Hard Roster Cap and Minimum Roster Size

[griblets]

I find making transactions quite frustrating. I've worked out a multi-player trade, but the trade can't be approved because it would put me 5 players over the hard roster cap. 4 of which I will cut after the trade. Yet, if I cut 5 players first, it puts my under the roster minimum. Either way, I break the rules. And it's really frustrating if I release the 5 players, only to find out that the trade is not approved. Also, I don't want to cut players on my existing roster - I want to release several players coming to me in the trade.

I'd like to see more flexibility in the ability to make transactions. I suggest a rule change that allows a 24 hour window to get a roster into compliance after transactions are made.

[bonscott]

Couldn't the other team not include the scrubs in the trade so that you're only getting the right number you want/need? That team could drop the scrubs first and the trade proposal is just the players that matter.

This is how I would do it in my league as commish: Both teams get with the commish via email/phone and say this is the trade we are doing and the following players need to be dropped first. Commish can then approve the trade via email making it "a go", the team(s) that need to drop players can do so without worry and then the trade can be processed. *or* the commish can drop the players and process the trade at the same time.

Just a thought for your issue now to get your trade thru. I assume this has to do with trading Rogers which is unique in a way because his salary is sooooo high it's hard for most of us to cut/trade the right combo of players to get enough cap space to have him on our teams.

I'm not addressing the actual proposal which I really don't have an issue with other then it would take manual monitoring to do so.

[griblets]

The scrubs need to be included because my trade partner has to dump salary. I am willing to take on the dead space by dumping the scrubs.

I don't want to put more work on the commissioner (I am one, too, and wouldn't want more work than required), but I would be happy with the solution you suggest where the commish drops the specified scrubs immediately upon approving the trade.

In my leagues (just what Brandon wants to hear), I go with my suggestion in the original post. Each owner is responsible for his own roster with a 24 hour grace period after each transaction, all owners are responsible for reporting any violations by any owner, and there is a fine structure. The fine structure works well in my leagues, as we have a league currency. The only way I could see a fine in this league is with a salary cap hit, but I don't know that this approach is the "right" approach in this league.

My main issue is that I see the "hard" cap as restrictive to transactions. I had a similar issue just prior to the season - I had to drop a player prior to blind bidding for a free agent so that I could have the chance to win the free agent. We shouldn't have to drop a player until we acquire a player. (I think this was discussed and will be resolved next year)

[Wascawy Wabbits]

This is how I would do it in my league as commish: Both teams get with the commish via email/phone and say this is the trade we are doing and the following players need to be dropped first. Commish can then approve the trade via email making it "a go", the team(s) that need to drop players can do so without worry and then the trade can be processed. *or* the commish can drop the players and process the trade at the same time.

This is what I would think as well?
Can the trade not be proposed and accepted along with a note to the commish that players X, Y, and Z are throw ins that need to be dropped for the roster limitations to be met?

If the trade has already been agreed upon, and you're the one that's going to be getting the deadweight, maybe you send the proposal to be accepted with that note?

Guessing this hasn't been done in the past for it to come up, and it's all dependent on how much the Commish wants to intervene to make a transaction go thru.

Interested to see what this deal ends up being when/if works out

[bonscott]

Ok, got the dead weight issue, you're taking on the cap hit to drop those players as part of the deal so the other team frees up enough cap space.

What I can see as a solution then is Brandon can manually adjust the roster max to be enough to cover the trade (or whatever, set it to 50 or something), approve the trade and it will go thru, then immediately take the roster max back down to normal. Now you need to drop the players to get back to the roster max.

[braven112]

First off, I love the creativity to try to get this deal to work, it would be the most complicated deal in league history and I understand the frustration but I think the constraints are what makes league fun and challenging. I would disagree though that we don't have a lot of flexibility. You can have as little as 20 players under contract or as many as 25 during the regular season (during the offseason there are not roster limits) and if you choose to be at either of those limits then you have given yourself some constraints.

These constraints are also a big reason why no one else wanted to pay that much for Aaron Rodgers in the first place. Its a really challenging contract to move, given the number of years you have committed to him. The solution Amish mentioned of having your trade partner drop players first is exactly what we've intended to happen. Though its not quite that simple in your case.

On the flip side if a trade requires you to drop players that you don't want to drop, you need to be compensated by that owner, that's part of the total cost of the trade. We want a system where dumping players cost something. Either a cap hit or an exchange of draft picks.

In a situation where you think you need to drop player to get a trade approved, you would do exactly what you did and send it off to me and then MFL will tell me if it fits within our league rules or not. You don't have to drop guys first if you are unsure. And I would have no problem reversing the drops it the trade wasn't valid for some reason.

In terms of the roster minimum, it was setup to prevent teams of treating the league as a redraft league, where teams put all their money into 10-12 players. We wanted a league where teams are not only competing for this season but also for the future. In non salary cap leagues roster minimums are not necessary because there isn't a benefit of having less players but in our league with large rosters, there is.

The fact that he is having cap issues and roster size problems tells me that the rules are working exactly as intended its not supposed to be easy to take on an extra 11 million dollars. Some teams go into the season with cap space so that can make trades like this, that part is up to each owner.

The unintended consequence of allowing a 24 hours grace period is that it makes it easier to cut/dump players during the season. We want most of our big name players available during the offseason FA period. We even fixed a loophole a year or two ago to ensure that players cut late in the season can't be signed long term and instead have to go through off season Free Agency.

All that said you can make the basics of the trade work. Instead of taking on a 5 low salary players neither of you want, your trade partner needs to figure out how to trade those players to a 3rd team for a draft pick(s). Then he can either keep the pick(s) or send them to you. What ever you guys decide. We've never had a 3 team trade but this is basically what NBA teams do for this exact reason.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

So from the sounds of it, the other team in this trade needs to try and sell their players to someone else to take on the cap to make the deal work

[braven112]

So from the sounds of it, the other team in this trade needs to try and sell their players to someone else to take on the cap to make the deal work

Exactly, they need to free up cap space somehow. Normally they would just drop the players but that would only free up 50% and they need 100%. So a trade for draft picks or a trade that reduces the number of people going over to the Swamp Bandits would work.

Just an example but if a team trades 4 guys at 1 million for one at 4 million that would reduce the number of players involved and make the trade easier to complete as well. There are hundreds of possibilities. Normally when you start a deal with 11 million on one side you match it up with a large contract on the other side to make it easier.

We've never ran into this before but in a round about way our rules are setup so you can't do trades in season that have 5 extra players on one side of the deal because it would put one of the teams above or below the roster limit.

[Poker in the Rear]

In my opinion, it appears the system is indeed working exactly as intended, and if you push yourself to the max, than you have to be prepared to deal with it. If we are going to start tinkering with it ,than you might as well just completely eliminate the roster size cap.

[bonesman]

not sure of the legitimacy of this, but maybe you guys could make it work with multiple trades between the two owners instead of brining in a 3rd party.

So, trade the guys that are gonna get cut for a 3rd (now the party getting AR has cap space)
Then trade AR for the 3rd and whatever else



doesn't seem outside of the lines to me

[griblets]

I appreciate the explanation, yet I'm still left I unsatisfied with why it is okay to break the roster minimum requirement to make the trade work, but it's not okay to break it on the high side to make it work. Giving back players I pre-release in the case of a denied trade only confuses me more.

I'm simply tryi g to make simultaneous transactions (trade for a player and immediately release) which sports franchises sometimes do. MFL simply isn't flexible enough to allow it.

Even if this is not resolved for this trade, I believe this should be addressed in the offseason.

We'll attempt Bonscott's suggestion of multiple trades to get it to work.

[braven112]

I appreciate the explanation, yet I'm still left I unsatisfied with why it is okay to break the roster minimum requirement to make the trade work, but it's not okay to break it on the high side to make it work. Giving back players I pre-release in the case of a denied trade only confuses me more.

It's not okay to break the roster minimum or maximum. If you have to drop more than our rules allow then you can't do the trade. Its really that cut and dry. When I said you had to drop guys first I didn't realize that would drop you below that limit.

If you or anyone else, ever cut guys because they thought they needed to in order to get a trade approved. And for some reason that trade didn't follow the rules and couldn't be completed, I would put the players back on your roster.

Just to be clear, we don't have a rule against dropping players after you trade for them. We just have a roster maximum, a roster minimum and a salary cap, those are your constraints. Any deal that helps both sides in anyway will be approved provided you satisfy those 3 rules.

[Wascawy Wabbits]

Wowza...
So it's was basically a 2nd rounder, Palmer and a bunch of junk for Rodgers, Nate Washington, and 2 TE upgrades for Vit? Looks like I should've tried to make a move on Rodgers as well! Ended up being quite a lot "cheaper" then I thought it would've been.

Looks like Vit making an early season push to try and make it to the finals again..
TC in "Losing for Lee" or "White-flagging for Watkins" mode? Tons of cap space to turn the fortunes around of that team next off season.

[Vitside Mafia]

Yah wth basicly zero cap space for the next upcoming years. I'm all in! Go big or go home and as All would say it-'Just win, baby!'