Tony Hollings, RB Texans

[Philadelphia Freedom]

100

[Preds]

Hollings is unavailable for bidding IMO.

He's never been exposed to our draft, therefore should not be eligible as a FA.

We either need to hold a supplimental draft, or make him sit out the year until next years rookie draft (my preferance).

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

This brings up an interesting "loophole" in the league rules that should probably be addressed... players drafted in the NFL supplimental draft. Normally there are few fantasy prospects who come out here. This year might be somewhat of an exception.

The rules committee needs to come up with a suggestion to be voted on, in my opinion...

However, I'd say let all supplimental rookies be treated as Free Agents... and go to the highest bidder. That's just about as fair as it gets! It would be a shame to force a player to wait out a season, when he could very well have fantasy value THIS season (not that I consider Hollings to be in that category). Why wait? Give everyone a fair shot at acquiring him. That would certainly give him "market value".

But I'm not on the rules committee... lol

[Philadelphia Freedom]

How is he not available? He is just like an unsigned FA. I am okay if you say that he isn't eligible for the DS (though the way the rule is written about Drafted players is not clear) but he is just as much an FA as Chad Hutchinson was last year.

As for the rule it should probably state players drafted in the Feeding Frenzy draft since right now Hollings is eligible for the DS since he was drafted.

Anyhow, I agree with Jim that he should be a FA.

If not hold a supplemental draft but if that happens he should certainly be DS eligible since he will cost someone a draft pick. Also, if you go supplemental what salary would be attached?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

We could do it like the NFL supplemental draft... have everyone give a roll call as to whether or not they want to use their draft pick for Hollings. We'd have to go with the end-of-the-season positioning, rather than replicate this year's first round order (since some traded away their picks this year). If you select him in the first round, you forfeit your first rounder next year. Plain and simple. Salary should be the same as the rookie draft, then. If it goes through the first round and everyone passes, then we start the 2nd round... then 3rd round, if need be. If he passes through the 3rd round w/o being drafted, he becomes a FA and everyone can bid on him.

Isn't that how the NFL does it? Works for me.

Then if he's signed with the supplimental draft, he's DS elligible.
---

Or we could simply declare him a FA now.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I vote for the latter.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

lol... much less paperwork! lol

I don't think anyone in the NFL supplimental draft is going to be THAT significant of a fantasy player to warrant holding him out a year from the league.

If we do go with FA status... are they DS elligible? I'd vote yes (since it's similar status to drafted rookies).

[Preds]

First off children, to be DS eligible a player must be DRAFTED in OUR FRENZY rookie draft. Period no ifs ands or buts.

2nd, Chad Hutchinson was not a NFL Supplimental pick, he was an unsigned rookie who was drafted 2 years earlier I believe.

The situations are not the same IMO.

I feel pretty strongly that Hollins should not be a UFA.

I think we could consider a supplimental draft the way the NFL does it, or we could hold him out a year, but in no way is he an UFA.

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Mike, is there a reason you feel strongly that Collins shouldn't be a FA? I dont see what the problem is in making these types of players UFA. Each team has equal access to bidding for them. What's the big deal?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally posted by Preds
First off children, to be DS eligible a player must be DRAFTED in OUR FRENZY rookie draft. Period no ifs ands or buts.

I feel pretty strongly that Hollins should not be a UFA.

I think we could consider a supplimental draft the way the NFL does it, or we could hold him out a year, but in no way is he an UFA.

Tell us how you really feel, Mike... we're all friends here!

[Urza's Ragers]

It could be that Mike really likes this guy and he doesn't have room this year. I'm just kidding, if he really likes him he can dump some players. Any hoot, I don't see any problems with him being a UFA. As a matter of fact lets just say that all Supplemental players are UFA just to make it easier. I don't see much fantasy impacts from them. If you get lucky you get lucky, way too much paper work otherwise.

[Mutts]

I agree with Mike in that a player who hasn't been exposed to a Frenzy draft simply cannot be eligible to join a team. Establishing a supplemental draft to mirror the NFL's each season is possible... but I think maybe an exercise in futility.

[Preds]

Originally posted by Wonder Mutts
I agree with Mike in that a player who hasn't been exposed to a Frenzy draft simply cannot be eligible to join a team. Establishing a supplemental draft to mirror the NFL's each season is possible... but I think maybe an exercise in futility.

There you have it, thats 2 out of 3 on the Rules Committee with the same thoughts. Dodgers want to chime in?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Well, there we have it. No need to push it further...

But it does seem interesting that just about everyone else in the league doesn't see a problem.

Things that make you go, "Hmmmm...." lol

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I knew I should not have given up that Rules Committee role. Looks like I would have been outgunned anyways.

To be honest though I am still not sure why this can't be voted on since the only people that seem to be against making it a fair and open bidding war are the Rules Committee. If we want to implement rules should there not be some discourse and voting.

Can't see why there should be any issue here. He is a player that should be considered a FA where anyone who is interested has an equal shot at him.

[Preds]

Matt,

We are deep into the off-season FA period, many teams have already blown their budgets not knowing a player like Hollings might be available (BTW, I'm not one of them as I have plenty of cap $'s to play with).

I'm open to considering a supplimental draft where a team forfeits their pick next year, but I'm very much against outright free agency on supplimental picks.

[Mutts]

If we want to implement rules should there not be some discourse and voting.

In my mind, that is the point. I don't think there is any reason to venture into the process of implementing new rules, in this case. As it stands now, a player isn't eligible to join a team until he has been exposed to the Frenzy draft.

Now if someone wants to petition the rules committee to establish a supplemental draft, I'm willing to listen. I think we need to hear from at least 7 owners in favor of a vote before we could proceed, though, and as of yet there are only 4 owners that have given input to the affirmitive... and only 2 that seem to have a strong opinion. Discourse is taking place, voting may happen if there is sufficient interest.

[TygeB]

there currently is nothing in the rules that states he needs to go through a Frenzy draft in order to be team eligible.

Any player by rule not drafted is a FA. No where in the rules does it state that they need to be draft eligible.

The rules do state need to be drafted to be DS eligible.

Thus if someone one signs him, he has to be on the roster. Simple.

Any other decision is adding to rules that are not there.

Granted this situation was not covered in the rules but if you follow the rules as written he would be a UFA, whether you like it our not.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

This is definitely NOT something I'm willing to "go to battle over"... but I want to thank you, Mutts, for the very fair and insighful reply that you just made. It was the best "commissioner post" (ie. done in the spirit of a commish) that has come down on this topic to date. Thanks.

[TygeB]

Originally posted by Preds
Matt,

We are deep into the off-season FA period, many teams have already blown their budgets not knowing a player like Hollings might be available (BTW, I'm not one of them as I have plenty of cap $'s to play with).

I'm open to considering a supplimental draft where a team forfeits their pick next year, but I'm very much against outright free agency on supplimental picks.

again I do not see this any where in the rules. Maybe I do not know where the most recent rules are and maybe I skipped over the section but I looked through the rules and do not see that.

Am I mistaken here. Or was that an assumed rule that was never documented? Clarify.

[TygeB]

oops wrong quote.

[TygeB]

Originally posted by Wonder Mutts


In my mind, that is the point. I don't think there is any reason to venture into the process of implementing new rules, in this case. As it stands now, a player isn't eligible to join a team until he has been exposed to the Frenzy draft.

.

this is the right quote.

question still exists.

Or did the above rule just come in to play be the statements of Mike and Jake.

To me that would be rules committee adding rules midstream as well.

I would like to know where that rule is documented, because I haven't seen it and again I do not know where the most updated rules are...so I could be wrong. But to me if it is in the rules, it is the rule. IF not, then it is not.

[Flaxwless]

Really I do not see a problem with tagging him as an UFA?

What's the use? As stated before the supplement doesn't even occur every year and more times than not there are no players with any potential FF impact. Even the Wonder Mutts said it themselves... a supplemental draft would be an excercise in futility.

So just make him a UFA and everything is okay.

Secondly there is nothing I see in the Rules where it says the player MUST be exposed to the Rookie Draft. I could be wrong but I believe there is no mention.

The only guideline is that the player must be part of the NFL's player list or soemthing to that extent.

So there is no problem there.

As for the fact that his siuation is not similar to Chad Hutchinson? To me they're pretty much the same. A supplemental draft is basically the same as the regular draft minus the hoopla. So why should he not be exposed to FA if people like Ben Gay, Chad Hutchinson, and other long shots are?

I see no difference between the supplemental draft and unsigned draftees or players.

The lamest excuse I have heard for not allowing Collins to be a UFA is....


Matt,

We are deep into the off-season FA period, many teams have already blown their budgets not knowing a player like Hollings might be available (BTW, I'm not one of them as I have plenty of cap $'s to play with).


Which I believe is pardon the language but bullshit. This is basically watching over the owners who do nto plan for the future and spend their money freely. This is like saying that we should allow everyone a fair shot at grabbing the next Kurt Warner or other come from no where player in season because no one saw him coming.

But what about the smart owners who set aside capspace for future trade or in season free agents? Should they be punished while those who are unwise with their caps be rewarded? I think not.

So really there should be no reason why Collions and other players from the supplemental draft not be considered UFA. Although the RUkes Committe has already "voted" 2 out of 3 the matter STILL MUST BE open for league wide vote in which according to the responses most would see it's fair that Collins however that would still nto be enough as after the draft a UNANIMOUS decision is needed.


So a leaguewide vote maybe futile as 2 memebers are laready opposed to it but I just wanted to clarify what teh ROC does. The Rules Committe is in place to interpret and enforce EXSITING Rules. Not DECIDED which rules are to be implemented. The only time that 2 out of 3 votes of the ROC is important is in the case of a voting tie AFTER league wide voting.

"14E. Major Rules Changes

After installment of the final version of the league rules, major changes to the rules can only be made through a LEAGUE WIDE vote. Any member club can propose a change to the rules by calling for a vote from the entire league during the off-season ONLY. Simply write up something that can be answered with a yes or no, and if a majority of clubs vote yes, the rules will be changed accordingly. Any rules changes after the start of the draft through the conclusion of the season must be agreed upon by the entire league unanimously. In the event of a tie in any rule vote, the rules committee will hold a separate vote, with majority rule breaking the tie."

So I will be away until Wednesday. So Yeah.

[TygeB]

what he said,

and in my book the conclusion that any player must be subjected to the Frenzy draft would be an added rule, since it is not in the rule book. And rules state as I read above that it takes majority vote of owners to change a rule, not the opinion of the rule committee.

A supplemental draft would be silly.

[Mutts]

Am I mistaken here. Or was that an assumed rule that was never documented? Clarify.

My thoughts are based on my interpretation of the rules, largely molded by precedent established to this point in the Frenzy. For official explanations of rules technicalities I defer to the Rules Chairman.

The Insects are right, the Rules Committee interprets existing rules. I guess the question here is really whether the Rules Committee can use precedent to establish a rules existence. If the answer to that is no, then the missing rules must be created... as I imagine quite a few similarly trivial situation in the coming years will need to be.

So, again, I am open to vote proposals on the matter. I too think a supplemental draft is silly, however it seems to be the only possible solution. The extremes are both calling for Hollings to be an all-out FA, the argument being either this year or next.

Just for the record, if brought into the league this year as a FA... Tony Hollings will be the only NFL player who is Frenzy league eligible and has not been exposed to a Frenzy draft. Whether a player is on your radar or not is irrelevant, both Hutchinson and Ben Gay were available to be drafted in one of the 3 previous Frenzy drafts. This is where I find the precedent on which I base my stance... so if I am wrong about this, please correct me.

[Mutts]

"14D. Rules Interpretation/Oversight
The Rules Committee will also interpret rules and make necessary adjustments to the existing rules as needed. "

Above is the rules section that was ommitted in the Insects post. 14E exists to enact major rule changes. 14D allows for the Rules Committee to "make necessary adjustements ... as needed".

[TygeB]

I am not sure what the precendence is here. The precedence being that all other players were exposed to Feeding Frenzy draft? Do you know this for certain. Is it not possible that there are players who went unsigned in the NFL draft and later signed by an NFL team as a FA after the FF draft. I know it might be rare but could happen.

I think it is clear we have 2 people the commish and Mike who think one way on this matter and the rest of us see it differntly.

I could certainly vote, but I can live with whatever decision as well. I personally would think that having to be exposed to a FF draft is not a great rule given the strange things that can happen. I could see the arguement that they would have to have been eligible for the NFL draft this year to be an eligible player in FF for this year. That I could see as within the scope of rules and precedence. I see the arguement being made as weak.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Is it not possible that there are players who went unsigned in the NFL draft and later signed by an NFL team as a FA after the FF draft. I know it might be rare but could happen.

Here's the sticking point, I think. If a player goes undrafted & signed through the NFL draft, that player WAS STILL ELLIGIBLE to be drafted in our rookie draft.

Hollings, however, was not elligible in the NFL draft... so he couldn't have been signed by a club PRIOR to the NFL supplimental draft.

What we're talking about now is simply those players who declare themselves available for the NFL supplimental draft, and get picked by an NFL team.

Whatever we decide is fine... we just need some resolution so this doesn't become a sore spot for the league. As I said before, I'm in favor of declaring all supplimental picks FAs to be bid on... but it's not worth fighting over.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Well if nothing else at least there is a good bit of discussion and people are clearly checking in.

I can live with whatever decision is made but in my mind it makes sense that he is a FA and that would allow the market to set his price. When he is won than he has to go on the active roster.

I don't think there is neccessarily a right or a wrong here based on the way the rules are written. I would suggest that whatever is decided here be added to the rules so that this does not happen down the line.

Anyhow, I will keep checking in and we can go from there.

[TygeB]

I just want to point out I really do not care which way the decision lands here. The logical of the interpretation and decision is what bugs me. My read of the rules would indicate that he would be a UFA but no biggie if he is not.

The potential that could happen with the rule interpretation is that a bona fide NFL player will become ineligible for FF until a year after he was on an NFL team. The simplest way around this would be 2 ways. Hold FF draft after supplemental draft and make everything later... not a pleasant scenario

hold a supplemental draft...exercise in futility

or have the player become eligible as a UFA but if signed not eligible for the DS.

Every once and a while a Supplemental player shows up and is worth something. There have been a few. It is theoretically possible that they can contribute in year one.

To me anything that holds a player out 1 year doesnt make sense.

But again I can live with whatever rule.