|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 13:24:16 GMT -5
I see your point and I guess what I am suggesting is that these players cannot be traded unless you are in the black with cap space. This means that you with plenty of cap space could trade these guys as you wished without penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 2, 2014 14:30:42 GMT -5
Manage your cap, plain and simple, you know what you have to spend. Here is a suggestion, figure out what $ you need to give raises to your minor league guys to flesh out your roster prior to RFA, that way you will know your true cap availability. I don't think the accounting is too difficult and we as managers have a responsibility to stay within our cap number. Personally, I feel the punishment should be harsh if you fail to become cap compliant by the date the league sets. We are discussing this as if it is generally an issue and it isn't. Bottom line...Manage your team finances!
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Aug 2, 2014 15:00:52 GMT -5
It sounds to me that they don't want the GM "in cap trouble" to be able to retain the player. They want the compensation to automatically to be taken with out the GM decision on what he want to do.
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Aug 2, 2014 15:06:38 GMT -5
As far as not being able to trade players, that could be fixed by just not allowing it until after the deadline to be cap compliant. But what I would suggest and prefer to see is that if a team is bidding on RFAs, they should not be allowed to exceed the 105% cap to retain any of their RFAs.
Also Scott, you're exactly right.. I don't think teams should be allowed to exceed the cap (with the extra 5%) to retain RFAs. But they especially shouldn't be allowed to bid up other RFAs and still go above that.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Aug 2, 2014 15:13:23 GMT -5
Their should be a deterrent on bidding up RFAs. Something like if you bid one and get one you should have to sign him for so many years and you can't cut/waive the player.
|
|
|
Post by John-Michigan on Aug 2, 2014 15:58:56 GMT -5
Enough...when are guys being cut?
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 2, 2014 16:07:05 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, we've never been allowed to go over the 105% cap allowance for any reason.
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Aug 2, 2014 16:22:39 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, we've never been allowed to go over the 105% cap allowance for any reason. That's what I always thought as well.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 2, 2014 18:16:41 GMT -5
I see no reason to allow teams to go over the 105%, to re-sign an RFA or for any other reason, we never have, why would we start now. So, to answer the OP, I have always been under the assumption that if re-signing a RFA would take a team over that additional cap limit that they would be unable to match the offer.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 18:39:20 GMT -5
To be honest I do not recall the ruling from before. I know there has always been logic in place that keeps guys from bidding on FA if they are bingo cash but I don not believe we ever had a limitation on matching offers made to a guys players. If someone can resurrect a post where this is stated we can go with it however...
We will be delaying RFA by at least a week to give owners who are up against the cap some time to move some players via trade before RFA starts.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Aug 2, 2014 18:47:35 GMT -5
Holy crap, no offense but I just don't agree with that...another week??? Deal with it...oh no, I'm cap tight, I need more time...seriously??? We've all had enough time to plan for the off season. We knew if we'd be cap crunched or not, we'll be handing out pacifiers next!
|
|
|
Post by Ian-Halifax on Aug 2, 2014 19:02:27 GMT -5
To be honest I do not recall the ruling from before. I know there has always been logic in place that keeps guys from bidding on FA if they are bingo cash but I don not believe we ever had a limitation on matching offers made to a guys players. If someone can resurrect a post where this is stated we can go with it however... We will be delaying RFA by at least a week to give owners who are up against the cap some time to move some players via trade before RFA starts. Does that mean we are going to require teams to stay within the 105% cap limit even to retain RFAs?
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Aug 2, 2014 19:30:27 GMT -5
Yep... FFS
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 20:41:36 GMT -5
To be honest I do not recall the ruling from before. I know there has always been logic in place that keeps guys from bidding on FA if they are bingo cash but I don not believe we ever had a limitation on matching offers made to a guys players. If someone can resurrect a post where this is stated we can go with it however... We will be delaying RFA by at least a week to give owners who are up against the cap some time to move some players via trade before RFA starts. Does that mean we are going to require teams to stay within the 105% cap limit even to retain RFAs? If someone can find a post that says this is how it was done in the past. If not, there will be no change of plans and owners will be able to match (but not bid) on RFAs even if it takes them over 105%.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Aug 2, 2014 20:44:23 GMT -5
Holy crap, no offense but I just don't agree with that...another week??? Deal with it...oh no, I'm cap tight, I need more time...seriously??? We've all had enough time to plan for the off season. We knew if we'd be cap crunched or not, we'll be handing out pacifiers next! Everyone has been reading this board where I have been saying they can match and exceed 105% of cap. I am not going to now say no, sorry, can't do that anymore. Change oif plans and you have no time left to ready your house before the offers start rolling in. For Pete's sake Scotty you even said in an early post that this hardly ever happens where an owner lets their team get so far out of cap compliance.
|
|