2005 Rule Vote-Taxi Squad follow up - PASSES 8-4

[Nittany Dodgers]

Should we get rid of the bonus cap paid to players if demoted past 8 weeks? Under the original proposal, there would be a cap on the bonus paid at 200 CB, which would mean that a player demoted after 8 weeks is paid only an 8 week bonus. Should we get rid of this cap?

[Preds]

just to clarify, but didn't some of the discuusion pertain more to restricting the movement back down after a certain point (say 8 weeks) moreso than the cap max itself?

IF not, should that be the major consideration, I mean, say a guy is activated for 9 weeks, he'd be no longer eligible to be sent back down (by the current team).

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

just to clarify, but didn't some oof the discuusion pertain more to restricting the movement back down after a certain point (say 8 weeks) moreso than the cap max itself?

IF not, should that be the majopr consideration, I mean, say a guy is activated for 9 weeks, he's no longer be eligible to be sent back down (by the current team).

The reason I included this, instead of setting a limit to move a guy back down after 8 weeks is two fold. First, it seemed people that didn't like the limit of 200cb wanted either a limit on the amount of time you could send a player back down to the Taxi squad, or the limit removed. Others didn't want it to be that restrictive. I thought this was the best compromise. While you can still move a player back down after 8 weeks, you will pay the premium for it.

And besides, if you need a player for longer than 8 weeks, you could just promote him for 8 weeks, demote him, and promote him again. Or would we need to limit the number of times you can promote and demote a single player? That seems like we'd start treading into the "difficult to keep track of" waters, and I thought we'd want to stay clear of that.

If people don't like this compromise, and want to go with a strict 8 week limit, then sound off in the thread, and I'll change the poll.

[Preds]

OK, I hear you points Brian, but at what point can a player no longer be sent down (if at all)... the next season? Just trying to think of all the loopholes.

For example, say I activate Eli Manning for 10 weeks in 2005... in the 2006 off-season I choose to demote Manning back down to the DS (which is allowed in section 6B)

Once promoted to the Active Roster, a player cannot be placed back on the Development Squad by the SAME team during the same season (if the player is traded other teams can place the player on their Development Squad, but the original team CANNOT have on his development squad that year).

since it's the off-season do I still have to pay the 250cb (25 x 10wks) demotion bonus... or does that evaporate after the season ends, since our rules allow players to move up or down in the off-season? I just think we should be real clear on the rules with this one.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

OK, I hear you points Brian, but at what point can a player no longer be sent down (if at all)... the next season? Just trying to think of all the loopholes.

For example, say I activate Eli Manning for 10 weeks in 2005... in the 2006 off-season I choose to demote Manning back down to the DS (which is allowed in section 6B)

since it's the off-season do I still have to pay the 250cb (25 x 10wks) demotion bonus... or does that evaporate after the season ends, since our rules allow players to move up or down in the off-season? I just think we should be real clear on the rules with this one.

I totally agree we need to be clear on the rules, and this was a good point to bring up. In my head (and obviously it doesn't translate at all into how it's been written) is that a week for a bonus is a week of FF, or more precisely, a bonus accrues each time a game is played (though any promotion would result in a bonus accruing even if a game has not been played). I would think a demotion could be done anytime in the off season, and would not have to be done within a week, but that is debatable.

But hey, I only suggested this idea like 3 months ago. It's not like we've had ample time to hammer out all these details.:smokin

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

OK, I hear you points Brian, but at what point can a player no longer be sent down (if at all)... the next season? Just trying to think of all the loopholes.

For example, say I activate Eli Manning for 10 weeks in 2005... in the 2006 off-season I choose to demote Manning back down to the DS (which is allowed in section 6B)

since it's the off-season do I still have to pay the 250cb (25 x 10wks) demotion bonus... or does that evaporate after the season ends, since our rules allow players to move up or down in the off-season? I just think we should be real clear on the rules with this one.

I guess I wasn't completely clear on this section of the rules, but what do you mean when saying that our rules allow players to move up or down in the off-season? I assume you are referring to the section that says players cannot be demoted by the same team during the same season - but just prior to that it says this:

An Active roster player can NEVER be placed on the DS. The only way to place a player on the DS is to acquire them by trade or rookie draft.

How do these two statements in section 6B mesh? And if we allow players to be made active and then demoted the next off-season, why could we not acquire a player via free agency during the season and then demote him to DS in the off-season?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I totally agree we need to be clear on the rules, and this was a good point to bring up. In my head (and obviously it doesn't translate at all into how it's been written) is that a week for a bonus is a week of FF, or more precisely, a bonus accrues each time a game is played (though any promotion would result in a bonus accruing even if a game has not been played). I would think a demotion could be done anytime in the off season, and would not have to be done within a week, but that is debatable.

But hey, I only suggested this idea like 3 months ago. It's not like we've had ample time to hammer out all these details.:smokin

Actually, I think you misuderstood my point, but you opened up another can of worms that needed to be resolved anyways!

I was talking about haveing a guy active for say 10 weeks during 2005, but in the 2006 off-season demoting him back down to the Taxi Squad. Would I then have to pay the 250cb bonus, or would it be no longer relevant since the season was over and the next off-season had begun?

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Wonder Mutts

I guess I wasn't completely clear on this section of the rules, but what do you mean when saying that our rules allow players to move up or down in the off-season? I assume you are referring to the section that says players cannot be demoted by the same team during the same season - but just prior to that it says this:


How do these two statements in section 6B mesh? And if we allow players to be made active and then demoted the next off-season, why could we not acquire a player via free agency during the season and then demote him to DS in the off-season?

Actually Jake, this has been a glitch in the DS rules for year... I think we discussed clarification of this rule set prior to the whole DS discussion, but as it technically reads, in the off-season each year you can move players down to the DS that are eligible (at least I think that was the summation). I know we were rewriting that section for clarification of what can and cannot be done, but this proposal doesn't address that section specifically, thus my concern.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Actually, I think you misuderstood my point, but you opened up another can of worms that needed to be resolved anyways!

I was talking about haveing a guy active for say 10 weeks during 2005, but in the 2006 off-season demoting him back down to the Taxi Squad. Would I then have to pay the 250cb bonus, or would it be no longer relevant since the season was over and the next off-season had begun?

Ah, I got it.

OK, here's the way I had it written up. The Taxi Squad and DS proposals, as written in the official proposal thread, totally replaces the current language under section 6B, so the whole unclarity on the issue of whether or not players can be demoted back under the current system is moot. That whole section of language would be striken, so Matt clarification proposal is swept under the carpet if the Taxi squad proposal gets passed.

Thus, to answer the original question, yes you would still have to pay the 250 bonus, since the language allowing you to move players back down to the DS in the off season are whiped out. Clear as mud?

Ah, the joys of trying to re-write rules thousands of miles from each other.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Ah, I got it.

OK, here's the way I had it written up. The Taxi Squad and DS proposals, as written in the official proposal thread, totally replaces the current language under section 6B, so the whole unclarity on the issue of whether or not players can be demoted back under the current system is moot. That whole section of language would be striken, so Matt clarification proposal is swept under the carpet if the Taxi squad proposal gets passed.

Thus, to answer the original question, yes you would still have to pay the 250 bonus, since the language allowing you to move players back down to the DS in the off season are whiped out. Clear as mud?

Ah, the joys of trying to re-write rules thousands of miles from each other.

yup. NOW I feel better ;)

[Preds]

Just one fiurther question, when determining the number of weeks a player is active, are we going to go by the NFL's week # or the teams actual games played? Byes can obviously have an impact here during weeks 3-10.

IMO, we should go by the NFL week number... so if a guy is activated weeks 2-6 (and say his team was on bye week 4), it would still count as 5 active weeks (wks 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6) thus a bonus of 125 to be sent down.

If we try to subtract byes I think it could be real difficult to easily track as time goes by. Do you agree or disagree?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

Just one fiurther question, when determining the number of weeks a player is active, are we going to go by the NFL's week # or the teams actual games played? Byes can obviously have an impact here during weeks 3-10.

IMO, we should go by the NFL week number... so if a guy is activated weeks 2-6 (and say his team was on bye week 4), it would still count as 5 active weeks (wks 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6) thus a bonus of 125 to be sent down.

If we try to subtract byes I think it could be real difficult to easily track as time goes by. Do you agree or disagree?

Agreed.

Anyone want to change their vote yet?

[Preds]

If this vote fails, one MAJOR concern I have is that with a max bonus cap of 200 cb's, a team could activate a rookie for say 2 years, then demote him while he's still DS eligible and only get hit with the 200CB contract bonus.

Should we make this bonus applicable to EACH season? My preference would be to eliminate the cap entirely.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

If this vote fails, one MAJOR concern I have is that with a max bonus cap of 200 cb's, a team could activate a rookie for say 2 years, then demote him while he's still DS eligible and only get hit with the 200CB contract bonus.

Should we make this bonus applicable to EACH season? My preference would be to eliminate the cap entirely.

Only two more "yes" votes to go and we won't have to worry about it.

Also, just for the record Mike, go back and check the original thread, the 200cb cap amount was your original suggestion.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Only two more "yes" votes to go and we won't have to worry about it.

Also, just for the record Mike, go back and check the original thread, the 200cb cap amount was your original suggestion.

Yea, well, I've seen the light so to speak, and feel we should either eliminate the cap or restrict the movement back down after a certain period. ;)

[Preds]

Still need votes from 3 teams in this one...

Indiana Undead,Urza's Ragers, and the Liquid Swords

[Preds]

Now only the Ragers and Swords need to vote in this one to close it out.

[Preds]

Down to just the Ragers on this one now.