Catch & Release Release Penalty?

[SuperHawks]

I tried to close this loophole last off season but nobody voted for it. Hmm.

[Xulu Bak]

Heck I'm just giving Jim bleep , respect him as a competitor, but that was a unique trade at best. Didn't bother me, tired of rule changes....carry on

I don't think it's unique...I'm certain I've seen others make similar trades. "I'll give you an asset to take this bad contract"... Hell I think *I* have done it. Might not have been this blatant but I think I've done it as part of a larger trade to fit a bigger contract under the cap.

It happens in Tecmo pretty regularly. I'm not sure I recall it happening in this league, and certainly not the way Treadwell/Yeldon happened, because bonus contract penalties are applied on trades, and you can cut no-bonus contracts just as easily as trade them. I certainly don't recall an instance of someone bidding silly amounts on renegotiated players, at significant penalty to their original owners, then trading them away with no cap hit, only for them to be cut (again, no cap hit) and at least one of them resigned by the middle owner.

This isn't a loophole. The rule wasn't enforced as written.

[Xulu Bak]

I believe the easiest solution is to block all trades on players won at auction prior to the start of the season.

That kills 2 loopholes at once. I had an owner who approached me on hilton prior to the auction being finished. If the player was untradeable, this isn't an issue. I dont know if it influenced his bidding or not, but we should take away the temptation.

We voted on that last year. It was shot down overwhelmingly. That would effectively block tag & trade, sign & trade, etc. That doesn't really make sense. What you did this offseason doesn't either, and if the rule is enforced as written, you would be subject to a cap hit.

[jimscafs25]

I did the same thing last offseason with Bishop Sankey.

The bid amounts on Yeldon and Treadwell were not random. They were simply the guaranteed amount owed to the players. I didnt bid a dollar over that amount in either case. If owners are going to expose players with large guarantees to auction, then i feel us fellow owners have an obligation to insure they pay as much of it as possible. Just like its our obligation to make sure players are paid at fair market value in free agency.

[jimscafs25]

I tried to close this loophole last off season but nobody voted for it. Hmm.

I voted in favor of it. That being said, im certainly going to take advantage it if my fellow owners dont see it as a problem.

[monkeybones]

The issue I'm having with this now I s the fact there was nothing really traded because the whole trade was "conditional" on Yeldon or Treadwell making HHM's team. So basically, Hotwings gets rid of his players for no cap hit without anything being exchanged. That never happens in the NFL. Osweiller was traded for something. This is a joke.

I agree with Xulu's interpretation of the wording. You cannot just pick and choose which part of the rule you want to use as guidance. I was fine with the argument saying "this is how it's been enforced in the past" but it's not okay for a "trade" to happen where a team can bypass a salary cap penalty and nothing is exchanged.

[jimscafs25]

The issue I'm having with this now I s the fact there was nothing really traded because the whole trade was "conditional" on Yeldon or Treadwell making HHM's team. So basically, Hotwings gets rid of his players for no cap hit without anything being exchanged. That never happens in the NFL. Osweiller was traded for something. This is a joke.

I agree with Xulu's interpretation of the wording. You cannot just pick and choose which part of the rule you want to use as guidance. I was fine with the argument saying "this is how it's been enforced in the past" but it's not okay for a "trade" to happen where a team can bypass a salary cap penalty and nothing is exchanged.

There have been many trades done in this league with conditional picks that did not convert. Are we now going to pick and choose which ones are valid and which are not?

Simple solution, block trades of any players won at auction by another team during the offseason. There is nothing to misinterpret with that suggestion.

[monkeybones]

The issue I'm having with this now I s the fact there was nothing really traded because the whole trade was "conditional" on Yeldon or Treadwell making HHM's team. So basically, Hotwings gets rid of his players for no cap hit without anything being exchanged. That never happens in the NFL. Osweiller was traded for something. This is a joke.

I agree with Xulu's interpretation of the wording. You cannot just pick and choose which part of the rule you want to use as guidance. I was fine with the argument saying "this is how it's been enforced in the past" but it's not okay for a "trade" to happen where a team can bypass a salary cap penalty and nothing is exchanged.

There have been many trades done in this league with conditional picks that did not convert. Are we now going to pick and choose which ones are valid and which are not?

Simple solution, block trades of any players won at auction by another team during the offseason. There is nothing to misinterpret with that suggestion.

No. I'm not saying we can do anything about it now. I just think it's shady and opens up questions about collusion. Maybe not now but in the future.

The simple solution is to enforse the rule as written:

Any player won in any bidding scenario is considered to have 1 year of guaranteed money for the duration of the offseason.

[jimscafs25]

The issue I'm having with this now I s the fact there was nothing really traded because the whole trade was "conditional" on Yeldon or Treadwell making HHM's team. So basically, Hotwings gets rid of his players for no cap hit without anything being exchanged. That never happens in the NFL. Osweiller was traded for something. This is a joke.

I agree with Xulu's interpretation of the wording. You cannot just pick and choose which part of the rule you want to use as guidance. I was fine with the argument saying "this is how it's been enforced in the past" but it's not okay for a "trade" to happen where a team can bypass a salary cap penalty and nothing is exchanged.

There have been many trades done in this league with conditional picks that did not convert. Are we now going to pick and choose which ones are valid and which are not?

Simple solution, block trades of any players won at auction by another team during the offseason. There is nothing to misinterpret with that suggestion.

No. I'm not saying we can do anything about it now. I just think it's shady and opens up questions about collusion. Maybe not now but in the future.

The simple solution is to enforse the rule as written:

Any player won in any bidding scenario is considered to have 1 year of guaranteed money for the duration of the offseason.

Collusion? I had to give up a pick. This move cost me an asset.

If you want to argue if the deal was fair or not in terms of compensation i gave up, thats an entirely different discussion.

[monkeybones]

There have been many trades done in this league with conditional picks that did not convert. Are we now going to pick and choose which ones are valid and which are not?

Simple solution, block trades of any players won at auction by another team during the offseason. There is nothing to misinterpret with that suggestion.

No. I'm not saying we can do anything about it now. I just think it's shady and opens up questions about collusion. Maybe not now but in the future.

The simple solution is to enforse the rule as written:

Any player won in any bidding scenario is considered to have 1 year of guaranteed money for the duration of the offseason.

Collusion? I had to give up a pick. This move cost me an asset.

If you want to argue if the deal was fair or not in terms of compensation i gave up, thats an entirely different discussion.

I specifically said "maybe not now but in the future" because I don't think this is collusion, but who knows what we will run into in the future.

[TrueDawg]

I agree with Xulu's interpretation of the wording.

You're both wrong. Whatever the wording of the rule might be, the rule was specifically implemented to prevent owners from winning free agents and cutting them later in the offseason without penalty.

We can argue about whether this trade SHOULD be legal or whether there SHOULD be a cap hit...but the rule you're referencing does NOT apply to this trade, nor was it ever intended to.

[jimscafs25]

No. I'm not saying we can do anything about it now. I just think it's shady and opens up questions about collusion. Maybe not now but in the future.

The simple solution is to enforse the rule as written:

Any player won in any bidding scenario is considered to have 1 year of guaranteed money for the duration of the offseason.

Collusion? I had to give up a pick. This move cost me an asset.

If you want to argue if the deal was fair or not in terms of compensation i gave up, thats an entirely different discussion.

I specifically said "maybe not now but in the future" because I don't think this is collusion, but who knows what we will run into in the future.

You're right. My bad, I must have just read first sentence and ignored the second.

[monkeybones]

I agree with Xulu's interpretation of the wording.

You're both wrong. Whatever the wording of the rule might be, the rule was specifically implemented to prevent owners from winning free agents and cutting them later in the offseason without penalty.

We can argue about whether this trade SHOULD be legal or whether there SHOULD be a cap hit...but the rule you're referencing does NOT apply to this trade, nor was it ever intended to.

I've said I'm fine with the rule being enforced as it always had been. We need to stay consistent.

That's being said, the wording of the rule is important and shouldn't just be dismissed. We as owners shouldn't have to remember the intent of the rule. It should be clear and in this case it's not. I get it, I've written and modified the rules in Tecmo for years and it's not easy at all. This isn't a big deal, just something that needs to be fixed.

Also, this should definitely come up as a rule change going forward. Lots of discussion both ways.

[monkeybones]

Collusion? I had to give up a pick. This move cost me an asset.

If you want to argue if the deal was fair or not in terms of compensation i gave up, thats an entirely different discussion.

I specifically said "maybe not now but in the future" because I don't think this is collusion, but who knows what we will run into in the future.

You're right. My bad, I must have just read first sentence and ignored the second.

No problem.

I was hoping to make it clear I'm not accusing you or rj of collusion. Just that having this loophole out there could really cause issues in the future.

[TrueDawg]

That's being said, the wording of the rule is important and shouldn't just be dismissed. We as owners shouldn't have to remember the intent of the rule. It should be clear and in this case it's not. I get it, I've written and modified the rules in Tecmo for years and it's not easy at all. This isn't a big deal, just something that needs to be fixed.

Also, this should definitely come up as a rule change going forward. Lots of discussion both ways.

Fair enough...as with many rules, there's the letter of the rule and the spirit of the rule. You're talking about the letter of the rule and I'm talking about the spirit of the rule, under which it was enacted. I'm happy to reword it. I'm also happy to discuss a new rule related to this type of scenario.