Mariners receive penalty

[Colby]

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?

[Brewers GM]

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...

[MOLI643]

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.

 


What about if the owner don't comply with the rules in 72 hours last changes or picks will be reverse.

[joeshmoe]

Im not sure if this was said or not but they should be top 10 overall protected.

[MillerTime]

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. 

[h4cheng]

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).

[rcankosy]

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.

[Paul S.]

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. 

[Orange Country]

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.

[Colby]

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.