ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: rcankosy on August 02, 2011, 10:51:15 AM
-
$1m
-
goes back to his original contract for you
-
Correct, until I cut his lameness again. I already pointed out to Colby that there is nothing in the rules preventing us from cutting the same player twice in the same season.
-
Correct. No rules to prevent this, so this is a potential loop hole for the RC to close before we enter our 4th season. Dan Johnson's $4m (2013) contract would be reinstated. Roy would cut him again and then owe $3m this year, $2m next year, and $1m in 2013 saving him an additional $500k this year and $500k next year.
-
I think the new rule should be old contract + new contract. When you release a player you are in essence voiding the contract, yet still owe the player money. When signing them to a new contract, new terms must be applied.
-
I think the new rule should be old contract + new contract. When you release a player you are in essence voiding the contract, yet still owe the player money. When signing them to a new contract, new terms must be applied.
Not a bad idea... Roy gets away with this one while the RC has more work to do.
-
I suggest that the rule next year be "Cap hits plus new contract" since the team is only on the hook for the cap hits, not the entire old contract after releasing him.
-
If the current rule allows a team to cut a player pre-deadline, then re-sign them and cut them again post deadline to save even more, then that is definitely bogus. In my opinion, this would certainly have been 'implied' in the rules, and needs to be explicitly included. While I'd encourage counter arguments, at this point I personally would be against allowing this for this season, since this seems to be a clear case of exploiting the rules rather than misunderstanding them, especially for an RC member...
I would bag the current 're-instates contract' rule which is not realistic, and say you cut the player and the dead money is permanent, then after a certain grace period - say 60 days, but this can certainly be debated - you can try to resign the player following standard rules.
-
If the current rule allows a team to cut a player pre-deadline, then re-sign them and cut them again post deadline to save even more, then that is definitely bogus. In my opinion, this would certainly have been 'implied' in the rules, and needs to be explicitly included. While I'd encourage counter arguments, at this point I personally would be against allowing this for this season, since this seems to be a clear case of exploiting the rules rather than misunderstanding them, especially for an RC member...
I would bag the current 're-instates contract' rule which is not realistic, and say you cut the player and the dead money is permanent, then after a certain grace period - say 60 days, but this can certainly be debated - you can try to resign the player following standard rules.
I take offense at your accusation that I exploited anything. You exploited the rules last year in a much worse way when you traded Fielder AFTER the season for Hosmer when Fielder's contract had clearly expired. A baseball purist like myself would never have believed that such a thing were even possible in a league that purported to simulate real life. Don't take a high and mighty tone with me, because I persoanally cleared it with Colby PRIOR to posting the transaction.
-
I suggest that the rule next year be "Cap hits plus new contract" since the team is only on the hook for the cap hits, not the entire old contract after releasing him.
I didn't write that in the original rules to prevent teams from taking back player at lower salary.
-
In my opinion, dropping a player before the deadline to clear room, resigning him and then dropping him again to save even more room on the original contract is clearly not a realistic situation. In my post, I invited counter arguments in case I was not seeing the entire picture, and still encourage anyone including yourself to discuss why this is realistic and should be allowed. Furthermore, I would like to hear if anyone thought this was within the original intent of the rules, as that would change my stance on whether or not it should be permitted. This is just my personal stance, obviously the league and/or commish may be of the opinion that for this season we go by the letter as it's written and judging by Colby's earlier post it seems he's of the opinion it should be allowed for now.
My comment about being an RC member was that I would expect us to all work by the intention of the rules we write and bring up any loopholes during rule creation or as a modification proposal rather than after we use it as a loophole. Re-reading my post, I understand why it could be interpreted as condescending and I apologize for that, it was not my intention - my bad.
-
I suggest that the rule next year be "Cap hits plus new contract" since the team is only on the hook for the cap hits, not the entire old contract after releasing him.
1. I wouldn't vote for this
2. We need to move the discussion elsewhere
-
We need to move all of this discussion to the main board. That's my main focus. Scoring should be #1 focus by RC, updating waiver rules for next year, and then some small adjustments.
-
On the Fielder topic, I can't claim to have an unbiased opinion but I do think it was a different situation. At the time, myself and a number of other owners fully believed it was within the intent of the rules to trade expiring contracts after the season as many owners had done so and there had been no opposition to that point. Since then, with the marquee players moved, many owners expressed their objection to the rules as they were written noting that it was unrealistic. We have all reached an agreement on the topic and revised the rules accordingly.
I would liken it to gathering GB heavy pitchers - there is a strong opposition to the current scoring rules which are accused of overweighting GB's and a desire to revise the system, but we all understand what it is today and play the game accordingly. If you think the same argument can be made for dropping a player twice, then please make it.
-
Sorry guys, please move whatever needs to be moved and we'll continue from the main board.
-
In my opinion, dropping a player before the deadline to clear room, resigning him and then dropping him again to save even more room on the original contract is clearly not a realistic situation. In my post, I invited counter arguments in case I was not seeing the entire picture, and still encourage anyone including yourself to discuss why this is realistic and should be allowed. Furthermore, I would like to hear if anyone thought this was within the original intent of the rules, as that would change my stance on whether or not it should be permitted. This is just my personal stance, obviously the league and/or commish may be of the opinion that for this season we go by the letter as it's written and judging by Colby's earlier post it seems he's of the opinion it should be allowed for now.
My comment about being an RC member was that I would expect us to all work by the intention of the rules we write and bring up any loopholes during rule creation or as a modification proposal rather than after we use it as a loophole. Re-reading my post, I understand why it could be interpreted as condescending and I apologize for that, it was not my intention - my bad.
Apology accepted. I cannot speak to the original intent of this rule, but I can share the reasoning behind my current move. I only saved 500K when I originally released Dan Johnson, and I had planned on using my current cap space of 500K (4m salary minus 3.5m cap hit) to re-sign him prior to cutting him for a second time. It was not simply a matter of re-instating the original contract and cutting him again prior to freeing up the funds to do so. By paying the 500K difference to re-aquire Johnson, I was essentially nullifying the prior transaction, so I saw no harm in it.
-
Rescinded by the Rangers
Approved by the Commissioner's Office
Loop hole in the rules found and will be resolved