable...although you should have a general idea of the market due to the previous auction). This rule would also make it so you can't make a trade that would put you over cap and/or roster spots.

I swear this was not inspired by the fact that the cowboys had deals in place, but couldn't sign the player until they made moves and me finally thinking, hey we could do that instead of trying to think of a punishment...

I voted yes to the proposal but I do not like the roster idea. Yes to the rule and punishment concerning cap space but not roster size. NFL teams are allowed to be well over their playing rosters of 53 in the offseason. The exact number of players held during offseason I do not know, that is a Dan questioning too lazy to Google it. Anyway my point is these players are signed under a contract and fighting for a spot in each roster before the cut to 53. I think that principle should remain, because we sign out players to a contract, one that can get picked up through waivers like the NFL if released, and we try to make the best decision for our team closer and closer to the Syrah of the season. If a player causes you to go over cap then yes I beloved in the 1 week procedure. So if the roster is still in with the cap I change my vote no.

for right now I'm going to keep it as a dual issue. Also forgot to mention, but 1st and 2nd round picks would also have to count as a roster spot and cap hit.

Jason, did you just refer to Dan's commisioning as lazy?!?

Lol
No, it was my typo, "I'm too lazy to Google it" looking back and stupid iPhone had a ton of mispells, why can't it do everything for me?

Meant it to say that is a "Dan-question", too lazy to Google, implying I was too lazy to look it up.

Then until its changed 2 separate proposals, one being over the cap, one being over the roster, I change my vote to no. If they were separate issues then I would agree with your insertion of the draft picks. Say you just finished free agency and have 5 cap left but 20 in draft picks for the first 2 rounds. Then you have that week to get under. Again, disagree about the roster scenario in this situation

Okay Firstly:

MY VOTE IS NO!!! It may have come up as a yes when I hit the button, but my phone screen s faulty and crashes this forum constantly.
Secondly:

This proposal has its merits and should take some time to decide on, specifically, there should be two parts voted on separately. The first part should be the "overbidding cap issue." The second part should be the over-exceeding your cap issue.

The goal of this league is to be fun and make the experience as close to the NFL as possible. Look at the NFL they are not allowed to go over cap without punishment, I agree with that in our league too, since the goal is to be like the NFL. So if someone has overbid their cap then Dan's proposal for action afterward is justified. I think it is a great idea and support the 1 week action/punishment for over-the-cap. It would create for a better, smarter, and more strategic offseason, as well as curb a lot of squabbling and bitching.

However, in the NFL offseason roster is a maximum of 90, nearly double that of their regular season 53-man roster. And if our roster for the season is 40, we shouldn't have to be subject to our playing in-season roster limit during the offseason, just like the NFL. Part of the offseason and the league is to scout less heard of players or "busts" or diamonds in the rough to minimum contracts and see how training camp and pre season goes. The NFL does it, we should be able to as well. That's how they found their Arian Fosters', Vistor Cruz's, Alfred Morris's and hopefully being able to have more than 40 players in the offseason we will have found those players and have them on our team before they splash unto the fantasy market. (cough Bryce Brown cough Tom cough).

But we should be held accountable for any salary cap infringement, just like the NFL.

If the goal is to be more like the NFL, then this proposal fails in one aspect yet succeeds in the other. Why not simply split the issues up? Then let each one's merit speak for itself. This kind of "bundling" is what politicians, sales people, corporations, even your local education board do all the time. They package one idea that should unanimously be passed with another issue that is worth debating and is more controversial together and force the voter top choose. Do you take the good with the bad? Or leave one bad thing that should be changed unchanged which would be a shame.

As AWFUL as Jason's grammar was, his last post does make sense. I would like to vote on them separately. Can we do that (whether it is in addition to this or not?)

first let me counter jason's post.

First of all the NFL has 90 players because training camps suck, they need back up at spots that they'd never carry in the regular season (such as back up kickers and punter) and extra back ups at positions they would normally carry 1-2 backsup for during the season (it's not at all uncommon for a team to carry 4 qbs for example). The reason? they need camp bodies. We don't have a need for camp bodies at all.

Also in your example of teams having 90 instead of 53 the real numbers should read 90 instead of 61 since the NFL has a practice squad, which we don't because with 40 players it is unnnecessary. (My research into dynasty leagues showed 300 roster players as the optimal number, we're at 400, well above the standard, which in of itself is another reason to support this proposition) NFL teams may have to cut ~29 players, but In 99% of cases 20-25 are all but set to be cut. Why in a league with no need for camp bodies allow people to sign over their cap to potentially get lucky. It's BS!

Second, and much more important imo, it is a pain in the ass to keep track of who isn't on espn, but on the spreadsheet and vice versa. As the Commissioner that does about 90%+ of that bookkeeping I think it is beyond stupid to allow people to go over the maximum roster limit.

Lastly, Both Commissioners seem to think It's a good rule. We took the time creating the rules at the start, listening to options to change them to better the league, and enforcing them. We probably understand what we want in our league better than you

Also anyone claiming they need more than 40 spots is really just saying " i want to sign 20 1-3 dollar players, then cut 15 of them after i figure out which ones are useful so I can brag about how much smarter i am because i have 5 dollar players that are doing ok..." you know someone that needs to feed an ego.

Or create an economically efficient squad, something vital in a franchise league. You scout players and buoys a team that is able to have players like AP and Ray Rice that xonsume cap and yet your team competes through draft and FA. It would also make 6th and 7th round picks worth our time because as of now they are virtually useless.

I understand Dan with the ESPN and SS. Maybe since you do like everything you can make Tom shoulder some slack, or have someone else help you, or just make it a money league with the hardest working commish getting paid.

to answer josh's question, as of now i'll stick voting on both, but if it fails then try it as separate issues, if you want to change your yes to a no let me know. Partially because i think it is worth a shot to get it all done in one vote since we are either 3 or 4 votes away (depending on if josh m changes his vote) I don't see a reason to make extra votes if it ends up not mattering.

actually you should be able to change your vote now.

Also just throwing this out there, out of the 4 players mention in jason's post, one was signed as an off-season free agent (and only after no one draft him at all), it's not like off-season free agency has been a great source of gems in the past.

Also I recall it being mentioned that the cap part will help get rid of some petty squabbles, well me and at least one other have mentioned you bidding over roster limit...so both parts go on to help that.

Yeah I said the first part of your proposal covers the bidding over the cap and settles arguments which I am in favor of. And the point I was making was exactly that, they were picked up mid season rather than FA. I'm saying that by capping the number of players we can have will almost insure the fact that we will not find any gems because we won't be able to hold on to them long enough. A bigger roster will help us keep the players we draft and a no limit on the roster preseason policy will help us see if they pan out or play well enough in the preseason to warrant giving a roster spot to for potential. Yes I know I'm rotting my own horn here like Dan keeps enjoying to point out, but I am willing to bet most people would not have kept Kaepernick on their roster as long as I did. Most people didn't even hear of him before he got the start. It's that kind of stuff I would like to keep happening. I can't say that I watched Victor Cruz pre season but I watched Arian Foster and Alfred Morris (granted that one is easy because he's a Shanahan back) and could see the talent. Tom was pne of the only ones I know of that saw Bryce Brown play and wanted to stick with him. Those are the points I'm making.

I think you missed the point I was trying to convey, I was simply using those players as examples of guys to sit on until the season starts and maybe they end up on rosters. By not letting us sit on them free agency you would completely eliminate the opportunity.

Why does everyone think they can sway people to their vote by crying every time there is a debate. I'm not changing my vote, Dan. I am getting really sick of reading this stuff, though. There is a poll. Say your one post, everyone, if you want. Then leave it up to the vote of "adults".

Lastly, once Edgar and I have our website operational, we can manage the rosters flawlessly

Jason B wrote:I think you missed the point I was trying to convey, I was simply using those players as examples of guys to sit on until the season starts and maybe they end up on rosters. By not letting us sit on them free agency you would completely eliminate the opportunity.

I think you missed my point that none of the players listed were "sat on," therefore your example is flawed. Foster was picked up in the original auction, bryce brown was drafted after the 2nd round so a decision to sign was free to be made until August 1st. Alfred Morris was signed mid-way through the preseason. If someone never hear of a 2nd round qb in our league they shouldn't be in it, so I'm guessing everyone knew who he was...although i agree many might have gotten rid of him, but you didn't...so i fail to see how this fits in as well...Victor Cruz was signed in season, so no one sat on him at all before he was well known. My issue is you NEVER use good logic/Examples...C'mon. If you want to sway me, show an example of someone signed in march that no one knew of and they profited greatly...I'm sure one exists, but you named 0.

The situation with Bryce Brown wouldn't have come up if Tom had 40 roster spots. Bit CK7 and Ridley are examples. And that's just on my team. It is a hypothetical example as in to come. I obviously know those players were not a result of having over the roster limit preaeason my point was they could have been given the new roster limits, and that the opportunity to have this type of players will not be possible of the roster limit would be put into effect. Stop trying to argue for the sake of arguing, the point is simple. Cutting the before the regular season starts is better for everyone and more in line with the NFL. I resent the fact that ip said my logic is flawed. In the 5-6 ears I've known you, you have never once conceded a valid line I reasoning with anyone. It is Dan's way period, that's it. It is nearly as bad as Evan. Evan 2.0. You always have to be right an always win.

Hello Kettle, this is pot, you're black?

I don't always have to be right, I always am right...big difference.

I'm going to abstain from voting for a little while because I truly am torn on this. I think it is a good idea mostly because we have had complaining about people bidding over roster and cap (and everyone knows I've been guilty of both this offseason). While I think going over roster and cap is its own punishment, due to having to cut or forfeit come september, I think its also easily exploitable due signing large amounts of guys for $1 and hoping 1 or 2 pan out. Also, that Bryce Brown pick was a baller draft pick and he was staying on my roster no matter what. Just wanted to toot my own horn for a minute

However, here's my problem with the proposed solution: It allows you to freely bid up a player without repercussion, because hey, you can just throw him back to the pool in a week if you can't afford him. For example, if I wanted to maliciously bid up Player X, I could without ever having to worry about being stuck with him, because if the week deadline was drawing near and it looked like I'd be stuck with him, I could throw him back if he would already put me over cap, otherwise just make an obscene bid that was sure to put me over. In the latter case, now I know exactly what the market price for a player is and I can price enforce to that amount, and if I fail, just repeat the process.

Cat, of all people, had an interesting solution to this problem, one that I am in favor of. He expanded on Dan's solution by proposing that a manager would have to eat a certain % of the deal if he were forced to throw the player back due to the contract putting him over cap or the roster limit. Cat suggested 20%, I personally think 10% is more appropriate but this is all just talk right now.

I would definitely vote for that if this fails. The punishment should be used on both going over cap and making room, or signing 41+ players and not making room. Since both SHOULD be penalized lol.

Side note further rebuttal to Jason's they go over 53 men in the offseason stance...The NFL off seasons rosters are 90 players, in reality our off season roster limit has always been the same as the regular season, we just never took the time to think of a legit punishment (our punishment until now has always been game dependent and there are no games right now). Therefore never in the NFL are they allowed to be over the roster limit, why should we?

Tom and I took some time To make separate, but pretty much the same rules for both parts of this with the increased punishment. so i'm going to close this and start up the new ones.