I am bidding 1lld$ and 1 year contract to Havner. John Randall

$2

If won IR Brown, Andre NYG RB (I) and place on DTS

I am bidding 3$lld and will give him a one year contract.

4
Not that I really want him, but it will keep him out of any line up tomorrow.

Now thats stupid. Did you even think about what you are doing? You are pretty much guaranteeing me the number one pick. Thanks, John

Yeah I thought about it, and I was against this type of bidding from the start, but hey, since this is
the way a majority wanted it, I will use it to my advantage until it gets changed. Oh and I really don't
mind if you get the #one pick.

Maybe one thing we can do is bump the min. bid up by an increment so that people wont bid so an owner cant have a player for a certain week.

I like the block-maneuver. It's like San Diego last year taking Bennett RB so Denver couldn't have him after having lost 7 RBs. They don't play the guy, it was just a block.

But to answer your question, I don't like the minimum increment. If you don't want another owner blocking you, then bid enough on Wednesday/Thursday to get the player or to make it so expensive that a block will really cost the other owner.

rut roh, you can't do that. In order to IR a player, they need a contract and you don't have any years left. The only option would be to drop a DTS player -or- just drop Havner after paying the £4 LLD.

EDIT:
Would dropping Havner like this be legal?

[quote name='LordOpie' date='11/9/09 3:28pm' post='3012349']
rut roh, you can't do that. In order to IR a player, they need a contract and you don't have any years left. The only option would be to drop a DTS player -or- just drop Havner after paying the £4 LLD.

Why can't I do that. Here is the IR requirement.

3.5.3 Eligibility
A player qualifies for the IR by being placed on the IR officially by an NFL team.

Why don't we just change the rule next year to blind bid, that would solve it.

Why force someone to bid an amount they don't want to.

In another thread, it was broken down that all players on IR need a contract. I'll look for that thread...

Being on IR means that the player has a current contract, otherwise they cannot be on IR. The rules don't explictly state that, but based on the the rule contract implications described in section 3.5.4 shown below, it's the only way I see we can interpret this matter. We actually discussed this rule earlier in this thread http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=294798

3.5.4 Contract Implications
When placed on IR, the player's current contract year is credited to the team and all future contract years will continue to count against the franchise's contract ceiling. After the January 15th deadline which reduces contracts years for all active roster players, all players on IR will become part of the regular/active roster. Because the contract year was credited to the team when that player was placed on IR, there will be no contract credit given during the January 15th contract roll over.

see post #5

The reason that Dr. No - The Mucca can perform this transaction is because Henry, Chris CIN WR is now on IR. Dr. No will be credited back one year, and have a roster spot free. Dr. No can then activate Brown, Andre NYG RB with a one year contract and then move him to IR, and get that year of credit back. If he wins the current bid, he can then move Havner, Spencer GB TE to DTS.

Why wasn't this put in the rules. If you simply go by the threads there were alot of things discussed, however I
was simply looking at our rules.

It was probably an oversight. Whenever you have a first year league or any league, the rules are adjusted and rewritten based on us playing with the rulebook in real fantasy life scenarios. No rulebook is going to be perfect and think of every scenario, which is why we have commissioners, who have studied for 4 years in fantasy school and passed the bar, to interpret and make judgments based on the spirit of the rulebook.

I asked the same question about contracts for IR and you replied with the following:

I believe I said I wanted Blind bidding too, but that didn't make into the rules either

Right, the quote above was a response to what the current rules were in the thread: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=294798.

Since I'm relatively new at performing commissioner duties, I think it's a good idea if another commissioner weighs in on this thread to add their input, and to make sure there is a consensus.

Anyway, I don't want to activate Brown, then turn around and put him on IR, that would mean
if he turns out to be good I'll be screwed.

I cut Standeford, so just put him in that spot.
I still think I followed the rules on this.

Whole family was sick this weekend from Thursday on...so I'm just catching up with my forum reading today. I'll go through the different threads including this one and weigh in.

Appreciate your patience,
WD

sorry to hear about the family. Hope everyone is feeling better.


So, what happens with this?

At this point, the bidding should be closed and the player awarded to The Mucca - Dr. No. However, The Mucca has stated that he believes his interpretation of the rulebook is correct and he should be able to move Andre Brown to IR without a contract. I disagree and have stated so in earlier posts. Therefore, before we process this trade, I am asking for another commissioner to weigh in on this matter ASAP so we don't hold anyone up with potential trades.

It's ambiguous

But given the earlier precedent we made with the rules interpretation that any one not on DTS needs a contract, Relish's interpretation of the above issue is correct.

We certainly need to revisit this in the off season

WD

This is my argument gentlemen.

3.5.3 Eligibility
A player qualifies for the IR by being placed on the IR officially by an NFL team.

3.5.4 Contract Implications
When placed on IR, the player's current contract year is credited to the team and all future contract years will continue to count against the franchise's contract ceiling. After the January 15th deadline which reduces contracts years for all active roster players, all players on IR will become part of the regular/active roster. Because the contract year was credited to the team when that player was placed on IR, there will be no contract credit given during the January 15th contract roll over.


Rule 3.5.3 states the eligibility requirements to be placed on IR, which Brown falls under.
Rule 3.5.4 would only be used if said player being placed on IR currently has a contract.

I understand that in previous thread discussions it was mentioned that a player would need
a contract to be placed on IR, however, like most rules discussed in previous threads, many
different ideas were discussed. Some made the rule book and some did not.
We need to run the league based off the rule book and not the threads IMO.

I already agreed to just drop a different player off the DTS so there wouldn't be any conflict in this,
however a ruling either way still needs to be done in case it comes up again.

Sorry for confusion.

The thread referred to above is not one that came up in our discussions of the creation of the rules (like your blind bidding reference)....it was a thread in September, well after we had published our rules, and is about the very same thing we are discussing here, the clarification of our existing rules.

For the rest of the season until clarified in the off season, if a player is placed on IR he must have a contract.

Hafner goes to Mucca for 4 LLD and will be placed on DTS

While I respect your decision, I don't agree with it.

Rules should not be based on threads. Once the rule book was closed, was
how the league would be run until the rules were revisited next year.

I agree with you, except that the rules were unclear and why we have a commish.

I'll add this discussion to the 2010 Rules to discuss thread.

True, but did WashD go to Four years of commish school and get his BA like Relish did?

No I got an associates degree online through the University of Phoenix....one day I'll go back for the full four years or maybe get my MFA (Masters of Fantasy Administration)

Seriously? Please, 'relish spent his time drinking and chasing tail. His degree is a joke.