Bloodsuckers in Roster Violation

[Burt the Butcher]

Frank, according to my records, you are over the cap by 14cb. Your promotion of Kenny Phillips is what puts you over. So here is what needs to happen, unless you can point me to an error in my bookkeeping:

1) The lowest ranked draft pick that he just put on the TS gets released as a UFA (no cap hit) - that would be your undelared PK Taylor Mehlholf
2) Phillips gets put back on the TS since there wasn't cap space to promote
3) His contract increases 25 cbs (1 wk active roster minimum)
4) His contract also becomes guaranteed (mark in the comment column active 2008 wk 1)
5) Further, access a 20% cap hit penalty on whatever Phillips salary is
6) 30 day moratorium on bidding on Mehlholf

[Flaxwless]

I just placed WR Kevin Curtis on IR so that should bring me below.

Kevin Curtis to IR

[Burt the Butcher]

So you promoting Philips back to Active? Is Curtis on IR right now?

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

So you promoting Philips back to Active? Is Curtis on IR right now?

Phillips shoudl still be on active and I made moved Curtis to IR within 24 hrs after wining the bids on the WRs.

[Flaxwless]

1) Before acquiring Muhammad and Jenkins I was under the cap with Phillips on active roster.

2) Bid on WR Jenkins and Muhammad on Sat, August 30. Since it was a Saturday bid it will be frozen until Monday, Sept 1st when it would sell.

3) Players sold at 3:30 PM Sept 1st.

4) Kevin Curtis placed on IR Sept 2nd @ 3:26 AM

So I don't see why I would ever be over the cap with Phillips on my roster unless I was in violation BEFORE thet two WRs were sold to me.

[Burt the Butcher]

I don't even have those 2 WR's on your roster yet, so by my records, you were over the cap when you put Phillips on your Active Roster. Please look at the website, and compare to what you had on your sheet before you aquired Muhammad and Jenkins and see what the difference is. If it's my bad, I will waive the penalties.

[Burt the Butcher]

OK, I compared what Patrick just posted with the updated spreadsheet, and what I have on the Website, and the only discrepancy is I had Gabril Wilson at 450 instead of 425, and he didn't have Philips promoted, which left you 3 years over the TS limit. With the promotion, that put you 40cb over the limit with the placing of Curtis on IR. So penalties will be assessed as stated unless you can show where we missed something. And you are still over the cap and need to get under within 24 hours.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

OK, I compared what Patrick just posted with the updated spreadsheet, and what I have on the Website, and the only discrepancy is I had Gabril Wilson at 450 instead of 425, and he didn't have Philips promoted, which left you 3 years over the TS limit. With the promotion, that put you 40cb over the limit with the placing of Curtis on IR. So penalties will be assessed as stated unless you can show where we missed something. And you are still over the cap and need to get under within 24 hours.

Found the discrepancy and it as an error on my part. I forgot to input the cap hit for Drew Carter when I released him.

So as of now I just need to clear 40 cbs in cap space? Melhalff is of my roster and Kenny Phillips salary has an additional 25 cbs?

[Burt the Butcher]

Well, technically, you didn't have room for Phillips on your active roster when you moved him there, and you were over your TS years when you assigned all your rookies. I'll take a look at things tonight when I get home from work, but am thinking your penalty will have to be similar to Dodgers and 36 Chambers penalty for invalid rookie assignments, and will have to lose you lowest draft pick on the squad in violation...

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Well, technically, you didn't have room for Phillips on your active roster when you moved him there, and you were over your TS years when you assigned all your rookies. I'll take a look at things tonight when I get home from work, but am thinking your penalty will have to be similar to Dodgers and 36 Chambers penalty for invalid rookie assignments, and will have to lose you lowest draft pick on the squad in violation...

I don't think it is a similar situation as contract years and roster status were assigned, with the penalty due to salary cap infraction. I believe being penalized a future draft pick in this instance would not be fitting as I did not forget to assign any contract years, etc.

I think the correct way to handle this would be the release of LB Johnathan Vilma (the last FA before in-season FA) or Kenny Phillips himself with the standard additional cap penalty and inability to bid within 30 days.

Anything else would be excessive as this was a simple salary cap infraction... not asking to assign years after missing a deadline.

[Flaxwless]

Also I would like to retract the IR status of Bobby Engram until this all gets solved and a clear plan/path is discussed.

[Burt the Butcher]

Was talking about the rookie violation penalties of Dodgers and 36 Chambers, not the missing rookie declarations of Needles and Dodgers....

So, after looking at how this all transpires, your rookie declarations initially put you over the TS years limit. The penalty for that is a loss of a rookie. Manningham being the lowest new assignment will thus be cut to put you under years cap.

2nd, your assignment of Phillips to the Active squad put you over the salary cap. He will go back to TS, with a 25cb one week active salary increase.

These moves should get you back to a legal roster, but you will have to verify and make sure it is thus.

I will hold off on putting Ingram on IR unless you post that in a seperate thread.

Whew.....I need a friggin Commish vacation!!! PREDS...WHERE ARE YAH!!!!!

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Was talking about the rookie violation penalties of Dodgers and 36 Chambers, not the missing rookie declarations of Needles and Dodgers....

So, after looking at how this all transpires, your rookie declarations initially put you over the TS years limit. The penalty for that is a loss of a rookie. Manningham being the lowest new assignment will thus be cut to put you under years cap.

2nd, your assignment of Phillips to the Active squad put you over the salary cap. He will go back to TS, with a 25cb one week active salary increase.

These moves should get you back to a legal roster, but you will have to verify and make sure it is thus.

I will hold off on putting Ingram on IR unless you post that in a seperate thread.

Whew.....I need a friggin Commish vacation!!! PREDS...WHERE ARE YAH!!!!!

Sipping a cold one and enjoying retirement!

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Preds

Sipping a cold one and enjoying retirement!

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

The penalty for that is a loss of a rookie. Manningham being the lowest new assignment will thus be cut to put you under years cap.

Actually, wouldn't this be Lavelle Hawkins instead of Manningham?

[Burt the Butcher]

OH, I was going off what Frank told me was the lowest player...maybe that was based on years?

[Liquid Swords]

Here were the TS declarations by Bloodsuckers:
1.02 RB Rashard Mendenhall 5 yrs (TS)
1.12 WR Jerome Simpson 5 yrs (TS)
3.01 WR Jordy Nelson 5yrs (TS)
3.07 WR Marion Manningham 4 yrs (TS)
4.04 WR Lavell Hawkins 5 yrs (TS)

[Burt the Butcher]

ok, to be consistant with the ruling on 36 Chambers and Dodgers, Hawkins should have been the player released. I will make the adjustment on the Website. Thanks Pat.

[Flaxwless]

I think the rookie cut should be up to the owner's discretion.

I clearly value Hawkins more than Manningham as I assigned Hawkins 5yrs and Manningham 4 yrs. Having to lose a rookie should be penalty enough.

I couldn't find who the others were forced to cut, but would the same player be cut if you had a choice or Burt droppe dthe lowest draft pick? I also think my case maybe unique as I had declared all years and didn't forget anyone that I wanted to keep.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I think the rookie cut should be up to the owner's discretion.

I clearly value Hawkins more than Manningham as I assigned Hawkins 5yrs and Manningham 4 yrs. Having to lose a rookie should be penalty enough.

I couldn't find who the others were forced to cut, but would the same player be cut if you had a choice or Burt droppe dthe lowest draft pick? I also think my case maybe unique as I had declared all years and didn't forget anyone that I wanted to keep.

I was in same boat. I lost Sedrick Ellis (the lowest draft pick) who I would have rather kept over the ones that I did.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

I was in same boat. I lost Sedrick Ellis (the lowest draft pick) who I would have rather kept over the ones that I did.

Than let's revolt!

Whenever a team goes over the cap (contract or salary) we have 24 hours to get in compliance ANYWAY we choose (dropping a player, trade, IR) so I don't see why that choice would be taken away in this instance.

Yes we are well over the 24 hour period, but I don't think anyone intentionally tried to cheat the system. Like I said... losing a draft pick is punishment enough.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

Than let's revolt!

Whenever a team goes over the cap (contract or salary) we have 24 hours to get in compliance ANYWAY we choose (dropping a player, trade, IR) so I don't see why that choice would be taken away in this instance.

Yes we are well over the 24 hour period, but I don't think anyone intentionally tried to cheat the system. Like I said... losing a draft pick is punishment enough.

OK, I don't really see anything in the rules specific to what I did...it was myself and Mike putting our heads together. I have no problem with allowing the team in cahoots cutting their own player. Although with an FA putting you over the cap, you lose the player and are hit with a cap penalty. Being a rookie, you don't have the penalty. So you are comparing apple to oranges.

Also, your situation was exactly the same as 36 Chambers...he added 3 players to the PS, and you are only allowed 2, so he lost a player. So he mis-managed his team, just like you did.

But you are correct, it was not done intentionally, so losing a rookie is penalty enough for me.

What does the rest of the league think (or at least those who give an opinion..I think Clowns is the only other one who does and hasn't yet here)

[Nittany Dodgers]

The fact that is was unintentional is meaningless. This will be my 7th season in the Frenzy, and 4th in SAC'D. I can't personally recall anyone going over the cap like this "intentionally." The closest anything ever came to being intentional was me in the Frenzy last year, when I had a trade fall through on a weekend, and rosters got completely screwed up. Intentional or not, it doesn't matter. My out of compliance this fall certainly wasn't intenional. I overlooked declaring years on my top pick, and forgot to cut a guy that's been out of football for a couple years. That deserves a different penalty than someone who declared the contract years for all players, but didn't keep track of room for all of them? It's the same deal, different honest mistakes.

I really don't care the penalty. You can let him cut whoever he wants in my opinion. Just don't say he gets a different penalty because what he did wasn't "intentional."

[Valencia]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I really don't care the penalty. You can let him cut whoever he wants in my opinion. Just don't say he gets a different penalty because what he did wasn't "intentional."

Well, it sure is good to be back. I am still catching up on everything and I know I may not be the best person to be giving an opinion, but I thought I would throw my in on this. This is a tough call. I have caught some breaks in the past and I have also been penalized for mistakes (all unintentional). This is a fun league and I understand the giving of breaks, but... there is going to have to be a point where we draw the line or we may lose the integrity of the league. I know there has been a lot of turn over lately, so some of this is understandable. We are all supposed to be responsible for our own teams and unless it is a site or app. mistake we should have to suffer the penalties. This is supposed to be like running a real NFL team... isn't it.? I think that is half the fun of it. Well, I am rambling... Lets enjoy the season.. and may the smack talk begin.
Late,
Brett

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Valencia

Well, it sure is good to be back. I am still catching up on everything and I know I may not be the best person to be giving an opinion, but I thought I would throw my in on this. This is a tough call. I have caught some breaks in the past and I have also been penalized for mistakes (all unintentional). This is a fun league and I understand the giving of breaks, but... there is going to have to be a point where we draw the line or we may lose the integrity of the league. I know there has been a lot of turn over lately, so some of this is understandable. We are all supposed to be responsible for our own teams and unless it is a site or app. mistake we should have to suffer the penalties. This is supposed to be like running a real NFL team... isn't it.? I think that is half the fun of it. Well, I am rambling... Lets enjoy the season.. and may the smack talk begin.
Late,
Brett

Yes, rambled and really didn't say a damn thing Anywho, there are penalties being passed out here, we are just trying to determine what penalties are fair, so we can incorporate them into the rules, so if it happens again, we can be swift and just and everyone know what they are dealing with.

It appears we can go two ways with this. It seems to be a given that the offending teams penalty will be loss of a rookie. The thing that needs to be decided is, will that player be determined by the last pick on the squad in error (TS or PS), or will that player be determined by the team in offense? That is the question I am seeking opionions on. So to wit, I am going to post a poll, and we'll go off of the results, unless someone else has a strong contrary opinion.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Yes, rambled and really didn't say a damn thing Anywho, there are penalties being passed out here, we are just trying to determine what penalties are fair, so we can incorporate them into the rules, so if it happens again, we can be swift and just and everyone know what they are dealing with.

It appears we can go two ways with this. It seems to be a given that the offending teams penalty will be loss of a rookie. The thing that needs to be decided is, will that player be determined by the last pick on the squad in error (TS or PS), or will that player be determined by the team in offense? That is the question I am seeking opinions on. So to wit, I am going to post a poll, and we'll go off of the results, unless someone else has a strong contrary opinion.

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.

[Flaxwless]

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.

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.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

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.

Well, technically, this is basically the same penalty you would have incurred had you gone over your cap with an FA...you lose that player, get assesed a 20% cap hit, and are prohibited from rebidding on him for 30 days.

But I have made up my mind, and I think these penalties are sufficient. Poll will remain as is, and if someone has a problem with it after it is passed one way or the other, they can propose a new rule change to ammend it. I just want to get on with the season and have some fun. Hopefully we won't have this fiasco again...AND it is very dissapointing that the biggest offenders this year are the vets and not the newbies!!!