Geeks over the cap

[Burt the Butcher]

I did not check or notice, but Geeks RFA tender put his team over the 20000cb salary cap.

So going in order of players declared in post, there was room for Chester Taylor, but not LeRon McClain or Darnell Dockett. So these 2 players will be cut, with the 20% cut penalty applied for both cuts.

[PencilGeeks]

Grrrr.. sorry about that. I didn't even think to double-check the rules on RFA tenders or even consider that it could put me over the cap

I kind of assumed that un-bid RFAs would fall back to the tendering team and much like when a RFA bid goes stale I would have 72 hours to either make room or cut them loose.

So anyway.. To get under the cap (with penalties) I think I need to cut Taylor and McClain.. but keep Dockett?

[Burt the Butcher]

I looked at the rules, and really don't see anything specific about this ... anyone from rules commiittee want a stab at it? I can live with Hans suggestion...would set precedence...I went with who was first in his list, which was Taylor, and by my calcs, that put him over the cap immediatly....so each one after that was also in violation...but we try to be somewhat lenient in not impossing severe penalties in this type of case, so unless anyone strongly objects, I can live with what Hans is proposing...

[Bounty Hunter]

I haven't read the rules on this but since you asked here's my take. The fair and consistent thing to me would be give Geeks the normal amount of time to make the moves to get in compliance. In other words what Hans said.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Bounty Hunter

I haven't read the rules on this but since you asked here's my take. The fair and consistent thing to me would be give Geeks the normal amount of time to make the moves to get in compliance. In other words what Hans said.

The thing is RFA tenders ALWAYS count against your cap... not just when they go unsold.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

The thing is RFA tenders ALWAYS count against your cap... not just when they go unsold.

Right..thus the quandary and the request for assistance...

[Flaxwless]

Did he win any RFAs? I don't think he did so yah letting him pick who he cuts seems fair. Making the cuts determined from the order of a list that is not intended to show the importance of a player to the team just doesn't make sense.

[pacificscrub]

I can live with Han's making his cuts in this instance as well.

[Burt the Butcher]

good point Frank...ok, unless anyone objects, then the cuts Hans posted will stand..thanks!

[Scorpions]

Yeah I think Hans sugestion is correct.
The current players you have do count on your cap, but no way to know what peopel are bidding them up to, and tracking that would be a mess, so I say just like Hans said, you get the time to decide who to cut to put you under the cap, no penalties.

[pacificscrub]

That's not exactly what they're meaning Scorps. We've never actually had anyone not realize that you have to have cap room for your RFAs. We may want to put specific penalties in the rules for this in case it happens again. If nothing else, someone should not be able to decide in the future on who they want to keep/cut in this instance now that it's actually happened. I'm just willing to give Hans the benefit of the doubt since this is the first time we've ever encountered this problem.

[Burt the Butcher]

The rules are clear, that you have to have room under your cap for your RFA bids declared...we didn't catch it at the time, so penalties need to be assessed, since it's Hans responsibility to keep track. I think penalizing him by having to cut enough RFA's he tagged is a good penalty..allowing him to choose which ones seems just also. I was trying to get input on whether we allow the team to choose which ones get cut, or if we should start cutting in order....I guess I wasn't clear enough on what I was asking...Sounds like we have a consensus...

[Scorpions]

looks like i'm wrong no matter what i say even though if you read it, i'm agreeing.

[Bounty Hunter]

Sure the rules say they are on your roster, however they are removed from the website roster listing when a team declares them RFAs? This can lead a team to think they have more cap than they do.

Leaving them on the website roster listing might help

[Scorpions]

well, what i do is put them on my roster app at the value i RFA'd them for.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Bounty Hunter

Sure the rules say they are on your roster, however they are removed from the website roster listing when a team declares them RFAs? This can lead a team to think they have more cap than they do.

Leaving them on the website roster listing might help

just makes for more work for me, but if it helps I'll consider it next year...just remind me in a year...

[Bounty Hunter]

Never mind (high squeaky voice from SNL) Wouldn't want to increase your workload. I thought you had to remove them, my bad.

[Burt the Butcher]

I usually create new site after RFA's are announced, so rosters are moved over without them....if I moved them, then those not matched would have to be cut, penalties removed, players added to new team, and new salaries created....