|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 16:35:48 GMT -5
As of now there is now time limit allowed for increasing your salary over 30 million.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Mar 17, 2008 16:37:27 GMT -5
Sign free agents prior to a deal or be savvy enough to do something prior to put yourself in position to be 30. I love cut throat rules much like the contract year is now.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 16:37:39 GMT -5
1-1. I wonder who voted, lol.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Mar 17, 2008 16:39:35 GMT -5
1-1. I wonder who voted, lol. I voted No...I'm assuming you voted 24hrs since we are the only 2 who posted here.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 16:40:48 GMT -5
1-1. I wonder who voted, lol. I voted No...I'm assuming you voted 24hrs since we are the only 2 who posted here. I'm not gonna vote. I am probably leaning towards giving 24 hours since it is a relatively new rule and I think anyone can make a mistake and break this rule, and should be allowed to fix it if possible.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Mar 17, 2008 16:41:29 GMT -5
I had 13 players signing Pyrz to 10 mil deal which put me around 34 mil. I was afraid of this rule which made me trade Pryz and signed 2 guys so I could have more flexibility to trade. The rule was stated and preparation should be made accordingly if failing to comply the team should be punished.
|
|
|
Post by DB on Mar 17, 2008 16:42:28 GMT -5
I think 24 hours is enough time, and people should be aware not to go under.
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Mar 17, 2008 16:43:58 GMT -5
i voted no
it makes the last day of FA even more interesting
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 16:44:53 GMT -5
I also think this will be less of a problem when the cap is higher, which is why I agree with the 24 hour rule. This wont be a problem for most teams in a year or 2.
|
|
|
Post by Rocky on Mar 17, 2008 16:47:21 GMT -5
I voted No...I'm assuming you voted 24hrs since we are the only 2 who posted here. I'm not gonna vote. I am probably leaning towards giving 24 hours since it is a relatively new rule and I think anyone can make a mistake and break this rule, and should be allowed to fix it if possible. I completely agree with this. It's a new rule, and it isn't worth screwing someone's team over, not to mention that 24 hours isn't a guarantee that someone will even get under. I could be wrong, but didn't we used to have 24 hours to get under the hard cap? I could be making that up, but that sounds right. This is just to keep teams in line, it shouldn't be a rule that can cripple a franchise's offseason if they temporarily go over. I'd say that 24 hours is a sufficient amount of time to give before taking action.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Mar 17, 2008 16:50:04 GMT -5
I also think this will be less of a problem when the cap is higher, which is why I agree with the 24 hour rule. This wont be a problem for most teams in a year or 2. why are we flexible in bending some rules but not others? This rule was stated prior to free agency this season, made stickied, clearly seen and made aware. If someone breaks this rule they should have to be held accountable for it. LIke I said I prepared for it and made moves that I didn't want to in order to abide by this and now its like well maybe we should cut a break. Its not fair if you do that. You made the rule it should be followed. When I inquired about this during free agency you were pretty clear, cut, and dry about being stern that this rule should be followed and its easy to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 16:51:29 GMT -5
I also think this will be less of a problem when the cap is higher, which is why I agree with the 24 hour rule. This wont be a problem for most teams in a year or 2. why are we flexible in bending some rules but not others? This rule was stated prior to free agency this season, made stickied, clearly seen and made aware. If someone breaks this rule they should have to be held accountable for it. LIke I said I prepared for it and made moves that I didn't want to in order to abide by this and now its like well maybe we should cut a break. Its not fair if you do that. You made the rule it should be followed. When I inquired about this during free agency you were pretty clear, cut, and dry about being stern that this rule should be followed and its easy to follow. I was stern about it being set at 30 million. I was obviously not stern about it not having a time limit, because now I have opened that part of the rule up to vote...
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Mar 17, 2008 16:53:19 GMT -5
I mean I honestly think I could potentially fall below this but be more than competitive. Should I be penalized for having financial efficiency? I understand if you are below .500 and you are below the 30 mil mark. Can we fine tune this rule?No. Sign a scrub to 10 mill. It isnt difficult. I dont want there to be stipulations for this rule. Its pretty simple no need to make it more complex.
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Mar 17, 2008 16:54:32 GMT -5
I made the mistake of falling under 30 mil after my trade with Blue. Thought I'd be around 30.2, but I was flat out wrong, don't even know how I arrived at that looking back at it. Noticed it once the sim was up, signed Capel.
The rule was the rule, but you learn by application of it, and Spence decided in this case that the idea of a time span should be alotted for teams to recover from being under the minimum salary. If you agree that there should be, vote yes. If you don't, vote no.
It's that simple. Whatever happens, happens. I'm not going to be fighting on this, just vote what makes sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 17:01:32 GMT -5
I mean I honestly think I could potentially fall below this but be more than competitive. Should I be penalized for having financial efficiency? I understand if you are below .500 and you are below the 30 mil mark. Can we fine tune this rule?No. Sign a scrub to 10 mill. It isnt difficult. I dont want there to be stipulations for this rule. Its pretty simple no need to make it more complex. You were implying having a different set of rules based on winning %. That would've been complex. Never did you imply that a team should be allowed time to get over once they were under.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Mar 17, 2008 17:02:25 GMT -5
Like shown above I tried to debate this with Spence when he made the rule before the rule had to be enforced and he wanted no part of it saying, "I dont want there to be stipulations for this rule. Its pretty simple no need to make it more complex."
So why do we bring it up now? Many people have followed the rules accordingly one being myself, phx signing baker and grant, and others. If you couldn't follow the rules too bad. We shouldn't set a precedent of bending rules for carelessness or stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by cjmjones008 on Mar 17, 2008 17:03:40 GMT -5
I thought we changed the hard cap to if you go over at any point you get the penalty. I think the min salary should have the same policy as the hard cap
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 17:04:45 GMT -5
Like shown above I tried to debate this with Spence when he made the rule before the rule had to be enforced and he wanted no part of it saying, "I dont want there to be stipulations for this rule. Its pretty simple no need to make it more complex." So why do we bring it up now? Many people have followed the rules accordingly one being myself, phx signing baker and grant, and others. If you couldn't follow the rules too bad. We shouldn't set a precedent of bending rules for carelessness or stupidity. I just explained it Dave. You wanted some contingencies on winning %, which would've been ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 17:05:42 GMT -5
I thought we changed the hard cap to if you go over at any point you get the penalty. I think the min salary should have the same policy as the hard cap
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 17:06:45 GMT -5
James just textd me.
gg i win.
|
|
Dave
All-Star
Ex-GM
Posts: 7,222
|
Post by Dave on Mar 17, 2008 17:06:58 GMT -5
You were implying having a different set of rules based on winning %. That would've been complex. Never did you imply that a team should be allowed time to get over once they were under. I was implying making the rule more complex because it was pretty clear cut and simple. You were pretty clear you wanted to hear nothing of the sorts and if I raised issue further it would come back as Dave bitching about a rule. No one cared enough to raise issue or pose questions so the rule was as is. Spence you are always about setting precedents and keeping things even and fair. Well teams adjusted to this rule to follow and comply to it. Why should others not be held to the standard now. You said sign a guy to a large FA deal and follow it this shouldn't be an issue. As you stated, "I dont want there to be stipulations for this rule. Its pretty simple no need to make it more complex."
|
|
|
Post by nybombers3 on Mar 17, 2008 17:08:38 GMT -5
24 hrs. It can't be that hard to send out a ton of PM's asking:
"Hey, can you send me (insert name here)'s expiring contract for a 2nd"?
Hell, it can't be that hard to get up to 30 Mil every off season.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 17:09:27 GMT -5
You were implying having a different set of rules based on winning %. That would've been complex. Never did you imply that a team should be allowed time to get over once they were under. I was implying making the rule more complex because it was pretty clear cut and simple. You were pretty clear you wanted to hear nothing of the sorts and if I raised issue further it would come back as Dave bitching about a rule. No one cared enough to raise issue or pose questions so the rule was as is. Spence you are always about setting precedents and keeping things even and fair. Well teams adjusted to this rule to follow and comply to it. Why should others not be held to the standard now. You said sign a guy to a large FA deal and follow it this shouldn't be an issue. As you stated, "I dont want there to be stipulations for this rule. Its pretty simple no need to make it more complex." LOL. When I said I didn't want it more complex, I was talking about the winning % idea you started to propose. I don't mind opening up things for conversation if they don't make sense. It doesn't make sense for the Hard Cap to get 24 hours and the Minimum Cap to have nothing. If anything right now the rule doesn't make sense, and the precedent would be for it to be 24 hours. My rules aren't perfect. I make mistakes, and I am more then happy to question myself if I feel as though it isn't right as is.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 17:10:08 GMT -5
24 hrs. It can't be that hard to send out a ton of PM's asking: "Hey, can you send me (insert name here)'s expiring contract for a 2nd"? Hell, it can't be that hard to get up to 30 Mil every off season. In this scenario Aaron already went over 30 mill by signing Capel.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Mar 17, 2008 17:10:55 GMT -5
And, I first noticed the infraction, and by that time Aaron had already signed Capel. If I hadn't been talking about Jennings, no one would've even noticed he went over.
|
|