Insects exceeding the cap by 1420 cb's have about 22 hours to get under

[Preds]

With the Squirrels official decline of RB's Ricky Williams and Shaun Alexander this morning, the Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects suddenly find themselves in a serious cap crunch.

The Insects are now exceeding the cap by about 1420 cb's and have 24 hours from the time of the Squirrels decline to get under the limit.

That means the Insects must be under the cap by Tuesday 4/6 at 11:49 am ET.

For those interested, the Insects existing RFA's count against their cap, and the oonly way to free up that space is to cut the players or have them sell and then be declined by the Insects within the 24 hour window they have to get under the cap.

Interesting times eh!

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Logistical question. If a player is an RFA and then is cut (before the bidding process is complete) would the Insects just lose the right to match. They really can't have a cap penalty because they don't have a contract with the player. Unless of course it is McNair who has not been bid on and thus is the Insects property at $800.

Intresting times indeed...

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Logistical question. If a player is an RFA and then is cut (before the bidding process is complete) would the Insects just lose the right to match. They really can't have a cap penalty because they don't have a contract with the player. Unless of course it is McNair who has not been bid on and thus is the Insects property at $800.

Intresting times indeed...

If the Insects cut a player being bid upon, say Eddie George, we will play the RFA process out and the winning bidder will get the player. However, the Insects will be assessed a 20% cap hit against the tender price of 800 and will not receive any compensation if they release him before he officially sells.

Any other RFA that is releases who hasn't received bids will fall out of the RFA pool and into the UFA pool which opens in mid-May.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Is that in the rules somewhere? I don't really care about the individual decision but it seems to me that the penalty should be applied to the players not bid on. The other players are have signed offers and thus the Insects do them no harm by essentially declaring his intent not to match in advance of the bidding closing.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Is that in the rules somewhere? I don't really care about the individual decision but it seems to me that the penalty should be applied to the players not bid on. The other players are have signed offers and thus the Insects do them no harm by essentially declaring his intent not to match in advance of the bidding closing.

It's my interpretation of the rules and how the penalties were intended to be administered.

The rules state

Once the RFA Free Agent bidding opens on April 1, a team CANNOT withdraw it's tender without being assessed the 20% cap penalty.

further:

Once a RFA bid is won by another franchise, the original team tendering the RFA contract will have three 3 days (72 hours) to match that offer.

basically, the tender is a guaranteed contract. The only way to relieve yourself of that guarentee is to cut the player and pay the 20% cap hit, or have the player sell and decline the match. If the player hasn't officially sold I don't see how you could decline in advance and get past the guarantee. I think the rules while not specifically addressing the situation do cover it.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

Fair enough. In the future maybe want to add this specifically to the Rules. I had a feeling we would be coming out of this with some sort of "Insects Rule".

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom

Fair enough. In the future maybe want to add this specifically to the Rules. I had a feeling we would be coming out of this with some sort of "Insects Rule".

Agreed, its a unique situation and we can address it specifically in next years rules debate. In any case, I do feel confident that my interpretation of the rules and their intent in Frank's situation is an accurate one. Thanks for your input.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Let me go on record as saying that I don't agree with Mike's interpretation of the rules. As this quite possibly is the first time it has come up, I never really thought about it or looked at the Roster Application close enough to see this is how it was done, and I have no idea if this is in fact the way it was done in years past.

Regardless of all that, what my disagreement is boils down to this, why is an RFA tender handled differently than a UFA bid in the off or mid season? Mike, you say the tender is a guaranteed contract, but it is no more binding, until the end of the 48 raise period (for bid upon players) or the end of the RFA period (for played not bid on) than any bid made during the UFA period. Up until these times, any team in the league can bid on a player, and give them a binding offer. In UFA, we don't count bids against salary caps until time passes to the point where no other team can bid on them. Once that point is reached, the salary becomes the responsibility of the winning team. I really don't see anything in the rules that indicates their salary would be treated any differently.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Let me go on record as saying that I don't agree with Mike's interpretation of the rules. As this quite possibly is the first time it has come up, I never really thought about it or looked at the Roster Application close enough to see this is how it was done, and I have no idea if this is in fact the way it was done in years past.

Regardless of all that, what my disagreement is boils down to this, why is an RFA tender handled differently than a UFA bid in the off or mid season? Mike, you say the tender is a guaranteed contract, but it is no more binding, until the end of the 48 raise period (for bid upon players) or the end of the RFA period (for played not bid on) than any bid made during the UFA period. Up until these times, any team in the league can bid on a player, and give them a binding offer. In UFA, we don't count bids against salary caps until time passes to the point where no other team can bid on them. Once that point is reached, the salary becomes the responsibility of the winning team. I really don't see anything in the rules that indicates their salary would be treated any differently.

I think the rules are pretty clear that a tendered contract is not retractable without penalty, and cannot be relieved unless the player is sold and not matched.

Once a players contract ends, they becomes a free agent, however, teams are allowed to designate up to 3 players as Restricted Free Agents (RFA's) by tendering one of four different RFA tender offers. Once a team tenders a bid, that player is considered part of their active roster and the tendered salary counts against the teams cap. The RFA Bidding Auctions will begin on April 1 each season and end on April 30th.

Once the RFA Free Agent bidding opens on April 1, a team CANNOT withdraw it's tender without being assessed the 20% cap penalty.

further

RFA's will be considered SOLD if a bid survives 48 hours without being increased.

finally

Once a RFA bid is won by another franchise, the original team tendering the RFA contract will have three 3 days (72 hours) to match that offer. If the tendering team declines to match, they will receive a compensatory pick based on the tender round that player received.

Basically, I think the rules are pretty clear on how I've interpreted them, and the fact is a team can't officially declare they won't match until the player is SOLD, which in the case of Frank's player cannot happen before he needs to be under the cap.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Mike, I agree that the original tender is a binding offer that cannot be withdrawn without penalty. What I disagree with is that I don't believe, nor do I see anything in the rules to justify counting a tender amount that has been raised against the cap of the team that tendered the contract. A UFA bid does not count against the team until the bid is actually won, and just like an RFA tender, a UFA bid cannot be withdrawn without the same penalty.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but can you tell me why you view these as drastically different circumstances, and should be reflected on the salary cap differently prior to the final conclusion of the bidding?

Look at it this way. Say Edge James was the only player i had as a free agent this season, and lets also assume going into the RFA period, I had only 2100 cb free space. I tender Edge with the assumption that if I get him for less than 2100, I will match. If not, then I'll let him go and sign someone else. Now lets say Edge gets opened up and bid up past 2100. Now I fully would like to let him go, and since someone else has bid on him, I really have no obligation to him. Yet under your interpretation, I can't bid one anyone else since 2000cb of my cap is dedicated to Edge until his bidding is finalized and I formally decline a match. As soon as someone else bids on him, my obligation to him is gone (or should be).

Edited to add, as stated in the rules "The team tendering the contract will always have right of 1st refusal to match any winning bid." The right of first refusal is an option, not an obligation.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Mike, I agree that the original tender is a binding offer that cannot be withdrawn without penalty. What I disagree with is that I don't believe, nor do I see anything in the rules to justify counting a tender amount that has been raised against the cap of the team that tendered the contract. A UFA bid does not count against the team until the bid is actually won, and just like an RFA tender, a UFA bid cannot be withdrawn without the same penalty.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but can you tell me why you view these as drastically different circumstances, and should be reflected on the salary cap differently prior to the final conclusion of the bidding?

Look at it this way. Say Edge James was the only player i had as a free agent this season, and lets also assume going into the RFA period, I had only 2100 cb free space. I tender Edge with the assumption that if I get him for less than 2100, I will match. If not, then I'll let him go and sign someone else. Now lets say Edge gets opened up and bid up past 2100. Now I fully would like to let him go, and since someone else has bid on him, I really have no obligation to him. Yet under your interpretation, I can't bid one anyone else since 2000cb of my cap is dedicated to Edge until his bidding is finalized and I formally decline a match. As soon as someone else bids on him, my obligation to him is gone (or should be).

Edited to add, as stated in the rules "The team tendering the contract will always have right of 1st refusal to match any winning bid." The right of first refusal is an option, not an obligation.

Your theory is interesting Brian, however I do not feel the rules as they are written agree with you, nor do I feel they should.

In fact, the intent of the rules has always been to guarantee the tenders until the player is sold. It's been handled the same way in the past, but was never an issue due to the significantly lower tenders.

I will also argue that by tendering and hoping to get compensation you need to be committed to the player to the bitter end. Not having a tendered contract count against your cap just because someone else has bid on that player IMO goes against the idea that in order to get compensation one had to tender and thus guarantee significantly higher contracts.

Getting compensation should NOT be easy, and in your view of things it becomes that. Again, the rules state that a player is not considered SOLD until the 48 hours elapses. I just don't see how you can decline a match on a player that isn't officially sold yet to free up cap space AND still expect compensation and to avoid the cap penalty as stated in the rules. IMO the system doesn't work that way nor should it.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Mike, in all due respect, the compensation issue has nothing to do with it. The compensation came into play this year and we did nothing with the language in the rules to affect how their price would be handled, so those arguments really don't matter here. I'm looking at the rule document, and trying to glean justification for handling the salaries the way you are, and I'm just not finding it.

The way I'm looking at the right of first refuasal is the way they look at it in the business world. For instance, say you own a business in a partnership situation. In your bylaws, it states that if a partner wants to sell his share, the other partner has the right of first refusal for any offer to buy the partners share. Say one partner goes into negotiation and wants to sell his share to someone else for $1M. The other partner at the same time is looking to buy a house. Does the lender look at the business and say "no way can I give you a loan, your partner is selling for $1M and you have the right of first refusal, so I can't give you a loan due to your obligation." No. Because the right of first refusal is not an obligation unless excercised.

As far as guaranteeing the tender, the tender is guaranteed by the team that raises the bid, since their offer is binding.

Also, and UFA bid is binding and cannot be withdrawn without penalty just as an RFA tender bid is, but we do not count those bids against the cap until the bid is sold. Why do we have a system that gives so much freedom to bid on players in UFA (ie, teams can place bids in excess of free salary cap space), but we constrain teams so much in the RFA period, binding them to tender prices even when those opening tenders have been raised? That just doesn't make sense, nor do I see that kind of differentiation justified in the rules.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Um... I've been reading these posts, but are pretty much clueless as to what it is exactly we're talking about. Can someone give me a REALLY BRIEF Cliff's Notes version? Then I'd be glad to jump in with my opinion.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Mike, in all due respect, the compensation issue has nothing to do with it. The compensation came into play this year and we did nothing with the language in the rules to affect how their price would be handled, so those arguments really don't matter here. I'm looking at the rule document, and trying to glean justification for handling the salaries the way you are, and I'm just not finding it.

The way I'm looking at the right of first refuasal is the way they look at it in the business world. For instance, say you own a business in a partnership situation. In your bylaws, it states that if a partner wants to sell his share, the other partner has the right of first refusal for any offer to buy the partners share. Say one partner goes into negotiation and wants to sell his share to someone else for $1M. The other partner at the same time is looking to buy a house. Does the lender look at the business and say "no way can I give you a loan, your partner is selling for $1M and you have the right of first refusal, so I can't give you a loan due to your obligation." No. Because the right of first refusal is not an obligation unless excercised.

As far as guaranteeing the tender, the tender is guaranteed by the team that raises the bid, since their offer is binding.

Also, and UFA bid is binding and cannot be withdrawn without penalty just as an RFA tender bid is, but we do not count those bids against the cap until the bid is sold. Why do we have a system that gives so much freedom to bid on players in UFA (ie, teams can place bids in excess of free salary cap space), but we constrain teams so much in the RFA period, binding them to tender prices even when those opening tenders have been raised? That just doesn't make sense, nor do I see that kind of differentiation justified in the rules.

Brian. I'd like you to show me WHERE in the rules it states that your tender no longer needs to be guaranteed the minute a player is bid upon.

I think I've made my case using the wording in the rules fairly strongly. The rules specifically state that once a player is tendered they count against both the cap and the active roster. They further state that a player is not sold until 48 hours elapses. We seriosly view this issue much differently, but I think my case is backed by the rules whereas you have'nt made a case with the rulebook (at least not yet).

[Brain Dead Squirrel Chasers]

Lemme try. Brian asking why teams that tender an RFA have their cap space commited while in bidding for UFAs a team is not commiting the dollars they spend until the player official sells. In this case the Insects are over their current cap because right now they own Ricky Williams, Shaun Alexander as well as the RFAs they tendered (McNair, George, and Hall). Mike interprets the current rules as this, the Insects cannot decline to match McNair, George or Hall until those players have signed another offer sheet with another team. If the Insects decline there is no cap penalty. If the Insects choose to cut McNair, George or Hall before RFA bidding is closed on them then the Insects will take a cap hit and lose the RFA rights (along with the compensation). Brian is wondering why the Insects are on the hook for the tendered amounts even though the Insects RFAs have not yet "sold."

My thoughts, its debatable since our rules dont specifically address the situation but I feel that if the Insects choose to cut McNair, George or Hall before the sign with another team, they should definitely not get the compensation. What is debatable is the validity of the tendered contracts. Should these contracts count against a teams cap until they decline or match?

Once a players contract ends, they becomes a free agent, however, teams are allowed to designate up to 3 players as Restricted Free Agents (RFA's) by tendering one of four different RFA tender offers. Once a team tenders a bid, that player is considered part of their active roster and the tendered salary counts against the teams cap. The RFA Bidding Auctions will begin on April 1 each season and end on April 30th.

Once the RFA Free Agent bidding opens on April 1, a team CANNOT withdraw it's tender without being assessed the 20% cap penalty.

Mike has already pointed out the wording here and this seems specific to me. We can address this next offseason though but IMO the wording here is firm. A tendered player is to count against the teams cap until they decline or is cut.

[Liquid Swords]

I'm more on the same wavelength as the Dodgers on this, and it's actually how I've been tracking my cbs through the RFA period.

The way I see it...when I made my original tenders, I was accountable for them because if no one matched/raised them I would have to pay them; but, once a bid is placed on one of my tenders, I am no longer accountable for it...the owner with the highest bid is. Each new high bidder would then be held accountable. At the end of the 48 hr bidding period, if I decide to match the high bid, I immediately become accountable for that contract again, else the highest bidder does.

my 2 cents

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Ah, thanks.

This is an extremely complicated issue... as I've been deleting a number of replies to this very email.

I guess the question now is, what happens when the RFA bidding puts a team over the cap? Before the BSDC declined to match RW & "Batman", were they still under the salary cap? And what if the bidding went above whatever room they had? Would they have had to cut a player, just to see how the RFA bidding shook out?

I can understand a team that tenders an RFA to be responsible to fit under the cap space of the original tender price... but not have the increased bidding price count towards their cap... until they decide to match or not to match.

Now I have no idea whether or not this is consistent with the rules. But it would make sense for McNair, George & Hall to have to count against the Insects' roster for their original tender prices (800, 600, 150)... in addition to whatever price they won Ricky and Shaun. They should have to come under the max limit based on those figures. If they choose to cut McNair, George or Hall, then no compensation. If they choose to cut others, then decline to match, they SHOULD receive compensation.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Ah, thanks.

This is an extremely complicated issue... as I've been deleting a number of replies to this very email.

I guess the question now is, what happens when the RFA bidding puts a team over the cap? Before the BSDC declined to match RW & "Batman", were they still under the salary cap? And what if the bidding went above whatever room they had? Would they have had to cut a player, just to see how the RFA bidding shook out?

I can understand a team that tenders an RFA to be responsible to fit under the cap space of the original tender price... but not have the increased bidding price count towards their cap... until they decide to match or not to match.

Now I have no idea whether or not this is consistent with the rules. But it would make sense for McNair, George & Hall to have to count against the Insects' roster for their original tender prices (800, 600, 150)... in addition to whatever price they won Ricky and Shaun. They should have to come under the max limit based on those figures. If they choose to cut McNair, George or Hall, then no compensation. If they choose to cut others, then decline to match, they SHOULD receive compensation.

The tendered salary counts against the cap until sold, not the bidded salary. And yes, the Swords were fine when Green and the Pats sold as oinly their tendered salaries counted against the Swords cap. Actually they were fine regardless but thats besides the point.

The rules, while some may not like them are pretty clear on this IMO. BTW, tendered salaries have been counted against the cap unless sold and declined, or releases every RFA period since the league began.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Preds

The tendered salary counts against the cap until sold, not the bidded salary. And yes, the Swords were fine when Green and the Pats sold as oinly their tendered salaries counted against the Swords cap. Actually they were fine regardless but thats besides the point.

The rules, while some may not like them are pretty clear on this IMO. BTW, tendered salaries have been counted against the cap unless sold and declined, or releases every RFA period since the league began.

Okay, then that's what I've been expecting all along. Makes sense.

[Urza's Ragers]

I don't agree with the Swords or Brian. This gives way too much room for a owner to manipulate the market. They should be held responsible for the the player until they are SOLD or else one can manipulate the system easily. Since the rules are written and clear, I say we stick to it this season until we agree on something for the coming seasons.

[Flaxwless]

Since this rule discussion has been indirectly brought forth because of my current predicament I'd like to throw in my two cents:

I agree whole heartedly with Brian:

1. RFAs cut get NO COMPENSATION (no qualms there)
2. RFAs w/o bids (still with original tender) should take a 20% cap hit.
3. RFAs w/bids (original tendered raised) should not take a cap hit.

If an RFA has been offered another contract then the original tendering team, by cutting the player is essentially just waiving their rights to compensation. The player already has a standing contract with the other team as any bid ha sthe potential to be.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Bay Area Bloodsucking Insects

Since this rule discussion has been indirectly brought forth because of my current predicament I'd like to throw in my two cents:

I agree whole heartedly with Brian:

1. RFAs cut get NO COMPENSATION (no qualms there)
2. RFAs w/o bids (still with original tender) should take a 20% cap hit.
3. RFAs w/bids (original tendered raised) should not take a cap hit.

If an RFA has been offered another contract then the original tendering team, by cutting the player is essentially just waiving their rights to compensation. The player already has a standing contract with the other team as any bid ha sthe potential to be.

Unfortunately, the rules as they are written flat out do not support your case.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

So now the issue is the cap hit. I'd have to say that I think Mike's correct in his interpretation of the rules. Doesn't mean it's "fair"... but it does seem to be how things are set up now.

[Nittany Dodgers]

OK, cancel everything I said. What I was looking for the whole time, Mike had posted and I missed it. What I was looking for is:

"Once a team tenders a bid, that player is considered part of their active roster and the tendered salary counts against the teams cap."

While I think that sentence was written horribly (as it is not clear), that is the evidence I was looking for to justify why tenders count against the cap. My oppolgies for missing that and for wasting everyone's time. My bad.

I still don't like it, but at least I see it in the rules now.