Offseason roster limit ideas

[bonscott]

Hi - I have a request.

I would like additional clarification added to the write-up that specifically states that even though a franchise could exceed the roster limit restriction, they will not be able to add players if it would cause them to exceed the salary cap limit. This was a misunderstanding I had in the referenced thread which would have made me vote no.

Right now the current write-up makes reference to penalites associated at the time of the cut-down date in August, but I am under the impression that during the free agent period we will not be able to add players to our rosters if it would cause us to exceed our salary cap.

Before I vote I want to make sure I have a clear understanding.

Thanks.

In the explanation is says this: Salary and contract caps still apply. Does that clarify it or are you looking for something else?

[joe.commish]

Ok, here is my attempt. Please reword as needed.

-----------------------------------------------

Proposal: Lift the roster limits in the offseason starting the week after the last game of the fantasy season. Roster limits reinstated the Saturday before Labor Day each season (August 21st in 2008). August 21st, 2008 is then "cut down day" to get back under the roster limits (just like the NFL has cuts in the preseason) and teams will of course take any salary cap hits and penalties for doing so. Any players cut are immediately available to all teams via the FA offseason auction.

If a team fails to get under the roster limit by the deadline the Commish will automatically drop players from their roster starting from the most recent addition and working back until the team is under the limit. Commish: Feel free to come up with something better but I figured we need a rule of punishment if a team doesn't comply.

Explanation: Roster limits currently are maximum of 20 players plus 2 PR (rookies only). The proposal is to lift that maximum amount in the offseason (PR stays at 2 at all times). Salary and contract caps still apply. So teams that go over the limit will take salary cap hits when they have to cut down to the roster limits in the preseason.

Discussion thread: http://dynastytheleague.com/phpBB3/view ... p?f=5&t=61

What prompted the discussion: It all started with a conversation of what to technically do on the web site since it won't allow us to draft rookies directly to the practice squad, thus making the commish temporarily lift the roster requirements during the rookie draft and then cut it back. Then a suggestion came why don't we just lift roster requirements all together in the offseason so not only does the rookie draft issue go away but also gives teams a lot more flexibility in terms of trades and FA moves. In all cases the salary and contract cap will be strictly enforced and any team that decides to sign more players will have to take cap hits on cut down day . Many dynasty leagues do this as a way to even more simulate what an NFL GM really goes thru.

Please join the discussion thread to ask questions before voting if you don't understand the proposal because even 1 no vote will cause it to fail for this season.

Seems clear to me. I have no issues with this proposal and would support it. As said above, I don't believe it gives any team an advantage and offers a little more flexibility should an owner want to go this route.

[braven112]

I am under the impression that during the free agent period we will not be able to add players to our rosters if it would cause us to exceed our salary cap.

Before I vote I want to make sure I have a clear understanding.

Thanks.

That is 100% correct.

[yugimoto]

Hi - I have a request.

I would like additional clarification added to the write-up that specifically states that even though a franchise could exceed the roster limit restriction, they will not be able to add players if it would cause them to exceed the salary cap limit. This was a misunderstanding I had in the referenced thread which would have made me vote no.

Right now the current write-up makes reference to penalites associated at the time of the cut-down date in August, but I am under the impression that during the free agent period we will not be able to add players to our rosters if it would cause us to exceed our salary cap.

Before I vote I want to make sure I have a clear understanding.

Thanks.

In the explanation is says this: Salary and contract caps still apply. Does that clarify it or are you looking for something else?

I would say I was looking for something more specific versus "else" The sentence following what you bolded above says:

"So teams that go over the limit will take salary cap hits when they have to cut down to the roster limits in the preseason."

This could imply that I do not have to worry about the Salary Cap because I do not have to worry about the penalties until I have to start cutting players.

Granted my request is a minor one, but I wanted to put it out there to make sure I understood. Based on the reply by the commish later in the thread - I have a good understanding. As long as everyone else has a clear and common understanding of the rule then no additional changes or updates are needed.

Thanks.

[braven112]

Hi - I have a request.

I would like additional clarification added to the write-up that specifically states that even though a franchise could exceed the roster limit restriction, they will not be able to add players if it would cause them to exceed the salary cap limit. This was a misunderstanding I had in the referenced thread which would have made me vote no.

Right now the current write-up makes reference to penalites associated at the time of the cut-down date in August, but I am under the impression that during the free agent period we will not be able to add players to our rosters if it would cause us to exceed our salary cap.

Before I vote I want to make sure I have a clear understanding.

Thanks.

In the explanation is says this: Salary and contract caps still apply. Does that clarify it or are you looking for something else?

I would say I was looking for something more specific versus "else" The sentence following what you bolded above says:

"So teams that go over the roster limit will take salary cap hits when they have to cut down to the roster limits in the preseason."

This could imply that I do not have to worry about the Salary Cap because I do not have to worry about the penalties until I have to start cutting players.

Granted my request is a minor one, but I wanted to put it out there to make sure I understood. Based on the reply by the commish later in the thread - I have a good understanding. As long as everyone else has a clear and common understanding of the rule then no additional changes or updates are needed.

Thanks.

I changed the wording to include the word "roster" in front of limit. So it now says:

"So teams that go over the roster limit will take salary cap hits when they have to cut down to the roster limits in the preseason."

[linc]

I don't have a problem with this rule change except, that teams that are over the roster limit can trade players that they most likely would of cut and taken a cap penalty but could trade them to avoid taking a cap hit. I am not going to say this is going to happen often but I see this as a loop hole with the rule. Just my thoughts.

[bonscott]

I don't have a problem with this rule change except, that teams that are over the roster limit can trade players that they most likely would of cut and taken a cap penalty but could trade them to avoid taking a cap hit. I am not going to say this is going to happen often but I see this as a loop hole with the rule. Just my thoughts.

Maybe could happen. But most if not all teams will be at the roster limits pretty quickly after the rookie draft so I think it wouldn't be something that would happen much if at all. Not sure how you can plug the hole. The hole doesn't bother me though cause it will be hard to trade off the extra players come August as nobody is going to have room. So players somewhere will be dropped incurring a cap hit at some point.

But in any case, the rule has already passed with 12 votes which is 75% needed for it to take effect next season. Unfortunately 1 person just voted no today so that means that it can't take effect this season which needs 100%. Oh well.

[braven112]

I don't have a problem with this rule change except, that teams that are over the roster limit can trade players that they most likely would of cut and taken a cap penalty but could trade them to avoid taking a cap hit. I am not going to say this is going to happen often but I see this as a loop hole with the rule. Just my thoughts.

Thats part of the reason I like the rule.

[bonscott]

But in any case, the rule has already passed with 12 votes which is 75% needed for it to take effect next season. Unfortunately 1 person just voted no today so that means that it can't take effect this season which needs 100%. Oh well.

Actually according to the rules a poll is closed after 5 days. The poll opened Friday at 10am (my time anyway) and thus the poll closed Wednesday morning at 10am (yesterday). I believe the no vote was posted yesterday evening after the poll should have officially closed. Which would mean we should have 12 yes and 4 abstains which means 100% yes which should mean this rule takes effect this season.

Am I off base here and too much?

[linc]

Well if we are going down this path then why even have a roster limit? Just have a minimal roster limit then?

[Achon44]

But in any case, the rule has already passed with 12 votes which is 75% needed for it to take effect next season. Unfortunately 1 person just voted no today so that means that it can't take effect this season which needs 100%. Oh well.

Actually according to the rules a poll is closed after 5 days. The poll opened Friday at 10am (my time anyway) and thus the poll closed Wednesday morning at 10am (yesterday). I believe the no vote was posted yesterday evening after the poll should have officially closed. Which would mean we should have 12 yes and 4 abstains which means 100% yes which should mean this rule takes effect this season.

Am I off base here and too much?

Even though the rule says 5 days I think we should go by what was posted when the auction went up.

[braven112]

But in any case, the rule has already passed with 12 votes which is 75% needed for it to take effect next season. Unfortunately 1 person just voted no today so that means that it can't take effect this season which needs 100%. Oh well.

Actually according to the rules a poll is closed after 5 days. The poll opened Friday at 10am (my time anyway) and thus the poll closed Wednesday morning at 10am (yesterday). I believe the no vote was posted yesterday evening after the poll should have officially closed. Which would mean we should have 12 yes and 4 abstains which means 100% yes which should mean this rule takes effect this season.

Am I off base here and too much?

I don't think you are way off base probably technically right but I don't know for 100% when the vote happended. I'd feel more comfortable if we just roll with the original rules for this season and go with the new rules for next season.

[bonscott]

I don't think you are way off base probably technically right but I don't know for 100% when the vote happended. I'd feel more comfortable if we just roll with the original rules for this season and go with the new rules for next season.

That's fine. So it passed for next season then. You'll still need to do some "magic" for this year's rookie draft but not need to worry about it in future seasons.

I think in the future we'll need to be a bit more on top of the closing of the a poll though.