PASSES 9-3 (Apply to Existing) - Apply Removal of Years to Existing TS/PS players?

[Preds]

This poll is to clarify if the new rule to remove years from TS/PS players applies retroactively to existing players on TS/PS rosters (that are not on guaranteed contracts), or just to rookies placed on these squads moving forward.

[Liquid Swords]

I honestly say this needs to apply to rookies going forward. Had we known this was going to happen in past then drafting would have been completely different

And what about players that we assigned lower years to fit that are now on active? I'd still have 2 of my RFAs on a final contract year

[wchmego]

Exactly!!! Feels like I would be punished for trying to manage my years on players. Competitive disadvantage.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by wchmego

Exactly!!! Feels like I would be punished for trying to manage my years on players. Competitive disadvantage.

I think it's fine taking away the years retroactively. If anything it's a bonus for shorter contracts we've had to put on players due to the 20 year limit. Now, as long as they've never been active, you can declare up to 5 years on past draft picks that are ready for primetime on your active roster.

As for PS players, we've never had a contract years cap, thus it's really not much impact with the exception of players sitting on your PS for a few years can now be given up to a 5 year deal if promoted to active, which seems like a bonus to me for all.

I don't see where it puts anyone at a competitive disadvantage with past or future picks.

Regardless, the motion to go retroactive has already passed with 7 votes in favor (and potentially 10), thus we'll see how things go, and if necessary react accordingly in future years.

FWIW, I disagreed with a couple of the proposals that passed, but will work within the new rules without complaint and see how it goes.

[Liquid Swords]

I do not like this one single bit. There was no discussion on this and was rushed through. I think this vote needs to be voided and discussed further like other topics.

[Liquid Swords]

At least from a TS perspective. I say discuss further and have separate polls for TS and PS on this specific topic after discussion

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

At least from a TS perspective. I say discuss further and have separate polls for TS and PS on this specific topic after discussion

I have no problem with that.

It was somewhat rushed, only in that the new season is coming up soon, and wanted to get this out of the way before the real business commences

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Sure. Let's split them out into two runoff polls.

[Liquid Swords]

Originally Posted by Preds

I think it's fine taking away the years retroactively. If anything it's a bonus for shorter contracts we've had to put on players due to the 20 year limit. Now, as long as they've never been active, you can declare up to 5 years on past draft picks that are ready for primetime on your active roster.

As for PS players, we've never had a contract years cap, thus it's really not much impact with the exception of players sitting on your PS for a few years can now be given up to a 5 year deal if promoted to active, which seems like a bonus to me for all.

I don't see where it puts anyone at a competitive disadvantage with past or future picks.

Regardless, the motion to go retroactive has already passed with 7 votes in favor (and potentially 10), thus we'll see how things go, and if necessary react accordingly in future years.

FWIW, I disagreed with a couple of the proposals that passed, but will work within the new rules without complaint and see how it goes.

Had teams known this was going to happen some of them may have never gone with the approach of a 1 week bye week or injury filler on active with demotion back to TS. This would now make them ineligible for new contracts...since this is essentially what it is. I just don't see how we can assign players contracts and then say they don't exist anymore. The TS should not have existing contracts removed. My two cents.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

The "as long as they've never been active" caveat is a point well taken, Patrick. We either eliminate that (was it even part of the original poll or just Mike's feelings) and make it retroactive... or go with only new TS players.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

Had teams known this was going to happen some of them may have never gone with the approach of a 1 week bye week or injury filler on active with demotion back to TS. This would now make them ineligible for new contracts...since this is essentially what it is. I just don't see how we can assign players contracts and then say they don't exist anymore. The TS should not have existing contracts removed. My two cents.

That's a good argument...I can totally see this. Let's split it up, or just go with since it wasn't discussed, this rule if from this season forward. We have done this type of thing before, and seems to make sense for this rule for sure.

[A Zombie Pirate I Be]

I think making it retroactive for anyone on TS or PS would work - regardless of whether they have ever been active.
If they were on TS or PS at the end of the 2020 season, the contract years would be wiped and up to 5 years can be assigned if/when activated.
Going forward, any players that are activated then returned to TS, would keep the assigned remaining years.

[A Zombie Pirate I Be]

We can also keep the discussion open through the weekend and put the vote out Monday...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I'd be up for making ANYONE on the PS/TS eligible, whether or not they've been active.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

The "as long as they've never been active" caveat is a point well taken, Patrick. We either eliminate that (was it even part of the original poll or just Mike's feelings) and make it retroactive... or go with only new TS players.

I wrote it that way because once a player is active we guarantee the contract. IMO those players should not have their years voided as they're no longer free cuts. How do you void years on these players and then apply appropriate cap penalties if the player is cut from the TS without having years pre-assigned? Logically this would make no sense.

We've all made TS moves and have some players that won't have their years voided because we've used them as short term fill-ins. Honestly, I don't see this new setup changing things in that regard. If anything we may see players granted SHORTER contract years when teams are up against the max contract years and don't want to cut players on their roster to make room for a TS player with longer term.

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

I'd be up for making ANYONE on the PS/TS eligible, whether or not they've been active.

See above

[wchmego]

We didn't vote on this originally. It was for TS players only, not PS players.
Which is not a big deal as many never pan out until late in the contract , if at all.



To me, this is the same type of move as if we decided to change this into a Super-flex/2 QB league this year.



I would have drafted differently, maybe not traded away some picks or players. This also effects teams with more players on their squads and gives them an advantage. If we want to vote to change it in the future I'd be okay, but this year no way.

[A Zombie Pirate I Be]

I took a quick look at the roster app and it looks like there are only 6 players on TS that have been active at one point. And of those 1 is on a 1 yr contract and 2 were drafted in 2018, so will be require to go to Active roster. Leaving only 3 players to worry about. Can we leave the contract years set for those three (for penalties), but allow a renegotiated contract years if activated again? Sounds like the only concern would be the penalty?

[A Zombie Pirate I Be]

As mention above, we can leave open for discussion through the weekend and open the voting on Monday.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by wchmego

We didn't vote on this originally. It was for TS players only, not PS players.
Which is not a big deal as many never pan out until late in the contract , if at all.



To me, this is the same type of move as if we decided to change this into a Super-flex/2 QB league this year.



I would have drafted differently, maybe not traded away some picks or players. This also effects teams with more players on their squads and gives them an advantage. If we want to vote to change it in the future I'd be okay, but this year no way.

There were separate contract year removal votes for both TS and PS.

TS year removal vote passed 9-3

PS year removal vote passed 11-1

The Runoff Vote to apply retroactively or not was combined to keep things simple, and also out of expedience for time and ease.

FWIW, I'll have you know I voted NO in both polls above, but I'm not flipping out at the results and just asked that we clarify who the new changes will apply to. Burt suggested a new vote to clarify things, so I put up a poll.

I apologize for not envisioning the harm in combining them and excluding guaranteed contracts. To me, logically, it makes the most sense to make retroactive either to all developmental players who are not on guaranteed contracts, or none in my aging brain.

I honestly am stunned there is such backlash from you and Pat. None of these votes were worth falling over a sword over IMO. But then, that's just my opinion, and clearly I unintentionally hit some nerves by combining the runoff vote.

[Preds]

I'll also add, nowhere in the rules does it state we must have lengthy discussion before putting up a rules change proposal. This motion was a simple cut and dry proposal to clarify who the recently passed votes on TS and PS players applied to. This proposal has also passed with a 7 vote majority as required by the rules.

I for one don't think its right to toss it and start over because 2 teams object when a majority has already voted in favor.

[Liquid Swords]

I think it's a valid point as it may have affected team approaches to TS. Not only what I mentioned above, but what about draft pick trades? Would teams have thought differently? Maybe, maybe not. I do see that we had two separate polls for TS and PS. Thus I think breaking them up in this instance is good too. It's not a runoff which means there were multiple options but narrowing it down to top 2 choices. It's a new poll.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

I think it's a valid point as it may have affected team approaches to TS. Not only what I mentioned above, but what about draft pick trades? Would teams have thought differently? Maybe, maybe not. I do see that we had two separate polls for TS and PS. Thus I think breaking them up in this instance is good too. It's not a runoff which means there were multiple options but narrowing it down to top 2 choices. It's a new poll.

I called it a runoff as its a related vote to the 2 related rules changes that passed.

Regardless, there is nothing in THIS proposal to make it an invalid vote. You may not like the result (like I wasn't in favor of the deletion of years in the 2 related votes), but it only takes 7 votes to pass any rules change in the off-season and the league spoke.

And again, like you and Rick I voted against deleting the years, but now that those proposals had passed, I was just seeking a clarification vote on who they applied to.

[Preds]

As Dave pointed out, this change only appears to impact a few players who are on guaranteed contracts. I think one of them may be my own (Moss)? Why make a huge issue of it when for the most part it has very little impact on teams?

[Liquid Swords]

More than likely would have impacted how I approached trades with this year's draft. But whatever. Would have just been nice to have it split and talked about even just for a day. Who knows minds may have change. May not have.

[Liquid Swords]

Definition of runoff "a further competition, election, race, etc., after a tie or inconclusive result."

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

Definition of runoff "a further competition, election, race, etc., after a tie or inconclusive result."

semantics ;) LMAO

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Liquid Swords

More than likely would have impacted how I approached trades with this year's draft. But whatever. Would have just been nice to have it split and talked about even just for a day. Who knows minds may have change. May not have.

Nowhere in the rules is discussion listed as required in order to put up a vote. I honestly didn't think there was anything to discuss aside from a simple yes or no vote. 7 votes no would have meant rookies only. 7 votes yes, meant retroactive to any current TS/PS player not on guaranteed contracts.

Also, while on the subject of guaranteed contracts, I still feel they had to be excluded. Heck I would love to demote a TS eligible player like Devin Singletary and erase his cap hit, but that wouldn't be right. Further, is it right to wipe out years on players that have been active in 2018, 2019 or 2020 and allow teams to use these players for potentially 6 years or more by allowing them to reassign up to 5 years if made active again? That wouldn't be right either. The most sensible and fair move was to exclude guaranteed contract players altogether, which is what I did.

[wchmego]

Originally Posted by Preds

Nowhere in the rules is discussion listed as required in order to put up a vote. I honestly didn't think there was anything to discuss aside from a simple yes or no vote. 7 votes no would have meant rookies only. 7 votes yes, meant retroactive to any current TS/PS player not on guaranteed contracts.

Also, while on the subject of guaranteed contracts, I still feel they had to be excluded. Heck I would love to demote a TS eligible player like Devin Singletary and erase his cap hit, but that wouldn't be right. Further, is it right to wipe out years on players that have been active in 2018, 2019 or 2020 and allow teams to use these players for potentially 6 years or more by allowing them to reassign up to 5 years if made active again? That wouldn't be right either. The most sensible and fair move was to exclude guaranteed contract players altogether, which is what I did.

I believe the most "sensible and fair move" is to only allow rookies moving forward ;)

[A Zombie Pirate I Be]

Using the Roster App dated 4/14/2021
TS Players with Guaranteed Contracts:
Swords: Miles Sanders (3 years remaining at start of 2021)
Drew Sample (1 year remaining at start of 2021)
Opihi: D’Andre Swift (4 years remaining at start of 2021)
Rooster: Alexander Mattison (2 year remaining at start of 2021)

Rule changes would take affect at the start of the 2021 season, so the following players will not be impacted by the rule change:
Pirates: Austin Siebert (contract expires before 2021 season)
Roosters: Anthony Miller AND Nyheim Hines (both are 2018 draftees and must be activated prior to 2021)

I think I got all players

[Preds]

Originally Posted by wchmego

I believe the most "sensible and fair move" is to only allow rookies moving forward ;)

That's because you're biased out of self-interest on your own roster.