(12-10-2019, 12:08 PM)37thchamber Wrote:(especially given that it was explicitly stated that had he signed with another team, it would have been allowed)
And this is where I'm trying to figure out what the point of rule D. 14. is then. If it's not to prevent a lower cap hit in year 4 and is meant to only restrict rookies to signing 4 year deals, what is the point of that restriction?
(12-10-2019, 12:08 PM)37thchamber Wrote:but i think the decision was indeed made with consideration made over the potential for cap circumvention due to lower TPE values... and that makes sense.
Which I agree, and why if he was allowed this contract with another team, it... doesn't make sense?
(12-10-2019, 12:08 PM)37thchamber Wrote:but like i said before, the issue of whether or not this helps with the cap is irrelevant when you consider the fallout of this decision.
I think part of the problem was the response was entirely an overreaction on DD's part. I don't think the potential for him to quit everything was considered as a genuine possibility, and it shouldn't have been. HO decisions should not be made based on the potential action a player could take, or the status of that player (a fair rub for all, and an equal one at that).
(12-10-2019, 12:08 PM)37thchamber Wrote:the decision was something to be made at the time of the contract being posted. at which time it was "allow this because it's not against the rules", "veto this because it's against the rules" (that would have been a hard sell, tbf) or "veto this because it exists in a grey area we need to clarify, and the potential implications of allowing this transaction could be problematic for the league as a whole" (because other GMs would have exploited the same loophole; one stated as much in the same thread)
Agreed.
(12-10-2019, 12:08 PM)37thchamber Wrote:however, once the transaction was processed, that window was shut, because the transaction had been implicitly permitted. if the rule was clarified after the fact, it should apply to all future transactions, and not any that were approved before it.
Hard disagree here. If I somehow managed to slip in under the rules an advantage that was not caught in review, I would fully expect it to be changed retroactively since it was against the rules at the time. Again, this boils down to the purpose of Rule D. 14. which slm said was not for the purpose of restricting $1M cap hits for 399 TPE players.
(12-10-2019, 12:08 PM)37thchamber Wrote:as an aside, if there is no HO approval or review of transactions, then that's a whole other problem to consider, as it leaves the league open to all kinds of shady shit)
Agree here. But that may also be part of the problem above. You said that since it was allowed, it shouldn't be changed retroactively. But if different people are conducting reviews other than HO (reviewers) and HO discovers a transaction was posted and processed that was against the spirit of the rules, I would not expect that transaction to stand. The fact it was only for $1M seems to muddle the waters a bit, but imagine if we were talking about $1B with a $1M cap hit instead (I know, not possible but use the extreme case here for argument). Should the player get to keep the $1B and the team only have a $1M cap hit because a reviewer made a mistake, or should that mistake be fixed retroactively?
![[Image: 05mahaI.png]](https://i.imgur.com/05mahaI.png)