|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 14:35:28 GMT -5
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Feb 16, 2013 14:35:28 GMT -5
I might surprise myself if we did vote on this. I'm not sure what is the best for us at this point. I don't have expensive players that fit under this proposed guideline. This is not going to help universally. I'm more than likely going to have a roster virtually unaffected.
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 14:47:50 GMT -5
Well based on the personality I've attached to you from getting to know you through this league, I'd say that makes perfect sense Yu. In other words, you're astute and prepared and were involved and attentive enough to heed any suggestions or warnings that may have been communicated and draft accordingly. All leagues could use more people like you. Seriously. Unfortunately all leagues cannot make That claim...this one included. And myself included in the problem.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 14:53:45 GMT -5
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Feb 16, 2013 14:53:45 GMT -5
Colton just made a clarification to his proposal that made me reevaluate my previous statement. I got the impression he meant $5 total for all cuts. Since that is not what he was saying, this proposal does benefit me and I would make this move if I could.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 14:55:52 GMT -5
Post by Dallas Cowboys (Colton) on Feb 16, 2013 14:55:52 GMT -5
Sorry for the confusion, Yu. I edited my earlier post to clarify.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 15:00:48 GMT -5
Post by Ozzie Newsome on Feb 16, 2013 15:00:48 GMT -5
Correct, NO, it is $3.75. Sometimes I am bad at math. FWIW, I vehemently oppose this too, ha Those are just the only stipulations that will make me not leave the league. I am stuck in the middle of this whole debate. I put myself in probably the stickiest situation with the most expensive player in the league. Those who put themselves in a tough spot had plenty of time to correct the sticky situation they put themselves in, if they tried hard enough. If you realized late like DEN did, I guess you just have to accept that you didn't read the rules entirely. I agree that especially in the beginning and to a lesser extent as the draft went on, there were far too many changes made so IF this whole changing the waiver period were to actually happen, it's not like the league hasn't changed some rules before. But, believe it or not I would be opposed to changing this rule. You would think since I have such high contracts I'd want to be able to waive prior to the rookie draft, but I made some mistakes and I made some decisions to try and correct those mistakes. I will live what has transpired and see how the season plays out. I think we have to live with our actions which in this case would be overspending in some areas for a lot of us including myself. Another note to think about is Pittsburgh traded his 2013 1st AND 2013 2nd to free up Nick Barnett's cap. If he had known that changing the waiver period to before the rookie draft was even a thought, then he may have not made that move as early as he did, if at all. People made trades based on the rules in place and I can guarantee that if Pittsburgh was given the chance to waive Barnett albeit a 25% cap hit if unclaimed, he would not have traded his valuable 2013 1st AND 2nd. But, I also don't want to see this league dismantle or lose steam. If people start dropping out, it may cause others on the fence to reconsider if they want to stay also. So that's why I'm stuck in the middle. I want what's best for the league, but I also beleive in taking responsibility for your actions. I will be okay with whatever everyone decides to do, but I will most likely vote to keep the waiver period after the rookie draft.
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 15:03:16 GMT -5
With all due respect though....it's important to try to step out of just what benefits you. This would've benefitted me a long time ago. I said my peace and put it to bed. I did not bring it back up until today , since we've now reached the point where nonsensical trades are being considered and accepted just based on the condition that some have found themselves in due to the start of this new format league. At this point a discussion would benefit many people and more importantly, the health of the group in its inaugural year.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 15:09:02 GMT -5
Post by NY Giants GM (Yu) on Feb 16, 2013 15:09:02 GMT -5
I'm at the 50-50 spot too.
I would like to move some contract too but if I couldn't, I just play what I got for the year (barring trades). I am thinking long term about the league's success and I have to keep asking myself, Does this help the league short AND long term?
|
|
|
Post by nathanoake on Feb 16, 2013 15:13:52 GMT -5
Honestly I'm prepared to live with it too. It was not until I started to receive a significant amount of obscene trade offers and weigh them against the likelihood of just forfeiting a 1st round pick that I started to get frustrated again. Just doesn't sit well with me that 1st round rookie picks have little or no value as we approach the first rookie draft. Seems crazy to me....and also to anyone who ponders vetoing a trade that makes no sense at first glance. That is the market that has been created here by this restriction.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 16:38:09 GMT -5
Post by Crestmount (Colts) on Feb 16, 2013 16:38:09 GMT -5
What about allowing 2 waivers before the rookie draft, but with penalty--drop a player between $5.01-$10, you lose a 1st rd pick (if you don't have a 1st rd pick, you lose your first 2 picks), up to $5.00 you lose a 3rd rd pick. Regardless of whether the guy gets picked up or not, you still pay the penalty
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 16:40:00 GMT -5
Post by speedyRNF (NO) on Feb 16, 2013 16:40:00 GMT -5
That makes sense a little bit. What about the actual Cap penalty. Would that still be in effect?? The 25% Cap hit???
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 16:47:21 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ozzie Newsome on Feb 16, 2013 16:47:21 GMT -5
What about allowing 2 waivers before the rookie draft, but with penalty--drop a player between $5.01-$10, you lose a 1st rd pick (if you don't have a 1st rd pick, you lose your first 2 picks), up to $5.00 you lose a 3rd rd pick. Regardless of whether the guy gets picked up or not, you still pay the penalty In reference to lose first 2 picks, if someone only has a 4 + 5 left they aren't being penalized as severe as someone with a 1st
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 16:49:13 GMT -5
Post by Crestmount (Colts) on Feb 16, 2013 16:49:13 GMT -5
you still pay the 25% penalty regardless of whether player picked up
eg--if you decide to waive a guy worth $8.00 you lose your first 1st rd pick (or next 2 if you don't have a first) and you also lose $2.00 in cap penalty. If you also waive a guy at $4.00 you then lose your first 3rd rd pick as well as $1.00 in penalty. So in effect, I lose my first 1st rd pick, my first 3rd rd pick and free up $9.00--even if someone picks up either guy.
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 16:51:32 GMT -5
Post by speedyRNF (NO) on Feb 16, 2013 16:51:32 GMT -5
What happens if we have guys worth slightly over the set areas?? (i.e. $5.02, $10.01)
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 16:51:37 GMT -5
Post by Crestmount (Colts) on Feb 16, 2013 16:51:37 GMT -5
What about allowing 2 waivers before the rookie draft, but with penalty--drop a player between $5.01-$10, you lose a 1st rd pick (if you don't have a 1st rd pick, you lose your first 2 picks), up to $5.00 you lose a 3rd rd pick. Regardless of whether the guy gets picked up or not, you still pay the penalty In reference to lose first 2 picks, if someone only has a 4 + 5 left they aren't being penalized as severe as someone with a 1st the idea is only in its embryo stage--if they don't have a 1st rd pick, we could make it their first 2 picks this season plus a pick from 2014
|
|
|
JAX/DAL
Feb 16, 2013 16:53:18 GMT -5
Post by Crestmount (Colts) on Feb 16, 2013 16:53:18 GMT -5
What happens if we have guys worth slightly over the set areas?? (i.e. $5.02, $10.01) any amount above $10 is NOT allowed, any amount above $5.00 incurs the 1st rd pick penalty
|
|