ROSTER VIOLATION (Opihi - Keenan Allen discussion) Error discovered (late)!!!

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Okay, so something was just brought to my attention...
The excel app incorrectly listed WR TY Hilton as a 1st round tender for 1,400 cbs... not the newly designated 2,000. SO... that's 600 cbs that I wasn't aware were counted against me. And that makes me now -243 cos OVER the cap.
With that in mind, my roster moves to make room for WR Keenan Allen weren't sufficient.

SO... I need a ruling from the rest of the executive team.
Possible options are:
1) tough titties, I should have monitored my roster accordingly. Penalties apply. and Allen becomes a UFA
2) I have 24 hours to get my roster in order now... or face penalties.

Unless you see other options?

[chasmvp19]

Yikes...

[Burt the Butcher]

Not sure who is on 'Executive Committee' but my 2cents is option 1, sorry Jim. As you have told others, each owner is ultimately responsible for their own roster. You list Hilton as 2000 in your declarations, he is listed at 2000 on the Official RFA page, so you were aware of his RFA tag price.
Dogs just got bit with same issue, a late mix up, which resulted in losing a player.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Just to be clear... I was using the roster app as it was downloaded. However, it appears that only Hilton was affected by the mis-label. I looked at other teams, and their first round RFA WRs had the 2000 cb designation. So...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Yep. I was going by what was in the app. I didn't check it close enough to see that the new figures were updated. I just assumed. And you know what happens when you assume... you might lose a stud WR.

and I believe Dale & Pat are also on the executive committee (and Mike?).

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Not sure who is on 'Executive Committee' but my 2cents is option 1, sorry Jim. As you have told others, each owner is ultimately responsible for their own roster. You list Hilton as 2000 in your declarations, he is listed at 2000 on the Official RFA page, so you were aware of his RFA tag price.
Dogs just got bit with same issue, a late mix up, which resulted in losing a player.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

When I reviewed the app, I looked to make sure that all the players were there... and that the current years/salaries were there... and that my RFAs were correctly identified.

But I never checked the tendering amounts for them.

[Burt the Butcher]

Sure, but the App and MFL are only supposed to be tools to be used to help. Ultimately we are responsible for our own teams cap. If you had it listed in RFA declarations at the old level, and the APP also had the same, I could see maybe cutting some slack, but you did list him at 2000cb, so you were aware.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Nope. I knew he was 2000. That's the new level. Just assumed the first app of the 2018 was correct. That's the one thing I didn't check.
I always use the first app of the season as the app I have to build on no matter what gets updated.

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

Sure, but the App and MFL are only supposed to be tools to be used to help. Ultimately we are responsible for our own teams cap. If you had it listed in RFA declarations at the old level, and the APP also had the same, I could see maybe cutting some slack, but you did list him at 2000cb, so you were aware.

[Preds]

I will Text Dale and Patrick to discuss.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Preds

I will Text Dale and Patrick to discuss.

I included Burt in the group text as well.

[Bounty Hunter]

[Preds]

I proposed an option 3, which had 2 votes in favor, 1 against, and 1 that is opposed but not on the official committee to have a vote. The committee vote against has changed their vote to being in favor of the compromise I proposed after reviewing feedback from the league, thus a final ruling of 3-0 in favor of the compromise solution detailed below.

I proposed that Jim be assessed Roster Penalties of 500cb's on Allen (20% of Allens salary), but will be allowed to keep him by becoming cap compliant within 24 hours. With the correction of the salary error on the app, that puts Jim 743 over at the moment. IMO such a large roster penalty is penalty enough for am unintentional mistake in trusting the accuracy of the initial 2018 roster app. The cap penalty and loss of the player in this case is just too much IMO. One could say the cap penalty alone is somewhat crippling to a team in this case. If this is too lenient a solution for some teams I apologize, but it is what suggested, and what the committee ultimately voted on in a 2-1 split decision (along with modifications to how we'll handle RFA's in the future on MFL and the app to help prevent a similar recurrence).

FWIW since my return 5 years ago, I've taken a much lighter approach on the league (you all know I used to be a ridiculous hardliner and took it all too seriously, it's why I stepped away for a number of years to get my priorities in life straight). Since I came back, I've had a much less hardline approach to things and choose to be more evaluative of situations and working for resolutions that don't cripple teams or the league. Some are vastly opposed to this approach, and in a money league I'd agree, however, IMO this is supposed to be fun but challenging escape from our busy daily lives. If we solely take a hardline on a free league without considering circumstances and situation it saps the fun out of the league and just becomes a frustration.

My approach these days is to look and evaluate the gray areas and/or honest mistakes that come up on occasions and suggest penalties that don't completely cripple teams or kill the fun of participating (unless it was a flagrant attempt to bend the rules or major lack of respecting timelines or something). This of course is not a black and white interpretation of the rules, and thus causes accusations of distrust by the newer teams that the league management is cheating, working on spirit of the rules, or past interpretations that aren't documented, etc.

In this case Jim's issue with the mistaken salary listed on the 2018 Roster App for TY Hilton that caused a calculation error. It was an easy mistake to miss by all. Patrick works his butt off on the app, Dale and I do the same on the MFL site, but we're all human and errors still happen. I know we say teams are responsible to manage their own teams, but it's not unreasonable to expect the RFA salaries to be correct when working with your roster, and very easy to overlook if it's not. FWIW I generally loosley keep up with other teams on the app besides my own, and I missed the error on TY Hilton's RFA salary as well.

To help prevent this in the future, Dale has suggested we add RFA's at their tendered salaries on the tendering teams roster on MFL in future seasons. We'll zero out the salary once a player is opened for bid, and reset the salary to the final selling price and move the player to a new roster if the match is declined. This will give a second checkpoint to the app to help teams catch mistakes that could impact them like this has to Jim.

Nobody will be completely satisfied with the resolution I proposed, but IMO it's a fair level headed approach to still assess a steep penalty but not completely cripple a team. Crippling teams hurts the competitive balance of the league, and hurts the motivation for people to want to continue to play in the league.

I also want to say that Jim is about as fair a Commish as we could ever hope for. He's the glue that keeps us together IMO. He's had to deal with many complex situations over the years and has done so with fairness, grace and compassion. It could be argued he's granted leniency at one point or another to pretty much every team in the league for honest mistakes (especially the newer teams).

Peace to all...

[Preds]

Also, I've just added all unsold RFA's to the tendering team rosters on MFL. Woods is the only player pending at the moment. He's been added to the Swords roster at a 0 salary for the moment pending their decision on a match.

[Bounty Hunter]

I made a mistake on Jordan Matthews, i want him back.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Bounty Hunter

I made a mistake on Jordan Matthews, i want him back.

Please tell me how the loss of a fringe player waiver claim is as crippling to your team as this is to Jim's. Show me where the 2017 app was in error (as your mistake was in the last season) and how it could be so easily overloooked.

Let's try not to be myopic and look an the whole picture for teams and the league as a whole.

[chasmvp19]

Did you mean for us regular owners to comment on the proposed solution or not. Has Opihi agreed to this resolution or not? Does he (Opihi) get the opportunity to negotiate a different outcome which he may deem less draconian to his team or is this resolution final?? Just curious....because this is the first time I have seen this type of error in my tenure...

[Preds]

Jim had no input on the ruling.

I posted the thought process behind my compromise suggestion to the committee and the how the vote went as a manner of openness to those not involved in the ruling.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Chuck, it's the first time it's EVER come up in our league (at least in the 10+ years I've been involved in it). Others can chime in, of course. Of course I'd prefer to simply get under the cap within 24 hours without the 500 cap hit (which will be a big hit to me, plus the player/s I'll have to release to get until the cap). So if the league feels a swell of sympathy and wants to push for more leniency, awesome. But I'll abide by the committee's decision, if everyone feels it's appropriate. Then again, if the league thinks it's not strong enough... then that's another matter altogether.

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

Did you mean for us regular owners to comment on the proposed solution or not. Has Opihi agreed to this resolution or not? Does he (Opihi) get the opportunity to negotiate a different outcome which he may deem less draconian to his team or is this resolution final?? Just curious....because this is the first time I have seen this type of error in my tenure...

[chasmvp19]

My chime...why 500 as a cap hit/penalty? Is that a random number or is there some formula that was used.

I would be in favor of a potential 250 cap hit as that is 10 percent of the bidding/won player who put him over the cap. What do the rules say is the correct penalty? That may be a moot point because this was a difficult situation for any owner to wade through...keeping the said player, I agree with...

Has anyone thought to add a pause in the league schedule when the year rolls over to allow for team owners to see the actual raises and bonuses on the roster and app to be able to better evaluate moves and squads? A one week pause so all the data is out in the open may help prevent situations like this from happening in the future. Shortening RFA (to me) is not that big a deal. That also gives owners time to double check information provided, as well as help those providing the data to not rush the products. Seems like there was a moment in time there where we were operating in the dark. Not pitch black dark, but figuring data out on our own and then deciding on strategy based maybe on flawed math. I know I miscalculated some data.

Just my thoughts for the moment. Let me know if I am way off base here. I can shut up again and color too, if necessary....

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

My chime...why 500 as a cap hit/penalty? Is that a random number or is there some formula that was used.

20% of Allen's 2500cb cap number.

Roster Penalties within the rules always start with a 20% cap hit.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by chasmvp19

Has anyone thought to add a pause in the league schedule when the year rolls over to allow for team owners to see the actual raises and bonuses on the roster and app to be able to better evaluate moves and squads? A one week pause so all the data is out in the open may help prevent situations like this from happening in the future. Shortening RFA (to me) is not that big a deal. That also gives owners time to double check information provided, as well as help those providing the data to not rush the products. Seems like there was a moment in time there where we were operating in the dark. Not pitch black dark, but figuring data out on our own and then deciding on strategy based maybe on flawed math. I know I miscalculated some data.

I like this suggestion.

[wchmego]

I am obviously new to how things work here and I don't know the leagues history, but this seems like too steep of penalty for a pretty minor MISTAKE. If Jim was intentionally trying to get one by us then that's another story.

What are the official rules for this type of thing? Or is there a list of penalties for things like this? I have perused the rules but don't see much on penalties.

[Scorpions]

that's probably a good idea

[Preds]

Originally Posted by wchmego

I am obviously new to how things work here and I don't know the leagues history, but this seems like too steep of penalty for a pretty minor MISTAKE. If Jim was intentionally trying to get one by us then that's another story.

What are the official rules for this type of thing? Or is there a list of penalties for things like this? I have perused the rules but don't see much on penalties.

The official rule is 20% penalty and loss of player (with 30 day moratorium on bidding on said payer). The compromise solution I put up to the committee for this instance was the cap penalty but ability to keep the player. Still steep, but not as crippling.

[wchmego]

I think it should be a set CB figure. Maybe 2% of the cap, which would be 210cb's. This seems more fair than a % of a player.

If I buy a kicker for 150cb's and go over it is still the same penalty and I would only lose 30cb's. 30cbs vs 500cb's seems unreasonable and It's not a worse infraction because a player costs more is it?

[chasmvp19]

I kinda agree with Rooster...but I see where you came up with 500 now, but I still like lowering in this case due to the nature of infraction...this mistake got by every administrator and regular owners...he self identified....half the fine would be ok with me since we have identified a serious deficiency and instituted corrective actions...250...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Of course, I'd be in favor of the 250 penalty (vs. the 500). But I think more of the league needs to weigh in. My 24-hour clock started when Mike posted the ruling. So if nothing else, I'll be under the cap by then. But in the meantime... if others want to comment, I'd appreciate it.

[Burt the Butcher]

I am certainly for being fair and do not want to cripple Jim. As Commish of SAC'd, I am just thinking of precedence. We certainly cannot begin to allow a pass anytime there is a mistake in the App - that is too much pressure on Pat, even though the dude is a stats genius.
So what is the criteria to allow this and not others, like Bobby's claim of Matthews for example. Is it solely based on the impact it would have on the team? Based on the timing of the season?
IT seems like the App did not have all cuts in there, based on Patrick's post, so it could be said the App was wrong at the time
I am simply trying to get a gauge on reasoning here, so that if this does ever happen again, we have some criteria to base a ruling on.

I would suggest that at the end of each season, if possible, Patrick posts a new App version, and EVERYONE is required to review and approve their team.
Same for the start of each new season. I like Chucks suggestion of a week down time to review everything after RFA declarations, to prepare for the bidding frenzy.
I also like Dale's suggestion in our texting back and forth (not sure if it was posted here) to update MFL, adding all RFA's at their tender bid. Then we have something to compare.

Anyways, just to be fair, what exactly is the criteria we are basing giving this mistake a pass, versus other times where App was not complete and a mistake was made?

[chasmvp19]

I base my thoughts on the fact that this error was not identified by anyone at any time until the owner self identified and this was even post RFA transaction. Along with the fact that a problem with data was identified with corresponding corrective actions taken to prevent future infractions. So we identified a problem, fixed it, and now the punitive part comes in. Leniency comes from the fact that no previous infractions have historical precedence, self identifying, and league roll over all contributed to the infraction and missing it by many. I am having trouble with the fact that this got by so many owners. Just my thoughts.

Bobbys issue is different in many ways. First of all it is a waiver deal and that ends all comparisons right there...to me anyway...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

In the past, I've been pretty clear with folks that we're all responsible for our own roster. However, not being a excel guy myself (I never use it outside of this league), I wait for the new app each season change, and then take it from there. All I can do is change figures. Can't even add new columns or lines or whatever.

I think Chuck's idea about a one-week break is very good. It also puts the pressure off of Pat in trying to cram everything in before the RFA period starts. I actually did review my roster... but not the RFA tenders (didn't even think about that... just saw that the three guys I tagged were there!).

Had I not been involved in the incident, I'm sure I would have ruled the following: innocent oversight based on a missed error in the original app. 24-hours to get in compliance. No further penalty. However, I know that sounds self-serving, since I'm the one involved now. But I tend to be more of a "spirit of the rules" guy, myself. So that doesn't help with SAC'D precedence.

For me it's not about impact on the team involved... and more about the timing of the season. I also tend to give a little more grace to the newbies in the league (to help them get up to speed, and as to not overly discourage them). That doesn't apply to me, of course. But it's the way I roll.

I hear you on precedence... I think it's just such a unique situation. In some ways, it's like Bobby's claim on Matthews... so weird that it happened in-between the rollover period between seasons. Also very unique. I don't think either of these will be precedent setting.