TedLavie Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Dingo is not over the cap there is no issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Whicker said: The shark tank tab includes active and won bids so you should follow that one. The rosters haven't been updated yet to include shark tank players. I've only spent 1700ish of 5311 cap space. According to BCBs spreadsheet I still have nearly 4k to spend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Can someone check if Mike spreadsheet (where the Shark Tank allows you to follow your bids) and the old spreadsheet (minus shark tank signings, Cuba & London trade and London sub500 cuts) match? If not we may have a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 16 minutes ago, PR said: I've only spent 1700ish of 5311 cap space. According to BCBs spreadsheet I still have nearly 4k to spend The shark tank tab is/was including your bids of Grimes, Palmer, and Parker. If you had won those bids at that price, you would have had ~$800 left. So yeah you have ~4k minus whatever you spend on those three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD4L Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 1 hour ago, TedLavie said: Can someone check if Mike spreadsheet (where the Shark Tank allows you to follow your bids) and the old spreadsheet (minus shark tank signings, Cuba & London trade and London sub500 cuts) match? If not we may have a problem My Laken Tomlinson/Aaron Dobson swap with Charleston should be on the spreadsheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFLukic Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 How did Charleston go from being over the cap to so far under now? Doesn't make sense. We should really fill that cap back with the contracts that were originally voided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 2 hours ago, WFLukic said: How did Charleston go from being over the cap to so far under now? Doesn't make sense. We should really fill that cap back with the contracts that were originally voided. Because it was decided if my understanding is correct that 3 FA signings made by Charleston (Julius Thomas, Robert Woods and a 3rd one whom I cant remember) were voided because of cap issues at that time. This was reflected in the new spreadsheet built by Mike but not in the old one. @bcb1213 @Jlash is my interpretation correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted August 25, 2017 Author Share Posted August 25, 2017 1 hour ago, TedLavie said: Because it was decided if my understanding is correct that 3 FA signings made by Charleston (Julius Thomas, Robert Woods and a 3rd one whom I cant remember) were voided because of cap issues at that time. This was reflected in the new spreadsheet built by Mike but not in the old one. @bcb1213 @Jlash is my interpretation correct? If the post that he quoted yesterday stated certain players shouldn't be on his roster, then he would be under by a little bit. I think the post came from @SirA1 from the FA period, not sure what came of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 47 minutes ago, Jlash said: If the post that he quoted yesterday stated certain players shouldn't be on his roster, then he would be under by a little bit. I think the post came from @SirA1 from the FA period, not sure what came of it. Agreed by you and bcb (hence 2 3rds of the ruling committee). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFLukic Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 (edited) Yeah I remember this. I still think my idea makes sense. Like as soon as he got under by a certain amount, the contracts should've just been reinstated. As someone mentioned, getting out of the Julius Thomas contract and then being able to get him in shark tank for 450 is ridiculous especially if he has more cap. I know the spreadsheet issue didn't help but he made those deals on the assumption he had that space. Now that he actually has the space, he should be held to them. Julius Thomas should be on the team for the original deal he signed in FA, not this new one. Edited August 25, 2017 by WFLukic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 9 hours ago, Ragnarok said: And here's the really annoying part. If people continue not keeping close tabs on who they bid on and for how much(essentially basic roster management), so that it makes us go back and revise as we have to do now..we will have to implement a punishment system to ensure owners don't do it. And the more punishments we have to implement, the less fun the league is. And the less fun the league is, the harder it is to get new guys to join. Which, when you have guys with time issues already, is not a good way to keep the league going. So please...take a little bit of time and double check. 9 hours ago, Whicker said: The shark tank tab includes active and won bids so you should follow that one. The rosters haven't been updated yet to include shark tank players. Just a suggestion for the person who is running the excel document. Since we're keeping the active bids on a separate running tab you could always have any active bids be subtracted out of the person's available cap space. That said it seems like there is a bigger previous issue with Dingo's cap that i'm not 100% on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 6 hours ago, TedLavie said: Can someone check if Mike spreadsheet (where the Shark Tank allows you to follow your bids) and the old spreadsheet (minus shark tank signings, Cuba & London trade and London sub500 cuts) match? If not we may have a problem I'm just gonna throw this out there. The link in the OP that I kept using is showing Kirk cousins as a FA, the one Footy sent me does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 9 minutes ago, WFLukic said: I still think my idea makes sense. Like as soon as he got under by a certain amount, the contracts should've just been reinstated. As someone mentioned, getting out of the Julius Thomas contract and then being able to get him in shark tank for 450 is ridiculous especially if he has more cap. I know the spreadsheet issue didn't help but he made those deals on the assumption he had that space. Now that he actually has the space, he should be held to them. Julius Thomas should be on the team for the original deal he signed in FA, not this new one. I don't mind somehow enforcing this. I think allowing him to save over 2k on Julius Thomas because of leniency of the other owners for cap ramifications is kinda taking advantage of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rofldogs Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 Man McCaffery is a stud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted August 25, 2017 Share Posted August 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, WFLukic said: Yeah I remember this. I still think my idea makes sense. Like as soon as he got under by a certain amount, the contracts should've just been reinstated. As someone mentioned, getting out of the Julius Thomas contract and then being able to get him in shark tank for 450 is ridiculous especially if he has more cap. I know the spreadsheet issue didn't help but he made those deals on the assumption he had that space. Now that he actually has the space, he should be held to them. Julius Thomas should be on the team for the original deal he signed in FA, not this new one. I disagree. You can't retroactively come back on a decision made 2 months ago. The fact that he paid 2K less on Thomas doesn't matter. We didnt bail him out of bad deals. SirA singled out 3 deals that we could void without changing the whole dynamics of the free agency. Mistake was made in June a solution was also found then. It's over. Plus, to be fair to him, Dingo is not the only one to blame as there was a formula problem that Rags, bcb, SirA and I didn't notice. So I don't think we should try to find a way to "punish" him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts