Mariners receive penalty

[Brewers GM]

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.

[Brewers GM]

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).

[Colby]

The Mariners should lose their 10th round pick then. 

[Brewers GM]

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.

[VolsRaysBucs]

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).

 

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.

[Colby]

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 -

[MillerTime]

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.   

[h4cheng]

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).

[Colby]

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.

[MillerTime]

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.