The League

From the discussion in this thread:

http://www.theleague.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1228

Even if this is unanimous this rule wouldn't take effect until Feb 15th, 2013.

bump

Seems like we always get 1 no vote with no explanation of what we missed that caused the no vote. LOL

Well, I can't speak for the first vote against it, but I'm the second vote. Offseason hoarding was brought up in the discussion thread and the consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be an issue, but I'm not convinced it won't be exacerbated if we lift the cap. Just my

bocious wrote:Well, I can't speak for the first vote against it, but I'm the second vote. Offseason hoarding was brought up in the discussion thread and the consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be an issue, but I'm not convinced it won't be exacerbated if we lift the cap. Just my

Cool. I think offseason hording will happen I'm sure for a few teams. I know personally I would have tried to pick up a couple more guys this offseason without the cap. But they will pay for it though come cut down day so there is a downside for a team that opts to go this route. For me it's not enough of a downside vs. the upside.

I appreciate the comment. I only posted something because it seems most of our rule votes get 1, maybe 2 no votes yet nothing in the discussion thread to point out a downside perhaps the rest of us missed. Plus I thought it was funny.

I think it will be an insignificant issue, but if it becomes an issue, I think I'd rather see it addressed with an off season roster size cap.

I voted no because I like that it is one more factor that helps to promote turnover in the rosters.

bonscott wrote:I only posted something because it seems most of our rule votes get 1, maybe 2 no votes yet nothing in the discussion thread to point out a downside perhaps the rest of us missed. Plus I thought it was funny.

I posted in the earlier thread what I thought could be a downside.

griblets wrote:I think it will be an insignificant issue, but if it becomes an issue, I think I'd rather see it addressed with an off season roster size cap.

That could be an interesting compromise if a 5th "no" vote emerges in the next couple of hours. If the "yes" votes win (and I'm assuming they will), we can keep this in our back pockets if it becomes an issue. Good idea.

griblets wrote:I think it will be an insignificant issue, but if it becomes an issue, I think I'd rather see it addressed with an off season roster size cap.

Looks like this has officially passed but if this becomes an issue I 100% agree.

So what would be a better off-season roster limit? Why not discuss it now when we got the chance?

I'll start the conversation. How about 50% roster limit increase during the off season, allowing for 33 players per roster? The most anyone has right now is 31 (plus taxi).

But I don't really think this will be an issue. If someone wants to sign 20 extra players, only to cut them when the rosters must be reduced, the cap penalty will be significant. Even at minimum salaries, the cap penalty in that scenario would be $4.25M for the current season. Seems like enough of a deterrent to me. But, I'm just a newb. What do I know?

yugimoto wrote:I voted no because I like that it is one more factor that helps to promote turnover in the rosters.

I think I missed voting on this and the discussion but I agree with the above post. I would have voted no for what it's worth (which is nothing).

as well i missed the vote, but would have voted no