ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: Colby on July 06, 2011, 01:51:13 PM
-
The Seattle Mariners, who have been warned repeatedly about their roster violations, are receiving a penalty. Matt still needs to release a player to be at 40 players. The penalty is 10% of the salary cap which equates to $10.5m in 2011. Please keep your roster legal at all times. Whenever making moves, make sure you have the drops ready ahead of time.
-
How would a team at the cap or near the cap get under the cap with a 10% penalty? Would it make more sense to apply the penalty to the season following the one in which the infraction occurred?
-
How would a team at the cap or near the cap get under the cap with a 10% penalty? Would it make more sense to apply the penalty to the season following the one in which the infraction occurred?
It is what we have had in the rules. I do think that part of the rulebook could be cleaned up for the better. GMs receive warning and then if they do not comply within 24 hours, penalties hit - that's fine, but the actual penalties could be better. The GM's roster should be automatically corrected to fix the roster violation on top of the penalty.
The automatic fix could be the release of players in the following priority order.
1) Expiring contract -> long-term contract, players with 2011/P-2011 contracts would be dropped before 2012+ contracts
2) Salary lowest -> highest, players with $500k contracts would be dropped before $5m contracts
3) Prospects -> prospect contracts which can be dropped for free would be released free
4) Points scored -> if there are two expiring prospect contracts and the roster violation is a 41-player roster $500k over cap then the player with less total points for the season will be released
5) In the event of a tie in deciding which player needs to be dropped, drop in alphabetical order A-Z, last name then first name, so an example of Evan Meek would be released before Henry Rodriguez.
-
I don't think automatically cutting someone is a good idea. It is very easy to mistakingly think your roster will be ok after a flurry of trades and miss by 0.5M or so, and it can sometime take a week or longer until rosters are updated to confirm. By then, you may not be able to respond within 24-hours simply because you're not by a computer.
I do think it's the owner's responsibility to check carefully themselves so penalties are good, but I don't think we need to make it worse by automatically cutting someone the owner might have wanted to keep.
-
Giving out repeated 10% cap penalties is brutal though.
-
rather than losing cap or players, how about the offending team start lose draft picks?
-
i like that. they just lose the lowest pick
-
rather than losing cap or players, how about the offending team start lose draft picks?
I thought about that... Easier to administer. This is what we did before.... And I would rather go that route here. A contingency plan will be needed when picks run out though.
-
I would be in favor of draft picks as well.
-
if they run out of all 10 picks they should be replaced because 10 days to fix your roster is plenty of time
-
Giving out repeated 10% cap penalties is brutal though.
Is it written that we would keep hitting the team with another penalty, for a single uncorrected offense, or did you mean subsequent offenses?
For either salary or picks, we can start taking away from future years as well.
-
if they run out of all 10 picks they should be replaced because 10 days to fix your roster is plenty of time
Once the first penalty is enforced (so after the 24-hour official warning notice) I think they should be given 72-hour or week long period before the next penalty is dealt. If it does happen, the person is probably not able to access a computer and the last thing we want is to open the door of special exceptions because then everyone will have an excuse they think qualifies.
The other issue with this rule is that a repeat offender is probably someone who will not be with the league for long, and all we're doing is handicapping the next owner who did nothing wrong. I think we should consider that as we come up with any rule changes that affect future seasons (such as cap hits in the future or draft picks).
-
The Mariners should lose their 10th round pick then. :judge:
-
I don't think we should change the rule on the fly like that, at least without some more discussion from the rest of the RC.
-
Once the first penalty is enforced (so after the 24-hour official warning notice) I think they should be given 72-hour or week long period before the next penalty is dealt. If it does happen, the person is probably not able to access a computer and the last thing we want is to open the door of special exceptions because then everyone will have an excuse they think qualifies.
The other issue with this rule is that a repeat offender is probably someone who will not be with the league for long, and all we're doing is handicapping the next owner who did nothing wrong. I think we should consider that as we come up with any rule changes that affect future seasons (such as cap hits in the future or draft picks).
:iatp:
I am in agreement with this here...we would have to be very careful so as not to handicap the team for a potential "new GM." I do like the idea of losing draft picks, but perhaps we can cap it at say 1 or 2 picks. If we fairly space the time out required to respond to each subsequent "penalty" and that GM still has not complied, in my mind we have auto-grounds to replace them. An owner willing to forfeit draft picks is probably an owner willing to forfeit his team...not concrete evidence, but a pretty strong indicator IMO.
-
:iatp:
In that case, let's continue with the current Mariners penalty. I want to put up for RC vote the following...
Roster violations are made official by a warning. Failure to respond to such a warning in 72 hours results in a penalty of losing the last draft pick in the upcoming draft. There is a five pick limit in which two or more penalties is ground for replacement (beyond our own two-week activity standards). Once a team hits the five pick limit then they will receive 10% cap hits for the current season. If such a move puts them over cap then the 10% cap hit will apply in the following season. If that puts them over a future cap, then the cap hits will move to another future years.
YAY - Colby
NAY -
-
In Mike's post, I think he brought up an important point to address. If a team under penalty is being hit with the 10% of cap and the GM is replaced, steps down, etc. we should allow the New GM a one time fix (72 hours of becoming new GM) of the issue and remove the penalty. The draft picks are gone, but this way a new GM is not hampered with 10% of cap being removed for an action they did not cause.
-
:iatp:
In that case, let's continue with the current Mariners penalty. I want to put up for RC vote the following...
Roster violations are made official by a warning. Failure to respond to such a warning in 72 hours results in a penalty of losing the last draft pick in the upcoming draft. There is a five pick limit in which two or more penalties is ground for replacement (beyond our own two-week activity standards). Once a team hits the five pick limit then they will receive 10% cap hits for the current season. If such a move puts them over cap then the 10% cap hit will apply in the following season. If that puts them over a future cap, then the cap hits will move to another future years.
YAY - Colby
NAY -
I am in agreement with the losing pick stipulation. I also think that the 10% cap hit is too severe .If a team hits the 5 pick limit, it might be better to limit their roster size instead. E.g., 39 max instead of 40 player max).
-
The 10% cap hit is severe which is why I brought up the idea of changing the penalty. I don't like the idea of cutting roster sizes down... that isn't administratively friendly.
-
Another idea is to mirror fantrax for illegal roster. Forfeit a week and continue forfeit weeks until it is fixed. Adminstratively it we would set an illegal roster for that team.
Goes to wins and losses and not to cap or draft picks. Just another option.
-
Rob just brought a good idea in the above post. I am torn on this. My main concern is penalizing a "team" when in fact it is the "GM" that should be penalized. Allow me to explain...Generally speaking, a team in cap trouble has other issues as well. In a lot of the cases, the "trouble" is the result of negligence. This negligence in many cases has manifested itself in the form of poor roster maneuvers, missed free agency periods, not protecting guys, ect. My worry is that we are going to apply a penalty that will further degrade an already deteriorating situation. I like the ideas of forfeits being applied. The wins and loses absolutely count in this league in the form of future cap room, ect, but it does not carry with it the perpetuity of lost roster spots or draft picks. We always have to keep an eye on the next guy so to speak. In leagues of this scope, one almost has to make decisions based on the "next guy who will be GM of that team." I hope that makes sense. Negligent owners get weeded out, either on their own accord or that of the league's majority. Forfeits most effectively penalize the perpetrator while at the same time, leave the team's assets intact for a new GM. In my mind, an orphaned team lacking resources is a bigger problem for the league long-term. The forfeits could also better weed out guys who aren't putting in the due diligence required to be competitive in this league. This concludes my dissertation lol.
-
:iatp:
-
I just have to throw in my 2 cents and say that the 10% is a huge penalty and will push away owners, granted not the best owners if they are never on. Also a good point was made about it affecting future owners which shouldnt happen either. I like the draft pick idea the most but we could also take a smaller penalty, like 2%. Thats still a good penalty but doesnt cripple the team. I do really think that the draft picks is the way to go.
-
I just have to throw in my 2 cents and say that the 10% is a huge penalty and will push away owners, granted not the best owners if they are never on. Also a good point was made about it affecting future owners which shouldnt happen either. I like the draft pick idea the most but we could also take a smaller penalty, like 2%. Thats still a good penalty but doesnt cripple the team. I do really think that the draft picks is the way to go.
:iatp:
-
My proposal:
a) Losing up to 5 picks after warning (starting from round 9)
b) If still no action, week's score forfeited (I put this second because it could affect multiple teams)
-
My proposal:
a) Losing up to 5 picks after warning (starting from round 9)
b) If still no action, week's score forfeited (I put this second because it could affect multiple teams)
Does your proposal suggest that the 10th round pick always stays? I don't like the idea of the week's score being forfeitted as it is unfair to the competition of the teams that benefit. It is a good idea, but I'm not a fan of the results. Freddy's 2% cap hit is a good idea. Ultimately though, if someone has a warning, and receives a penalty every 72 hours, for 5-6 straight penalties, then that is 2-3 weeks of not responding to the violations meaning one of the following.
1) GM is inactive for at least two weeks without prior notice. This is against our activity policy and opens the possibility of forcing the GM to resign.
2) GM is blatantly ignoring violations and wants to get around the rules. There should be no place for this either.
I think the first five rounds should be protected, so draft picks 6-10 and then 2% cap penalties should suffice for a full season. If we were strict with this in the past then the most we would have seen was 4-5 penalties in a year.
-
I agree with you Colby. Chances are we will never go beyond the 5 round scenario.
-
Does your proposal suggest that the 10th round pick always stays? I don't like the idea of the week's score being forfeitted as it is unfair to the competition of the teams that benefit. It is a good idea, but I'm not a fan of the results. Freddy's 2% cap hit is a good idea. Ultimately though, if someone has a warning, and receives a penalty every 72 hours, for 5-6 straight penalties, then that is 2-3 weeks of not responding to the violations meaning one of the following.
1) GM is inactive for at least two weeks without prior notice. This is against our activity policy and opens the possibility of forcing the GM to resign.
2) GM is blatantly ignoring violations and wants to get around the rules. There should be no place for this either.
I think the first five rounds should be protected, so draft picks 6-10 and then 2% cap penalties should suffice for a full season. If we were strict with this in the past then the most we would have seen was 4-5 penalties in a year.
:iatp: :iatp:
-
I would be in favor of something harsher. I would protect the 1st round pick and start by taking away the 2nd round pick and moving down for repeated infractions.
-
I like the higher round pick forfeiture idea by Roy - rounds 5-10, who cares? Plus if said team is forfeiting a week, then they will move up in the draft pick order. Another scenario is to drop them to the back of every round instead of taking away picks.
I understand that we don't want another GM to take over a bad situation caused by inactivity, but we as a league can only do so much to protect each franchise. Some people look at taking over a bad team as a challenge. Not to say the M's are a bad team, they are definitely better than last year, but you get my gist. Several recent GMs took over awful teams and have improved them. It is all part of the challenge.
-
Administratively, handling the shifting of one's position in the draft would be something more to track. Simply removing picks would be more ideal. How about we focus on the draft pick window of rounds three through seven?
-
Personally I like the idea of starting with a 10th round pick because it has little impact... in most cases infractions will be accidents and lack of internet access. This way we don't need to make exceptions for the first few times it happens, since the penalty is gradual.
I would vote that after we hit the 5th round picks then we should be reviewing the owner for termination...
-
Rob just brought a good idea in the above post. I am torn on this. My main concern is penalizing a "team" when in fact it is the "GM" that should be penalized. Allow me to explain...Generally speaking, a team in cap trouble has other issues as well. In a lot of the cases, the "trouble" is the result of negligence. This negligence in many cases has manifested itself in the form of poor roster maneuvers, missed free agency periods, not protecting guys, ect. My worry is that we are going to apply a penalty that will further degrade an already deteriorating situation. I like the ideas of forfeits being applied. The wins and loses absolutely count in this league in the form of future cap room, ect, but it does not carry with it the perpetuity of lost roster spots or draft picks. We always have to keep an eye on the next guy so to speak. In leagues of this scope, one almost has to make decisions based on the "next guy who will be GM of that team." I hope that makes sense. Negligent owners get weeded out, either on their own accord or that of the league's majority. Forfeits most effectively penalize the perpetrator while at the same time, leave the team's assets intact for a new GM. In my mind, an orphaned team lacking resources is a bigger problem for the league long-term. The forfeits could also better weed out guys who aren't putting in the due diligence required to be competitive in this league. This concludes my dissertation lol.
:iatp:
What about if the owner don't comply with the rules in 72 hours last changes or picks will be reverse.
-
Im not sure if this was said or not but they should be top 10 overall protected.
-
We also need to look at this from another perspective. There are a few GMs that are taking advantage of the lag between updates, even though it is down to a week. These GMs have rostered 41 - 45 players at a time and then make adjustments when they are asked to. I am not a fan of "Catch Me if you Can" or "Ask for Forgiveness Later" mantality.
I would like the league to look at GMs that have multiple instances of this, even if they fix it within the 24 hours period. Let's say 3 or 4 in a season, would constitute a similar penalty. This would only apply if a GM has an illegal roster 3 or 4 times throughout the year and we keep track on the spreadsheet.
-
We also need to look at this from another perspective. There are a few GMs that are taking advantage of the lag between updates, even though it is down to a week. These GMs have rostered 41 - 45 players at a time and then make adjustments when they are asked to. I am not a fan of "Catch Me if you Can" or "Ask for Forgiveness Later" mantality.
I would like the league to look at GMs that have multiple instances of this, even if they fix it within the 24 hours period. Let's say 3 or 4 in a season, would constitute a similar penalty. This would only apply if a GM has an illegal roster 3 or 4 times throughout the year and we keep track on the spreadsheet.
One possible solution would be that when making a bid, the GM must also include a player to be dropped (if the move would put him over the roster limit).
-
One possible solution would be that when making a bid, the GM must also include a player to be dropped (if the move would put him over the roster limit).
I would NOT be in favor of that. I would prefer Rob's suggestion. I don't think it's fair to ask GMs to commit to dropping a specific player when there is no guarantee of getting the player you're bidding on. Bids can sometimes last for over a week, and a player's value can change over that time. Imo, we don't need new rules, but much like gun laws we need to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. Sorry to get all political on you guys, but it's the first thing that popped in my head.
-
The penalty should be assessed after one warning each season. The rule that moves must be made within 24 hours of the winning bid just need to be enforced. Everyone should be aware of how many roster spots and how much salary cap space they have.
I am not in favor of naming a player to be waived at the time a bid is placed. Injuries or other situations can occur within the 72 hours needed to win a bid.
-
I know I am not on the rules committee and I am still the 2nd newest member in FGM, but I'd like to throw my 2 cents into the equation here. Multiple transactions are made here every couple of days usually which likely will bring teams over the cap/roster limits. Instead of imposing penalties that Miller, Howe, and/or Colb has to keep track of, what I do in my league is not allow any team to go over either of these ever period. If a trade, FA signing, w/e it may be puts you over, then the transaction is nullified. I do agree with Miller that teams should be weary of their financials and inventory. I signed up for too many leagues lol so I sometimes forget where I am at sometimes. I'd say perhaps discuss that idea in the off-season if you guys choose to and then it eliminates some debate about how to handle this.
-
fantasyguru is proposing clearing room before you make a move... may be the easiest route. Trades could be held up and FA bids could be lost.
-
I really don't like that scenario because it it outs a lot of onus on getting the Profsl rosters out more than once a week. I honestly don't think being a little over your budget is such a big deal since we can all just cut players. I watch my roster like a hawk and even I have made mistakes this year. I assume that I am not the only one. If it is a continuing problem then yes there should be a course of action in place, and if the overage last longer than several days or two weeks then you lose your team, plain and simple.
A lot of us work hard to make our deals match up, and to erase them because of a slight fiscal error I believe will do more harm than good. Just my opinion. So far this year we have had more or less 30 active GMs, and I believe with the current crew we have next year should be even better.
-
One possible solution would be that when making a bid, the GM must also include a player to be dropped (if the move would put him over the roster limit).
I should clarify: the drop would only occur if the transaction is processed.
This is the way it's done in yahoo! when you put in a waiver claim, I dont see why we cant use it here.