Cap violation penalty ruling

[Burt the Butcher]

Vote in this poll to decide what the penalty for being in cap violation or misassignment of rookie squads.

[Preds]

I just posted this in the Bloodsuckers Violation thread, but it may be more useful to you here.

Originally Posted by Preds

I don't have a stake in this, but IMO teams should be assessed a cap penalty as well.

As for Frank's discussion about teams having 24 hours to get under when exceeding the cap or years, this is nowhere near that situation. 2 teams over assigned rookies.

My

1 - Release the lowest drafted rookie. Teams shouldn't have a say after this kind of mess up, and to make the commish's and the roster app dude's lives easier (they shouldn't have to wait on a team that screwed up to fix this type of error), it should be the lowest man drafted gets released...period.

2 - Make the released rookie's contract guaranteed. i.e. FINE the offending teams 20% of the released players salary PLUS the Signing Bonus for whatever multiyear deal was assigned.

[PencilGeeks]

I agree with Preds on this one, there should be a cap penalty in addition to cutting the rookie loose... Interesting the 'newbies' didn't screw this stuff up ;)

[Flaxwless]

As I said in the other thread

Losing a rookie draft pick is a big enough penalty. That's a free developmental player gone, wasted.

I don't think there was much waiting here to see who I would want to drop. I mean sure it can default to the lowest draft pick if it wasn't fixed in the allotted time period when the violation was brought up, but before then why not?

2 - That would be stupid to change the basis of the rookie contract as we assigned rookie years with the thinking that they are not guaranteed until they hit the active roster.

I can understand if this situation was outlined in the rules... but it isn't. TS and rookie draft picks are developmental players with non-guaranteed contracts. So losing a rookie draft pick is a HUGE penalty for a simple error that could have and would have been easily fixed without penalty.

I mean people who FORGOT TO DECLARE ROOKIES are allowed to go back in time and assign years. For a simple miscalculation... you are suggesting I LOSE A DRAFT PICK AND TAKE A CAP HIT on a non-guaranteed salary? Talk about excessive.

My solution:

Team has the choice of draft pick to drop within 24 hrs of violation being made aware. If no rookie has been assigned to be cut, then it defaults to the lowest draft pick.

Simple. Fair for everyone.

It amazes me that we're suddenly going to make rookie contracts guaranteed so we can take a cap hit. I don't understand how losing my 3rd round draft pick and a player who I had rights to for the next 3 years without counting against my salary is not penalty enough.

That's basically the equivalent of those who forgot to declare years and we're actually getting punished harsher than them.

Those who forgot to declare years were allowed to go back in time to fix their assignments and faced only a cap penalty AND if they are with us next year a draft pick.

For those of us who miscalculated our years WE ARE BEING FORCED ALREADY TO LOSE A DRAFT PICK!!!

How is that possible? Why is our transgression worse than those who forgot to declare years altogether?

[Popes]

Sorry to butt in and I'm not reading this issue as closely as the rest of you SACD guys, but isn't Frank's comparison apples to oranges because the "forgot to assign" crowd got an exception purely because you don't want to punish the new team owners that will have to take over this team next year? If they were long-term owners like you, they'd take the normal penalties - no exceptions. You can't harp all over the exception when making your comparison and have it be a valid comparison.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Popes

Sorry to butt in and I'm not reading this issue as closely as the rest of you SACD guys, but isn't Frank's comparison apples to oranges because the "forgot to assign" crowd got an exception purely because you don't want to punish the new team owners that will have to take over this team next year? If they were long-term owners like you, they'd take the normal penalties - no exceptions. You can't harp all over the exception when making your comparison and have it be a valid comparison.

Exactly. I already have to lose a draft pick by being forced to cut a rookie.

Those guys will only face a cap penalty and MAYBE lose a draft pick if they are returning next year. It's BS.

The least I can do is at least have a choice of what draft pick I want to drop.

Hell I'd rather not cut any of my guys and face a cap penalty instead.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Exactly. I already have to lose a draft pick by being forced to cut a rookie.

Those guys will only face a cap penalty and MAYBE lose a draft pick if they are returning next year. It's BS.

The least I can do is at least have a choice of what draft pick I want to drop.

Hell I'd rather not cut any of my guys and face a cap penalty instead.

You are still comparing apples to oranges. Your situation is NOT the same as the teams that neglected to declare their contract. The only similarity is they both deal with rookies. Yours IS the same situation as the person who won a bid on a FA which put them over the cap. Which is why the penalty is LIKE that one.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

You are still comparing apples to oranges. Your situation is NOT the same as the teams that neglected to declare their contract. The only similarity is they both deal with rookies. Yours IS the same situation as the person who won a bid on a FA which put them over the cap. Which is why the penalty is LIKE that one.

It maybe apples to oranges... but which was is a bigger gaffe? Which was has more impact on a roster/future of the league? But I look at it to see if the punishment equals the crime. IMO, not assigning rookies contract years is a bigger offense than going over the cap by 37 cbs b/c I forgot Drew Carter's cut.

Yes, it's not identical situations and one reason why is BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY RULES IN PLACE FOR FORGETTING TO DECLARE YOUR ROOKIES. Yet, we felt sorry for them and future owners.... SO WE SEVERELY BENT THE RULES FOR THEM.

I understand that it could be a crippler to a franchise, but that's the rules and we gave them MAJOR leeway. Again the punishment breaks down:

Forget to declare rookies years
- Current Rules: Should be free agents
- What we did? Cap penalty.... MAYBE loss of draft pick next year.

Over the cap due to TS promotion
- Current rules: None
- What we did? Force to cut taxi squad player w/o choice

Yep. It's apple to oranges because on situation was ALREADY CLEARLY OUTLINED in the rules while the other is brand freakin new. I'm just asking for some of the leeway granted to those guys.

[Burt the Butcher]

This is one reason I so love being commish.

Not sure what else to say Frank. I created a vote to try and ammend there not being a rule for this situation. I tried to go with what I felt was the majority feeling amounst all owners. I feel we should also ammend the rules for negelecting to declare rookie contracts in time, as I feel that is way too severe for this type of league, especially if we want to attract new owner whenever there is turnover, and I am sure there will continue to be.

[Popes]

I guess Frank has illustrated why you can never bend a rule as a one-time exception, even when the owners agrees on it for the long-term health of the league: because someone will then use that exception as a battering ram to argue everything else is unfair by making erroneous comparisons. And it works because *everything* does look unfair when you compare it to the exception.

I feel for ya Burt.

[Popes]

Also note, those guys aren't getting leeway. The people who are going to take over their crappy teams and have to dig out from a hole are getting leeway. If they come back next year, they get the full brunt of the penalties, not leeway.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Popes

I guess Frank has illustrated why you can never bend a rule as a one-time exception, even when the owners agrees on it for the long-term health of the league: because someone will then use that exception as a battering ram to argue everything else is unfair by making erroneous comparisons. And it works because *everything* does look unfair when you compare it to the exception.

I feel for ya Burt.

Agreed, and thanks for the comments! I feel that exceptions need to be made at times, and that the rules for not submitting rookie declarations was much too harsh, and given the circumstances of both teams potentially being turned over next year, felt it necessary to make the exception. I also feel the rule needs to be re-written and also felt we needed to clarify this rule.

And I do have thick skin and for the most part, everyone here is understanding and fear that I might make them take my job ;-)

[benm3218]

Noob here.

I am going to get a bit more involved based on a few private messages I got form several of you. I guess being a FNG you end up thinking you better let the ones in the league who understand this iron out the flaws.

One thing I will say though even this is a closed topic, just so you all can get a bit of a guage on where I would stand.

First I understand why the decision was made to not hurt a new owner we have to attract to join. We might not get anyone if we had them join and suffer a rediculously harsh penalty. BUT, then you DO have the problem of perceived impartiality. And, the problem is that even if one person thinks that it is unfair as does FlaxWless, then thats a big problem... (with no solution)

I think in the offseason we should look at adding clauses that would come into effect in the event that a new owner is going to be penalized for something outside his control. That way it is decided before hand that the rules are in place for all of us, but can change for a new owner. In this case, I think we have a very good commish who tries to be fair and uphold the integrity of the league. We just need to go with this decision especially since the vote above seems almost unanimous.

[Burt the Butcher]

OK, this did not pass last year....close but no cigar...is there enough interest to poll once again with new team owners involved?