2010 Rules Suggstions

[Steelers in 2]

One idea for a "Rookie Plus" contract was tabled in 2008 for consideration in 2010 after a couple of years with the then current system.

 

2008 Meeting

 

Not sure if the link will still work in two years, but this should still let us track it down regardless.

[GILZZZ]

i think that "DB" , should be in "group III", along with DL and PK in rookie salary . i am suprised to see its group II with TE and LB . top 20 db can be had off the waiver wire every year . i think group III is plenty to pay for a rookie db . db value is equal to dl, and less than te/lb value imo .

[Raiders]

i think that "DB" , should be in "group III", along with DL and PK in rookie salary . i am suprised to see its group II with TE and LB . top 20 db can be had off the waiver wire every year . i think group III is plenty to pay for a rookie db . db value is equal to dl, and less than te/lb value imo .

 

 

Agreed. DL's have more value then DB's at this point, since there are more DB's then DL's.

[Raiders]

One idea for a "Rookie Plus" contract was tabled in 2008 for consideration in 2010 after a couple of years with the then current system.

 

2008 Meeting

 

Not sure if the link will still work in two years, but this should still let us track it down regardless.

 

Wow, a blast from the past. interesting reading. Even had Chris in there just before his hiatus.

 

As far as revisiting - I like the system as is. No reason to tinker with the V+ contracts. I don't think there is any need to address stud rookie contracts. Leave well enough alone.

[BadgerlandPack]

We should address the ZFAC IR rule language prior to the 2013 season. The current ZFAC rules still allow players listed as "Out" to be placed on IR. I think we should incorporate the Classic League rule concerning IR and only allow a player to be placed on IR if MFL lists him with an "I" next to his name.

[air_coryell]

We should address the ZFAC IR rule language prior to the 2013 season. The current ZFAC rules still allow players listed as "Out" to be placed on IR. I think we should incorporate the Classic League rule concerning IR and only allow a player to be placed on IR if MFL lists him with an "I" next to his name.

 

I TOTALLY agree. There were instances in both of my leagues where I thought someone abused this to either get cap relief or to exceed the 53 man roster limit. I saw 3rd QBs get put on IR simply because MFL listed them as being Out for that sunday once they were labelled as inactive.

[Panther Pride]

Just eliminate the rule part to begin with. Anything we do not reference is suppose to follow the ZFL rulebook to begin with. But since we have the statement of what happens salary wise to a player on IR, we need that left.

 

Injured Reserve

As outlined by the ZFL rulebook.

 

Any player placed on the IR frees up salary cap space equal to exactly half of his salary. Odd value salaries (E.g. $11) will count against the salary cap as half the salary, rounded down.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Panther Pride

[BadgerlandPack]

A thought on the 72 hour match/no-match window. I think this should be set at 48-hours. I feel we are tying up a teams resources for to long, e.g. A team opens bidding on a player, 48 hours he wins the player, he then has 24 hours to bump his winning bid, then the original team owner has 72 hours after this to match or not match. The team that won the player has his funds tied up for a long time thus he may not be able to bid on another player and after all this time the original owner might match the bid and after waiting up to 6 days the guy that opened & won the auction is SOL.

 

During the month of March, owners are allowed to open bidding on up to two (2) RFA, Franchise or Transition players per team at a time. Auctions commence with a rolling 48-hour auction. Owners are not allowed to place bids on their own RFA, F or T players.

 

Upon completion of an auction, the winning team has 24 hours to post his intentions to increase the final bid, if desired. All posts are final. Failure to indicate a higher bid defaults as “no increase”. Bid-increase posts which are edited default to “no increase”.

 

The original owner of the player in question has 72 hours from end of auction to match the high bid and resign the player. The original owner may not post his “match/no-match” intentions until AFTER the winning bidder posts his “raise/no-raise” intentions, although instructions may be given privately to the commissioner to execute in the event the original owner will be unavailable to post real-time. All posts are final. Failure to post intentions in the allotted time defaults as “no match”, while matching posts which are edited also default to “no match”.

 

If the original owner does NOT match the bid (either by declaration or not posting intent to match within 72 hours), the player belongs to the team which won the auction and can be signed for a 1-2-3 year “V” contract. If the original owner DOES match the bid, he can resign the player as follows:

[Panther Pride]

The 72 hour timer for the original owner starts at the end of the auction, NOT when the bidder says he is raising or not. The original owner just can not post within the first 24 hours of the 72 unless the bidder has all ready. Look closely at the wording in the third paragraph.

[BadgerlandPack]

The 72 hour timer for the original owner starts at the end of the auction, NOT when the bidder says he is raising or not. The original owner just can not post within the first 24 hours of the 72 unless the bidder has all ready. Look closely at the wording in the third paragraph.

 

Thanks for the clarification, but it still seems like along time.

[mike303]

The 72 hour timer for the original owner starts at the end of the auction, NOT when the bidder says he is raising or not. The original owner just can not post within the first 24 hours of the 72 unless the bidder has all ready. Look closely at the wording in the third paragraph.

 

Thanks for the clarification, but it still seems like along time.

 

I agree with everything you stated, but I still wouldn't want to see it moved. I would hate to lose out on resigning a key player because I got busy at work or with my kids.

[mmason]

We should address the ZFAC IR rule language prior to the 2013 season. The current ZFAC rules still allow players listed as "Out" to be placed on IR. I think we should incorporate the Classic League rule concerning IR and only allow a player to be placed on IR if MFL lists him with an "I" next to his name.

 

I agree with this. I was pretty surprised when I found out that could happen.

 

That being said, there was at least one instance last year where a player was listed as (I)--Danario Alexander--by MFL even though he never made it to Injured Reserve. In another league I'm in, I placed him on IR once he went to (I) and was pretty irritated when he came back and had a great second half of the season that I couldn't take advantage of.

 

What to do in those situations where MFL jumps the gun?

Edited January 21, 2013 by mmason

[air_coryell]

We should address the ZFAC IR rule language prior to the 2013 season. The current ZFAC rules still allow players listed as "Out" to be placed on IR. I think we should incorporate the Classic League rule concerning IR and only allow a player to be placed on IR if MFL lists him with an "I" next to his name.

 

I agree with this. I was pretty surprised when I found out that could happen.

 

That being said, there was at least one instance last year where a player was listed as (I)--Danario Alexander--by MFL even though he never made it to Injured Reserve. In another league I'm in, I placed him on IR once he went to (I) and was pretty irritated when he came back and had a great second half of the season that I couldn't take advantage of.

 

What to do in those situations where MFL jumps the gun?

 

Wasn't he actually on IR for a while? I know the NFL allows teams to bring a player back from IR after a certain period of time, but I can't remember if Alexander was one of those. In any case, it's easy enough to go verify a guy is actually on the IR before you make the move. It takes less than 2 minutes to search the Interwebs for confirmation.

[Panther Pride]

I don't think MFL can jump the gun. They go by the teams reports and sometimes it takes longer to see IR on a player in MFL rather than vice-versa, in which case Jeff's comment is then valid. If you moved someone to IR and MFL doesn't list him yet, you can post the link in the respective thread for moving players, as I think most AC leagues have you post the IR move (I know in AC-3 I do).

 

The other issue that can come up is a team might place someone on IR but then they are traded or waived immediately. Then the new team doesn't necessarily have place them on IR. I thought that was what happened to Alexander, but I could be thinking of a different player.

 

Still think my wording is best option. Most of the time in these types of rules, we follow ZF Classic Rules, with our additions.

[mmason]

We should address the ZFAC IR rule language prior to the 2013 season. The current ZFAC rules still allow players listed as "Out" to be placed on IR. I think we should incorporate the Classic League rule concerning IR and only allow a player to be placed on IR if MFL lists him with an "I" next to his name.

 

I agree with this. I was pretty surprised when I found out that could happen.

 

That being said, there was at least one instance last year where a player was listed as (I)--Danario Alexander--by MFL even though he never made it to Injured Reserve. In another league I'm in, I placed him on IR once he went to (I) and was pretty irritated when he came back and had a great second half of the season that I couldn't take advantage of.

 

What to do in those situations where MFL jumps the gun?

 

Wasn't he actually on IR for a while? I know the NFL allows teams to bring a player back from IR after a certain period of time, but I can't remember if Alexander was one of those. In any case, it's easy enough to go verify a guy is actually on the IR before you make the move. It takes less than 2 minutes to search the Interwebs for confirmation.

 

On Aug 27 he was waived/injured, then on Aug 29, he was released with an injury settlement. Since he was unclaimed on waivers, he was eligible for IR, but they released him instead.

 

My only concern is that while it's easy to search the Internet, that some people may only go by MFL designations. Since I can't think of any other examples of this happening, it's probably just foolishness on my part.