place TE Marcedes Lewis (Jac) on IR

[Preds]

:Bla :dammit

[Preds]

FYI, I believe I've violated the damn TE/K/D rule by placing Marcedes on IR without a replacement, knocking me down to 4 on the Active Roster (totally forgot about him being 1 of my 5).

I've just put a bid on a D to correct the error, but penalties should be assessed.

Talk amongst yourselves and penalize without mercy.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Expulsion is the solution here. That, or a mandotory trade of one of your SAC'D RBs to my team for peanuts.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Expulsion is the solution here. That, or a mandotory trade of one of your SAC'D RBs to my team for peanuts.

Droughns could be made available if you're interested. I'm probably seeking QB and/or LB help in exchange. I can't exactly give him away for peanuts however!

[Mutts]

What's the precedent with this situation? Shouldn't the league just deny your ability to make the IR transaction without a suitable replacement? I'm not sure there is a penalty warranted.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

What's the precedent with this situation? Shouldn't the league just deny your ability to make the IR transaction without a suitable replacement? I'm not sure there is a penalty warranted.

Last year we reduced the stated 500 cb penalty in the rules to 250 for teams being under the limit... but this situation is different seeing it was an IR move that did it. Technically he's still a part of my active roster.

http://predsff.com/forums/showthread...ght=te%2Fk%2Fd

Thoughts?

Assess a 250 cb penalty?

Assess a smaller/larger penalty?

Retract the IR move?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I would have assumed it's like the 24-hour rule with a new pickup. If you can get your roster inline within 24 hours, then all's well. If not, then penalty.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

I would have assumed it's like the 24-hour rule with a new pickup. If you can get your roster inline within 24 hours, then all's well. If not, then penalty.

I placed him on IR on the 7th. Today is the 12th. 24 hours is long gone.

I'm gonna repeat what I said above,

Originally Posted by Preds

Last year we reduced the stated 500 cb penalty in the rules to 250 for teams being under the limit... but this situation is different seeing it was an IR move that did it. Technically he's still a part of my active roster.

http://predsff.com/forums/showthrea...ight=te%2Fk%2Fd

Thoughts?

Assess a 250 cb penalty?

Assess a smaller/larger penalty?

Retract the IR move?

I'll add that I didn't gain anything but cap space with the move to IR, and didn't aquire a player until the Drew Carter bid was won this morning.

It was then that I downloaded the app and realized my mistake (kinda surprised Jake didn't make note of it with the last App update). Anyhow, I put a bid on a D immediately to get to the limit, but some sort of penalty should be assessed... which is why I brought it up immediatly after I realized it. I'm nothing if not fair!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well... anyone who's ever played FF with me knows I'm all in favor of grace. I'm fine with retracting the IR move (although I don't know what it does for his current roster). However, I'm also willing to yield to the wisdom of the group.

[Nittany Dodgers]

I vote for assessing a penalty, because the last thing I want to do is set a precedent that players on IR can be counted towards the 5 player min at TE/K/D. I do not think that is consistent with the intent of the rules. If I understand correctly, the spot freed up was used to acquire a WR (correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not reviewing the roster app at the moment). If it was only the freed up cap space, that is a slightly different issue. However, I think as long as we still have the 5 player min, I don't think players on IR should count towards that. The simple minded way I look at it, is that 5 player requirement is the 5 spaces on the roster app highlighted in a different color. IR is not included in those spots.

If I'm in the minority, however, I won't argue strongly.

[Preds]

Actually I had an open spot on my active roster for Carter. He doesn't take up any of the 5 TE/K/D spots.

The Lewis IR move was entirely cap relief at the time. Also, he was moved to IR before I aquired or attempted to acquire anyone.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I vote for assessing a penalty, because the last thing I want to do is set a precedent that players on IR can be counted towards the 5 player min at TE/K/D. I do not think that is consistent with the intent of the rules. If I understand correctly, the spot freed up was used to acquire a WR (correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not reviewing the roster app at the moment). If it was only the freed up cap space, that is a slightly different issue. However, I think as long as we still have the 5 player min, I don't think players on IR should count towards that. The simple minded way I look at it, is that 5 player requirement is the 5 spaces on the roster app highlighted in a different color. IR is not included in those spots.

If I'm in the minority, however, I won't argue strongly.

BTW, I'm not arguing that Lewis being on IR should count on the active roster as 1 of the 5 TE/K/D per se', just pointing out that he is an active roster player whose on IR and still has half his salary count agains thte active roster cap. Also pointing out that he came from the TE/K/D slots, and will eventually return there.

As for whether or not IR players should count towards the man limit, I have no idea.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

BTW, I'm not arguing that Lewis being on IR should count on the active roster as 1 of the 5 TE/K/D per se', just pointing out that he is an active roster player whose on IR and still has half his salary count agains thte active roster cap. Also pointing out that he came from the TE/K/D slots, and will eventually return there.

As for whether or not IR players should count towards the man limit, I have no idea.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what is the point of pointing out that Lewis was on the active roster, if not for purposes of supporting an argument that he should then still count towards the 5 player minimum? I don't see another reason to stress that point.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

If I understand correctly, the spot freed up was used to acquire a WR (correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not reviewing the roster app at the moment).

Guess this is why I don't have a problem with it. He didn't use the spot freed up to acquire a non TE/K/D player. The spot simply sat empty.

Just seems to me that the league shouldn't allow a TE or K to be placed on IR, unless a suitable replacement is lined up within 24 hours.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

Guess this is why I don't have a problem with it. He didn't use the spot freed up to acquire a non TE/K/D player. The spot simply sat empty.

BTW, I think we should finally address this rule next year... something like those 5 spots can only be used for TE/K/D, and you must spend at least 500 (or 800, some number) among those positions if you carry fewer than 5.

FWIW, I have 1,377 into the 4 players currently among my active TE/K/D, not to mention an additional 50 with Lewis on IR... so this isn't an issue of using the 500 cap dollars we added to the cap a few years ago at other positions.

Originally Posted by Mutts

Just seems to me that the league shouldn't allow a TE or K to be placed on IR, unless a suitable replacement is lined up within 24 hours.

This is a valid point worth exploring.

That being said, I made a mistake and IMO some sort of penalty is warranted in this instance until we fix things up for the future.

[Mutts]

Originally Posted by Preds

That being said, I made a mistake and IMO some sort of penalty is warranted in this instance until we fix things up for the future.

In that case, I think we have to levy the 250cb penalty that's been standard.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Mutts

In that case, I think we have to levy the 250cb penalty that's been standard.

I brought this up in the 1st place because I realized the mistake and felt a penalty was in order of some kind. I don't deserve any kind of special treatment... I knew the rule, I just screwed up... so now the hatchet will have to come out to clear space once the final penalty is decided.

Again though, I was an advocate for changing this rule this past off-season, but there wasn't much thought put into it by anyone.

Frank seems against just allocating those 5 spots to the TE/K/D positions without 1st reducing the cap by 500. Seeing as we've all adjusted to the 10,500 cap over the past few years, that seems unreasonable, thus my current suggestion that we make those spots only for TE/K/D, but require a minimum of cap dollars be spent if a person is below the 5 players... whether it be 500 (the portion we added to the cap), or 800 (the cap dollars we initially added plus 300 for the minimum spent on 3 players that took up those starting jobs).

[Nittany Dodgers]

I vote for the 250 cb penalty, and to figure out an adjustment to the rule some other time.

[Flaxwless]

What dodgers said.

As for the rule i think the only changes that need to be made is extend the time for TE/K/D to fill the spots from 24 hrs to before the FA period closes for that week.

If not I'd go for the minimum 500 dollars spent on TE/K/D but keep those 5 slots closed to TE/K/D

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

What dodgers said.

As for the rule i think the only changes that need to be made is extend the time for TE/K/D to fill the spots from 24 hrs to before the FA period closes for that week.

If not I'd go for the minimum 500 dollars spent on TE/K/D but keep those 5 slots closed to TE/K/D

Agreed. The whole point of added roster spots and cap space was to allow all teams room to have enough TE/K/D. I can go with these, or simply blocking the 5 spots for TE/K/D, they can be filled or empty, and maxing the cap space for the other 13 AR spots to 10k. With our spreadsheets, it shouldn't be too hard to track.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Agreed. The whole point of added roster spots and cap space was to allow all teams room to have enough TE/K/D. I can go with these, or simply blocking the 5 spots for TE/K/D, they can be filled or empty, and maxing the cap space for the other 13 AR spots to 10k. With our spreadsheets, it shouldn't be too hard to track.

I actually like the idea of maxing the cap on the QB/RB/WR positions to 9700.

Basically 10,000 less the 300 minimum to spend on 1 TE, K D that we had originally, and the 500 we added to the cap.

If we do that, then I'd say teams could carry as many or few as they like at TE/K/D... they just can't use those cap dollars on other positions.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

I actually like the idea of maxing the cap on the QB/RB/WR positions to 9700.

Basically 10,000 less the 300 minimum to spend on 1 TE, K D that we had originally, and the 500 we added to the cap.

If we do that, then I'd say teams could carry as many or few as they like at TE/K/D... they just can't use those cap dollars on other positions.

I think it is also important to block those 5 roster spots from anything other than TEKD, since at the same time of expanding the cap, we expanded the roster. My, as well as other I think, primary concern was hoarding positional players. A slight downtick in the salary cap, but expanding the roster opens that possibility back up.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I think it is also important to block those 5 roster spots from anything other than TEKD, since at the same time of expanding the cap, we expanded the roster. My, as well as other I think, primary concern was hoarding positional players. A slight downtick in the salary cap, but expanding the roster opens that possibility back up.

I 100% agree that the max QB/RB/WR's can be 13, with 5 slots reserved for TE/K/D (though you can have more than 5 if you want).

[Preds]

Is the 250cb penalty final?

250 seems steep seeing as I free'd up all of 50 cbs in the mistaken IR move (his salary is 100), didn't use the roster spot, didn't use any of the cap money free'd up by the move (I already had plenty of cap to pickup Carter yesterday, and had 1333 cb's invested in TE/K/D positions), notified the league of my error, and made an immediate effort to rectify the situation by bidding on a Defense which I won this afternoon. I'll also add that he's questionable again this week, and I gained nothing in my accidental move except 1 less mandatory week he must spend on IR.

This situation isn't quite the same as previous infractions where we assessed 250 penalties. I'll accept whatever penalty is ultimately decided... and DO feel some penalty is approriate, but IMO we really need to fix this rule, and we just screwed the pooch by not addressing it for the 3rd off-season in a row.

I'd suggest the following penalty as being fair for the circumstances... as well as a precedent to follow the remainder of the season (assuming teams who mess up make efforts to remedy the error ASAP).

My proposed penalty:
- a 50 cb penalty for screwing up in this case (this is equivelent to the cb's I free'd up (but didn't use) with the move)

- an additional mandatory week on IR for Lewis so that there was absolutely nothing gained by my team in this screw up.

Final thoughts?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Works for me.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Fine. I think we're just opening up a can of worms with ad hoc peanalties.

In the past, wasn't there a team who bid on a player, didn't assign years or a cut, which put him over the cap and the peanalty was 250cbs, forced drop, and banned from bidding? If the issue is advantaged gained, what was the advantage there?

[Flaxwless]

Isn't this type of decision up to the rules committie anyways?

I'd say we let them decide how to deal with the penalty.

Checked: The rules committe consists of Jake, Brian, and Mike.

Brain seems for the full 250 penalty
Mike for obvious reasons is for 50 penatly, and Lewis for another week on IR

Jake is the commish and deciding vote on this matter so I think we should go with whatever he decides. Just so we can all move along.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Isn't this type of decision up to the rules committie anyways?

I'd say we let them decide how to deal with the penalty.

Checked: The rules committe consists of Jake, Brian, and Mike.

Brain seems for the full 250 penalty
Mike for obvious reasons is for 50 penatly, and Lewis for another week on IR

Jake is the commish and deciding vote on this matter so I think we should go with whatever he decides. Just so we can all move along.

Gee... what a great idea! :GoodPost

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Fine. I think we're just opening up a can of worms with ad hoc peanalties.

In the past, wasn't there a team who bid on a player, didn't assign years or a cut, which put him over the cap and the peanalty was 250cbs, forced drop, and banned from bidding? If the issue is advantaged gained, what was the advantage there?

My point is that the rule sucks... we all pretty much agree it sucks, and year after year we keep failing to address it. I tried getting some momentum addressing it over the off-season in some IM discussions, but never got enough input to proceed with a proposal, which I now think we have one that can work.

When we added the 2 roster spots and the 500 cb's, the intent was to allow depth at the TE/K/D positions, and cap to accomodate them. Seeing as I wasn't using either the roster slot or the cap $'s towards a non-TE/K/D position. 250 cb's just seems a ridiculously harsh penalty when I wasn't abusing the intent of the rule with an additional skill position player, or with cap dollars used towards a skill position player. That is one thing that distinguishes this from some of the past offenses.

The rule needs to be changed... and I think the forumla to do so is finally there with the proposal that those 5 slots can not be used for any position other than TE/K/D, and that Teams with fewer than 5 players at those positions must have no more than 9700 cb's spent on players at the skill positions of QB/RB/WR, reserving a pool of 800 minimum for the TE/K/D positions. Alternatively, we could just hardcap the QB/RB/WR positions at 9700 max regardless of how many TE/K/D a team carries.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Preds

My point is that the rule sucks... we all pretty much agree it sucks, and year after year we keep failing to address it. I tried getting some momentum addressing it over the off-season in some IM discussions, but never got enough input to proceed with a proposal, which I now think we have one that can work.

When we added the 2 roster spots and the 500 cb's, the intent was to allow depth at the TE/K/D positions, and cap to accomodate them. Seeing as I wasn't using either the roster slot or the cap $'s towards a non-TE/K/D position. 250 cb's just seems a ridiculously harsh penalty when I wasn't abusing the intent of the rule with an additional skill position player, or with cap dollars used towards a skill position player. That is one thing that distinguishes this from some of the past offenses.

The rule needs to be changed... and I think the forumla to do so is finally there with the proposal that those 5 slots can not be used for any position other than TE/K/D, and that Teams with fewer than 5 players at those positions must have no more than 9700 cb's spent on players at the skill positions of QB/RB/WR, reserving a pool of 800 minimum for the TE/K/D positions. Alternatively, we could just hardcap the QB/RB/WR positions at 9700 max regardless of how many TE/K/D a team carries.

That's all well and good, and I agree a tweak to the rule needs to be made. However, I think it is appropriate to tweak the rule for the NEXT infraction, not for the one that just happened. I tried to find the previous infraction (I know it happened a couple of years ago), but I could only find the BDSC second infraction, where we let the penalties slide, but not the first. Assuming we assessed full roster penalities for the first infraction, then I think we do so again here. If Jake feels strongly about lessoning the penality, I can live with that, but I do not support changing the rule and applying it to a situation that has already happened.