- Clearer rule re: no matching without uncommitted cash.
- Matches posted in bidding threads or they dont count.

Compensatory Picks(will explain later)

No RFA Rights trading during bidding
Change 36 hour match ta 24

more pics of Kegs wife

The poor dude who is our commish does not have to pay that season.

I second that....

To add an official Easter break in the rules. Maybe like Beaumont suggested this year? Something like that? Something else? 3 weeks paid off?

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...t&p=2818825

Should we have a $10 penalty applied to posting matching without enough uncommitted funds.

Ok, so I dont have my head completely around this yet but let me toss some of it out there and we can
see if it has any merit at all...

basically we can come up with price points that dictate what round an owner will get a compensatory pick in.

IE:
$10=4th rounder
$20=3rd rounder
$40=2nd rounder
$60+=1st rounder
Note this is just an example and maybe we decide that we only give compensatory picks in the 1st 2 rounds and only on bids in excess of $40 or whatever...we should probably look at what most players close at and set the compensatory price ABOVE that...I would think we only want to award compensatory picks on players that go for above the average of what most of our RFAs go for....again this is just an example and one that can be tweaked.

the $$ is the price that an RFA closes at. Basically if an owner has an RFA and the bid is X$ and they lose them because they dont have the cash or just dont want to match then they get a compensatory pick at the end of the round based on the amount that player closed at.
The catch is that ONLY THE ORIGINAL RFA OWNER(ONCE RFA STARTED, if you traded for a players rights prior to RFA that is ok) can receive a compensatory pick...that might help to quell the trading of an RFAs rights once the player is closed.

OK, so that is the jist of it...award compensatory picks to:
A. Keep an owner from just losing an RFA(dependant on set criteria)
B. Quell the trading of rights when a team cant match since the draft pick compensation may mean more than a few bucks to the highest bidder.

Good idea---but I think we need to confirm if a match =/bid first. This assumes they are the same.

No, I am assuming they are not the same that is why you need another rule. We already have a rule which would punish $10 if a match was a bid.

Agree

i just had ta pardy one last time

Yeah, that.

Expand the number of players you can put on IR from 3 to 6 or more.

In a league this big like this I could even go for unlimited.

Also would like to see the DTS expanded to 10 or 12.

I also have another idea of being able to bid on other teams DTS players, but not sure of the logistics.

I like that one.

I find the DTS bidding interesting and would love to hear more as well. Being the Bills owner, my concern would be having decent DTS players and have a record like I do now and have a team with a much better record steal my talent. It would be a case of the rich getting richer. Is there a way to combat that?

you activate the players

not as long as there is a hard cap for roster years

while we are at
how a bout a flex position on offense

Yes, you could either activate them or maybe match the high bid to lock them on the DTS for the year. Maybe we could say only 2nd and 3rd year players could get bid on. Being a totally new rule, you could come up with just about anything to make it work.

That makes sense. My thinking was if your team was in dire straits then maybe there would be something to protect them from others pilfering your players. Again, my team as an example, if the Bills are doing that bad I do not believe I should have all my DTS players available to be bid upon. It should be set up in a way such as the draft where the worst teams have more opportunity, if they know what they're doing. Just my two cents, though I do like the idea.

This league is time consuming enough already. I think we should leave the DTS players alone. If you want somebody's DTS players, Trade for them. Now I would be ok with increasing the slots to 10 or 12.

Just my 2 cents.
Nick

+ 1

I agree. But if you have players that can contribute but still stashed on DTS, then you are not giving the REALLY bad teams a better opportunity to improve. I'm sure it will never get implemented regardless of the discussion because people are afraid to try anything new. Just thought I would throw the idea out there anyway as a way to make sure every team is trying every year, even if they are rebuilding.

ummm yes you can...just have to make hard decisions about roster spots at times....the thing is is we are to mirror the NFL where we can we should look at this because they get their Practice Squad pilfered at times.

if we mirror the nfl then we would stay at 8 on the DTS....correct me if i'm wrong....

but I don't think the NFL has a cap on the number of contract years...

Don't think I ever said anything about the size of the DTS


well in a sorta roundabout way they do...it is called the salary cap

and on another note is there a standard length for rookie contracts? (I think there is)

[quote name='keggerz' date='9/29/09 7:25pm' post='2957719']



Don't think I ever said anything about the size of the DTS ......never said you did chief,just addressing some of the other comments on DTS and mirroring the nfl...

I'm fine with this thread existing, and it's a good spot for people to toss around ideas. I also want to remind the league that we do have a rule in place for how new rules are to be made. And that is the Rules Committee, which we never had last off-season. I think it's important that we form one this year, and let them go through the correct process for rules changes, and not just randomly have votes on things:

Rules Committee

The Rules Committee will consist of 8 franchise owners. A franchise owner will be allowed to hold one of the Commissioner positions or serve as Treasurer, and still be a member of the rules committee. During the off-season, the Rules Committee is authorized to make clarification statements regarding the existing rules. The Rules Committee is responsible for reviewing the rules during the off-season, and proposing major rule changes to be brought to a league-wide vote, as outlined in rule 1.1.6 The Rules Committee will vote on approving all new owners in the league, with 6 yes votes required for approval.

*2008 Rules Committee voted to adopt the following method for selecting the Rules Committee members each season: At the conclusion of the HFADL playoffs each season, each HFADL division will select one of their four owners to serve as a member of the Rules Committee for the following season. If none of the owners in a particular division wish to serve, that spot will be opened up for any other interested owners (from any division) to apply. The deadline for divisions to name their representative (or declare no representative) will be January 15.

I agree and will represent the AFC North again if needed

same here for my NFC Westside

Trades that leave a team with an invalid roster (not enough players at a position) should explicitly not be allowed. Non-rostered players (i.e. FA) should not count towards the minimum number of players at a position.

I'm with Kevin. I thought our anti-tanking rules were pretty good; time to fine tune them.

So are you saying that any player listed as FA shouldn't count as a roster spot or contract year? Some guys should/will get picked up and teams wouldn't want to have dead years by having to cut a FA player. I have Chris McCallister FA CB signed to a 1 year deal and I wouldn't just cut him and not get my year back.

No. I'm saying if you have Amani Toomer, WR and 3 other WR, you shouldn't be allowed to trade a WR (unless you get one back or promote from DTS), as Toomer is not on a roster.

Same as if you have Martin Rucker, TE, and 5 other CLE homers, and Rucker gets cut, you need to replace him or pay the penalty for not enough homers.

just to play devils advocate but what happens if you have enough and trade a guy and then 2 weeks later Toomer gets cut?

Can we take another vote on having waivers done on MFL instead of email? It is so much easier that way, and they get processed automatically. All of my other leagues use it and we never have a problem after it is setup and running.

Titans +1 for mfl.....

I think the problem was the contract years or something like that. However, if the bidding team makes a mistake and goes over, then its on him and he has to pay the penalty.

This would also take care of a problem I would like to see adjusted. Currently I have to have my bids in by Tuesday at midnight. Sometimes that can be a pain and having more time would be advatages.

That right there is a hugh difference....it's drug out so bad now i usually forget it even exists

It doesn't automatically assign contracts, you list that in the comments section. It still requires some work, but it does eliminate the need for emails and like you said you can still post your bids later then Tues.

The problem was with players not in MFL. But that could be in the comments section as well