PR Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 Just now, bcb1213 said: I meant the Belcher joke You had a whoosh moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, PR said: You had a whoosh moment. Probably. I'm driving so may not have caught whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 1 hour ago, PR said: Jack Mewhort, Chris Borland, Patrick Willis, Chris Gamble, even Ryan Switzer. People retire young and old. It is not something that can always be predicted and a team should not be locked into a contract just like when James Belcher **** himself. His team was forced to carry a dead guy for a season. It is stupid. Remove the retired person. I hear you and i dont have an issue with this rule being in place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 3 hours ago, PR said: Jack Mewhort, Chris Borland, Patrick Willis, Chris Gamble, even Ryan Switzer. People retire young and old. It is not something that can always be predicted and a team should not be locked into a contract just like when James Belcher **** himself. His team was forced to carry a dead guy for a season. It is stupid. Remove the retired person. I think I got to remove Belcher immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 I would consider supporting this retirement thing IF, if a retired player unretired within a year, that BDL team had to resign him at his exact NFL contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 9 minutes ago, Ragnarok said: I would consider supporting this retirement thing IF, if a retired player unretired within a year, that BDL team had to resign him at his exact NFL contract. That's worse than the current rule, say someone unretires like Jason Witten just did only it's mid-season. Suddenly your cap is screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilantZombie Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 1 hour ago, SwoleXmad said: That's worse than the current rule, say someone unretires like Jason Witten just did only it's mid-season. Suddenly your cap is screwed. I would suggest that team have exclusive first rights to them. If their cap restricted them from taking on said player they would not be permitted to do so and would enter waiver claims? Im simply thinking outloud here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 1 hour ago, SwoleXmad said: That's worse than the current rule, say someone unretires like Jason Witten just did only it's mid-season. Suddenly your cap is screwed. Yeah, that'd suck for them. You want retired guys removed immediately like in NFL? Then you take the risk of being on the hook for their contract if they come back just like in NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 55 minutes ago, Ragnarok said: Yeah, that'd suck for them. You want retired guys removed immediately like in NFL? Then you take the risk of being on the hook for their contract if they come back just like in NFL. Idk why it wouldn't just go back to what the BDL contract was tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFLukic Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 If you wanna try and sign an old guy who might retire in FA, then you should be taking the risk of them retiring this year. I'd have allowed a special exemption for Belcher (or any player who passes during the year) but retirement is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD4L Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 I think this is a clear cut type of situation provided guys don’t attempt to sign someone like Kam Chancellor. This will be an approve when we can vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 @Jlash Ted put you in control of thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, PR said: @Jlash Ted put you in control of thread. French putting American in control. Shocked face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted March 3, 2019 Author Share Posted March 3, 2019 Quote Topic: 3. Automatically remove retired players from a roster (can't be traded) Idea submitter: ny92mike Current situation: Once a player retire, either he's locked and you're stuck with him until BDL year-end, or he's unlocked and you can either keep him on roster or trade him Details of the idea: The idea is to simply auto-remove from team rosters retired players. Argument for : No NFL would trade for a retired player nor would the player. This just allows for teams to dump money in a trade. These are the kind of transactions that the trade council should be stopping. Applicable on: Now Possible alteration: Do it for locked and unlocked players YES with locked and unlocked players (8) - bcb, JLash, MD4L, PR, Counselor, BDP, Whicker, Xmad YES but only with unlocked players (1) - Pheltz YES but only with rookie contracts (3) - Lukic, Rags, Ted NO (3) - SirA, wwhicock, Ruskie I think Mike idea was only for unlocked players, which I have never seen as a potential issue. No harm in voting yes on unlocked though. And if we're going to vote no on items 1, I'll also vote no on locked players here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedLavie Posted March 3, 2019 Author Share Posted March 3, 2019 Forgot to tag @pheltzbahr @Jlash @wwhickok @Whicker @WFLukic @BringinDaPain @PR @Counselor @bcb1213 @RuskieTitan @Ragnarok @MD4L @SirA1 @SwoleXmad @Hockey5djh 1. Item 3 is open for voting 2. If you have any complain or proposed change for our 3up system, please PM me with the details and the reasoning behind. Without any PM, I'll delete item 5 of the agenda and the 3up rules will stay exactly the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.