The League

I was going to try to open a bid on a rookie with the intent of moving him to one of the taxi squad spots I have if I won him. However, I do get a message from MFL that won't allow it because it would exceed my roster limit since I already have 20 roster spots taken. I ran this by the commish and he urged me to post this here since he didn't think the league had come across this yet.

So I guess the question is -- can you only add a rookie to your taxi squad when you draft him? It would seem the answer to that is 'no' since there are FA rookies up for bid now and I have to think some of those guys will end up on a taxi squad. As it is now, it appears the only way to pull this off now is to save yourself a roster spot so that you can place a bid, then slot them over.

That seems more of a technical advantage more than anything else. The obvious solution would be to ease the roster limits in some sort of short term way. It's clear the spirit of the rules allow 2 rookies on the taxi squad.

joe.commish wrote:I was going to try to open a bid on a rookie with the intent of moving him to one of the taxi squad spots I have if I won him. However, I do get a message from MFL that won't allow it because it would exceed my roster limit since I already have 20 roster spots taken. I ran this by the commish and he urged me to post this here since he didn't think the league had come across this yet.

So I guess the question is -- can you only add a rookie to your taxi squad when you draft him? It would seem the answer to that is 'no' since there are FA rookies up for bid now and I have to think some of those guys will end up on a taxi squad. As it is now, it appears the only way to pull this off now is to save yourself a roster spot so that you can place a bid, then slot them over.

That seems more of a technical advantage more than anything else. The obvious solution would be to ease the roster limits in some sort of short term way. It's clear the spirit of the rules allow 2 rookies on the taxi squad.

We tried to "ease the roster limits" when we voted to adopt the unlimited off season roster. Unfortunately it was not voted in for this year, but it will be implemented next year, so next year this will no longer be an issue. IMO things should stay the way they are until then.

It is an "issue" in the regular season as well. However, that is why I try to keep only 19 on the active roster or a 3rd rookie so that I can swap around with ease (not that the minimum roster is 18 so you don't have to be at 20). You'll see this in the regular season if you want to activate one of your 2 rookies to start him. If you're full up with 20 you'll have to either drop someone to promote the rookie or have a rookie on the active roster you can demote in a swap.

Roster management.

But yea, next year in the offseason there won't be any roster limits so no problem at all. But still something to keep in mind during the season.

There was a post by someone that we should just eliminate all roster limits and just let the caps limit our teams but I'm not sure that got a lot of support.

OK, now it is sinking in. I obviously wasn't grasping the reality of the roster situation. Not a big deal, I was just going to take a flyer on a guy.

No problem, you're new.

I was going to bring this up as well.

It's my opinion that any rookie (drafted or won in auction) should be available to put on the taxi squad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we were able to add a rookie at any time last year and assign him to the PS... no?

bonesman wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but we were able to add a rookie at any time last year and assign him to the PS... no?

Not if our main rosters were at 20.

Achon44 wrote:

bonesman wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but we were able to add a rookie at any time last year and assign him to the PS... no?

Not if our main rosters were at 20.

ah... I see what Amish was saying now... that seems a little silly though to me. If you have 20 and a spot on the practice squad I don't see why you should have to drop to 19 to add that rook to the PS.

bonesman wrote:

Achon44 wrote:

bonesman wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but we were able to add a rookie at any time last year and assign him to the PS... no?

Not if our main rosters were at 20.

ah... I see what Amish was saying now... that seems a little silly though to me. If you have 20 and a spot on the practice squad I don't see why you should have to drop to 19 to add that rook to the PS.

It will be nice next year since we won't have to worry about it in the offseason, if MFL would allow you to add players directly to the PS that would be great but since there is no way to automate the process it makes it kind of a pain in the ass.

oh yea... what are we going to do about years for rookie FAs? Are we going to be able to wait until August on them too?... or are they treated as a regular FA?

bonesman wrote:oh yea... what are we going to do about years for rookie FAs? Are we going to be able to wait until August on them too?... or are they treated as a regular FA?

I was just about to post a contract for Johnson, because I thought the August deadline was only for draft picks. IMO I feel it should only be for draft picks.

Should only apply to draft picks I'd say. Anything in the auction must get a contract even if it's a rookie.

bonesman wrote:oh yea... what are we going to do about years for rookie FAs? Are we going to be able to wait until August on them too?... or are they treated as a regular FA?

Regular FA's

bonscott wrote:Should only apply to draft picks I'd say. Anything in the auction must get a contract even if it's a rookie.

I agree as well.

joe.commish wrote:

bonscott wrote:Should only apply to draft picks I'd say. Anything in the auction must get a contract even if it's a rookie.

I agree as well.

I'm not sure I agree... but I definitely expected this to be the situation.

It'll be interesting to see if we go w/ another round or more years assigned or a bigger practice squad... or whatever.

I'm personally leaning AWAY from more years... but FOR a bigger practice squad/more rounds.

It sickens me to imagine someone scoring MJD for 7 years at 425K... or Charles Johnson for 7 starting at 1M. Ya know?

I can probably be swayed. But that's my opinion at this moment.

bonesman wrote:

joe.commish wrote:

bonscott wrote:Should only apply to draft picks I'd say. Anything in the auction must get a contract even if it's a rookie.

I agree as well.

I'm not sure I agree... but I definitely expected this to be the situation.

It'll be interesting to see if we go w/ another round or more years assigned or a bigger practice squad... or whatever.

I'm personally leaning AWAY from more years... but FOR a bigger practice squad/more rounds.

It sickens me to imagine someone scoring MJD for 7 years at 425K... or Charles Johnson for 7 starting at 1M. Ya know?

I can probably be swayed. But that's my opinion at this moment.

I see that point of view........

bonesman wrote:It sickens me to imagine someone scoring MJD for 7 years at 425K... or Charles Johnson for 7 starting at 1M. Ya know?

I can probably be swayed. But that's my opinion at this moment.

This is a dynasty league...