|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 10, 2021 15:21:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Dec 10, 2021 17:09:10 GMT -5
Hey Frank thanks for the info on this.
I apologize to you for making things more difficult.
Don't think it's much of damage control situation as a rules clarification. There is really no way to foresee these situations until they come up so I wouldn't put that as a failure on anyones part.
Not sure this is anything we have to figure out right now since Thomas isn't going to be playing this year. Can put a discussion/solution on the back burner til the off season. Seems to be a rare circumstance to this point.
My thought process was that I could potentially Tag Logan Thomas next year if I can control his right this year. Truth be told from my side odds are stronger I'd FT Wilson over Thomas. Meaning Thomas would most likely end up in the free agency pool anyways. But having Burrow on the roster would leave the option of a FT for Thomas. A lot can happen between now and the FT deadline next year. I liked the idea of having that flexibility. Which is why I placed the bid on Logan Thomas.
Having said all that. Since this does seem to be a rare situation. I'm not apposed to forgoing the rights of Thomas to just wash our hands of this until it's figured out in the off season if anything needs to be changed rules wise. That way next year every team will have a chance at Thomas instead of the playoffs team now.
Anyways those are just some of my thoughts. I'll be cool with whatever the leagues decides to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Dec 10, 2021 18:41:04 GMT -5
I knew the rule of playoff teams only but felt it an unfair advantage that when a stud like Thomas came up, probably top 5 in his position, only the elite section of the league was allowed to bid. So I posted a bid in an effort to add parity.
It's definitely FT1 imo, as it's a new owner and not traded. But if non playoff teams are excluded then I'll be voting for making it as expensive as possible for TEN obviously, should it go to a vote.
I think in general that the FT for a TE is generally cheaper than an RB or WR, not sure if that applies here
For the future I'd write in a rule that no player signed after the deadline can be tagged the following year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Dec 12, 2021 12:03:41 GMT -5
Ive awarded Logan Thomas to the Titans as it was the last valid bid.
My tendency is that Thomas will be a FT2 player next year, but we will discuss in the offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Dec 12, 2021 12:31:01 GMT -5
First of all, I think the concerns of the bidders in this case are valid, and presents an opportunity for the resolution of any possible future issues regarding the rule in question.
In response, unfortunately, I believe certain questions presented tend to be taken at face value, as though they are independent of the primary question to be answered, making things more complicated than they need to be. In other words, seeking to answer the second question without resolving the first question is what often leads to confusion of the issues. If the first question is answered properly, the second question isn't really a question at all.
The presented question appears to be secondary. Specifically, whether a FT-1 or FT-2 can be applied to a player that was acquired within the parameters of this rule. To me, the obvious answer for multiple reasons is that neither are available.
Here, we have a rule that eliminates non-playoff teams from bidding. Additionally, it forbids playoff teams offering multi-year contracts for said player(s), and. As I see it...there is no flaw in the rules, and therefore no loophole to be addressed.
The first question to be decided should address the spirit of the Rule. The rule was implemented to assist playoff teams DURING THE PLAYOFFS. Not to offer them an unfair advantage in re-signing the player. Following the acquisition of a player, that player would return to the FA pool the following year, which is the spirit of the one-year bid. As I see it, an opportunity to re-sign the player to a contract, whether by FT or otherwise goes against the very spirit of the Rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2021 12:11:54 GMT -5
In one of my 32 team leagues once the regular season is over only playoff teams still left in playoffs can bid on players and ONLY sign them to a 1 year deal with NO TAGS. We had same issue a few years back so rule was changed. After playoffs over 1 year signed players get put back into UFA pool. Gives playoff teams players if covid or injury happens in playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Dec 13, 2021 17:40:08 GMT -5
A lot of what Darryl says makes sense to me. Didn't really process it that way til he laid out the rule in his interpretation.
Seeing how these type of things have happened in other leagues and GM's here may have interpreted the rule as I did. Think that does leave some opened end to how the rule is perceived even though Darryl would say it's obvious to him.
No where in the rule does it say players aren't eligible for the tag who are signed after the deadline. Just that their contracts wont count towards the FT prices. Now if you want to lump in not being able to tag as well based off the mention of a one year contract offer thats ok because I can understand that interpretation. But that's not how the rule is written out. Which is why I'm assuming the argument of spirt of the rule is being leaned on.
I will say even though playoffs teams are eliminated from bidding after the deadline. Every team here had the opportunity to put a waiver claim on Thomas at the time of his release. No one chose to do so. If I was out of the playoffs. I would have dumped a lot of my contacts to put a claim to control that FT2 next year. So non playoff teams did have a chance at Thomas just not in the sense of UFA.
Like I said before though. Ultimately I'm cool with whatever the league decides. Not my hill to die on. Just felt it was fair to point out that all GM's had an opportunity at Thomas if wanted to claim him on waivers and I can see Darryl's spirt of the rule point of view as well.
|
|
