Transaction Rules (formerly titled uhhhh)

[Cory]

The rule has to be meant for all players, otherwise why include the inability to drop players? I understand that we're trying to prevent a situation where one player gets an advantage over another because of people manipulating the free agent pool, whether it's to add players or drop players. All I'm saying is that it's unlikely to matter. It's like Tom Brady paying some schlub to deflate the footballs against the Colts. It's definitely shady business, but the odds that it affected the outcome of the game are pretty much nil.

It seemed like you guys were polling for opinions. My opinion is that this rule doesn't really matter one way or the other. I highly doubt that getting rid of the rule is going to change the outcome of any games. I also highly doubt that keeping the rule is affecting anybody that isn't trying to game the system by signing a bunch of future RFAs right before the season ends. Then again, I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of that strategy too.

I guess my official stance would be whatever makes it easier on the commish. Keeping track of who's doing what each sim seems like a pain in the butt, but dealing with somebody whining because their opponent picked up a below average player that they don't feel their opponent should have had access to contributed in some small way seems like a more annoying situation. I just have my doubts that it will come up very often at all. Maybe once every thirty or forty seasons. So, it's really a matter of constantly dealing with a small nuisance versus very occasionally dealing with a slightly larger annoyance. Doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, as I'm not the commish. Whatever Aston wants to mess with I'm fine with.

[Guest]

I imagine the no dropping aspect was to avoid collusion between teams/friends. It's not a far stretch to suggest someone cut an aged but useful veteran player so their buddy can scoop him up for a playoff game. (Which, btw, would also allow them to Tag him the next season.)

But, yeah, that is probably far fetched. Perhaps the rule was made so that a playoff team doesn't pick up a released player and then beat their opponent who tried to sign that guy. That seems even more far fetched to me.

We're spinning tires though. Sounds like he's fine getting rid of that rule, which makes sense. Don't think it's a big deal.

But the other part of this is something people use. And I think it's a bit cheap. Since Nemesis would like to do that then I know it's shady. ;)

[Sgran]

There actually is a very real reason why an owner might want to drop a good player. Imagine a case where you're capped out, so you can't resign a good player whose contract is almost up. You have an expensive player in the last year of his contract whom you're going to let walk anyway. You could cut that player to make room so that you can sign good player before he hits free agency. That would result in a quality vet being available for a playoff team.

Or am I missing something?

[Guest]

Teams that aren't in the playoffs could use the players.

Building on garion's point. This is what the draft order is for.

As with most things, one big ole BUT with my opinion is that you still should never exceed legal rosters. I shouldn't be able to hog 80 players in the playoffs. If I sign someone, I should have to release a player to stay at 53.

+1000

I suggest that the roster rules be modified to say that no one can exceed 53 players after preseason (except 1-for-1 for IR players) and that anyone caught stockpiling players loses draft picks.

I have no problem with anyone adding/cutting players during the playoffs as long as everyone has the same # of players on their roster. I think that is fair.

[Guest]

There actually is a very real reason why an owner might want to drop a good player. Imagine a case where you're capped out, so you can't resign a good player whose contract is almost up. You have an expensive player in the last year of his contract whom you're going to let walk anyway. You could cut that player to make room so that you can sign good player before he hits free agency. That would result in a quality vet being available for a playoff team.

Or am I missing something?

I thought that the player was basically done getting paid after week 17. Does cutting a player after the regular season is finished actually create any cap space?

[Guest]

Building on garion's point. This is what the draft order is for.



+1000

I suggest that the roster rules be modified to say that no one can exceed 53 players after preseason (except 1-for-1 for IR players) and that anyone caught stockpiling players loses draft picks.

I have no problem with anyone adding/cutting players during the playoffs as long as everyone has the same # of players on their roster. I think that is fair.

The game will not allow you to have more than 53 (not counting IR) players before a sim.

Unless I'm crazy

[Aston]

Nah, the roster requirement is only enforced when you play a game. The game will let you sign 30 players on a bye week if you wanted to. (But please don't!)

Okay, here's where I'm at.

• Players may not be released after the last game of your season.[/*]

This will get removed. It can be a matter of RL convenience for some people, and neither of these issues are huge deals. More importantly, I don't know how I'd penalize anybody for this. I can't sign anybody back to teams, and voiding draft picks seems incredibly harsh for the "offense".

• Free agents may not be signed after the last game of your season.[/*]

This will stay. I agree that these aren't things that make a huge difference either way. However, this is an incumbent rule and I prefer to keep those. It also has an easy "stick" -- void signee contracts (if they are caught before play begins in the next preseason) -- and a clear line (no games, no sign).

If you'd like to help me keep an eye out, that's appreciated. If anything slips through the cracks, I apologize, and I hope we can adopt rush's understanding:

I think the current rule is the fairest way of doing this. I don't think anything needs to change.

Sometimes you may get a situation where someone is not familiar with the rules and the commisioner may overlook a transaction by mistake. On the odd occasion this happens, I think most would agree that 'sh!t happens'.

Thanks!

[Guest]

Yay! We continue to thwart Nemesis's bid to try and suck less!

[Nemesis]

Yay! We continue to thwart Nemesis's bid to try and suck less!

Meh, I don't really care either way.

[irabowman]

Finishing in the bottom 2 years straight, I agree that everyone should have equal shot at signing players. I have a receiver wish had tried to resign, but who's to say by saving the money and not resigning him might allow me chance of signing a better player for just little extra money.

[Aston]

Hey ira, just to be clear, you can make renegotiation offers to any player on your team. No restrictions about that.

[Guest]

Finishing in the bottom 2 years straight, I agree that everyone should have equal shot at signing players. I have a receiver wish had tried to resign, but who's to say by saving the money and not resigning him might allow me chance of signing a better player for just little extra money.

You should retain whoever you're talking about. WRs of quality who aren't in their 10th year rarely make FA.

Also, re-sign means you get to control that player's future. It keeps you in the driver seat and not someone making a one year $30 mil offer.