Change to cap penalties for trading - Option 2 Passes 8-1-1

[Popes]

Note re simultaneous trading/cap correction requirement: if this passes, you would need to post your corrective actions in the thread. When the final confirmation comes in, the commish/roster person needs to be able to read the thread and see everything that will happen to ensure compliance.

After the fact, you'll still need to post separate threads for your cut players so that it's clear to all who is available on waivers.

Discussion thread: http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62259

Please vote by Tue, March 25. If no option here garners a majority, I will post a vote with the top 2 next week. We need both votes resolved by March 30.

[Amish]

So voting for the simultaneous cuts would require 3 way trades? Am I reading that correctly?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Amish

So voting for the simultaneous cuts would require 3 way trades? Am I reading that correctly?

It wouldn't require three way trades, but if you are trading for players A and B, but you will be trading player B to a third team to remain under the cap (or any other player on your roster for that matter), those two trades need to be one trade, so at no point are you over the cap.

If you are just trading with one team and are under the cap after the trade, then obviously you don't need to make any three way trades.

Also, in the instance of your trade for Marcus Pollard, it would be mandatory to annouce cuts at the time of the trade as you did. That hadn't been done in the past but would be mandatory now.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Still need to hear from Absolut, Mutts and Derby Cars on this one.

[Valley Avengers]

After a clear example of why the current rule is inequitable:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11437

I'm calling out you voters for the current rule to defend it over the other options. I like option 2 because it ensures multiple eyes looking at each team's cap situation to ensure compliance, and a trade is done as soon as it is confirmed - closing the loophole previously discussed by Popes. At least option 3 puts the punishment on the offending team. I just can't see how the current rule is the best of the 3.

[Popes]

Now that we have yet another trade that will be reversed (http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62510), and this one will screw up RFAs declarations, can we please act on this issue?

People who need to vote: Mutts, you need to vote. We know Brett has not been online since this has been posted, so I guess we can't expect to get his input (though he'd clearly be for a change since this hurt him last year). It seems Nate must still have computer problems. Can someone who knows him (Patrick? Jake?) please get ahold of him and find out what his vote is and do a proxy?

Lastly, as Brian said above, it would be nice if Freedom and Ragers would explain why they think the current rule is good. Everyone else seems to agree that a change is needed. This new fiasco is yet another illustration of why it needs to change. Frankly, the current rule is a nightmare.

Until we get some more votes or some people change their mind, this issue can't proceed (we can't even narrow down to two options and vote on those two).

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Honestly, I was not paying that much attention and figured not changing would make more sense. If everyone else is for it then I am fine with changing my vote to:

Change to corrective actions must be simultaneous to trade (no 24 hour cushion)

[Popes]

Duly noted. I changed the vote totals to reflect Matt's change.

[Amish]

Umm, I totally voted for the wrong one. Please change my vote to #2. Sorry about the confusion. Joel

[Amish]

Thanks

[Popes]

After much hardship and pain, we have a new rule. Starting now, option 2 is in effect.

[Valley Avengers]