bcb1213 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 We already roster 70. I think we're good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringinDaPain Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: We already roster 70. I think we're good Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 19 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: We already roster 70. I think we're good Plus exposing those players to other teams just basically sets up shenanigans. I'm not putting guys I like on my PS if I know you can steal him. I'll keep other guys on the squad, and if the guys I really want get put on another PS I'll steal those when I need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whicker Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 I have no interest in the practice squad. 65 roster spots is more than enough for people to have all their guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Practice Squad is not Practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said: Practice Squad is not Practical. Practical and the no votes on Proposition 3 together makes me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Sorry guys I'm out of the country with somewhat spotty Wi-Fi. Let me check the last voting item. I assume those that were crossed off were voted down already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Hockey5djh said: Sorry guys I'm out of the country with somewhat spotty Wi-Fi. Let me check the last voting item. I assume those that were crossed off were voted down already? Correct. We need your thoughts on whether retired players so be auto releases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, PR said: Practical and the no votes on Proposition 3 together makes me laugh. You win the whinging award so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said: You win the whinging award so far He's not wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 3 hours ago, PR said: This is another view that a team should be penalized for a player choosing to retire. Why should a team be punished for a player choosing to retire? Why does there need to be a consequence for a locked player coming off a roster when they retire when an unlocked player doesnt have a consequence and can be cut at any time? This makes no damn sense @RuskieTitan In our league what is the difference between a player that Retired midseason after you signed them in the off season and a player that gets put on IR/PS/FA Cut etc. It was a rhetorical question because there is Absolutely nothing different. You can get rid of the player the following season with no penalty. But I understand the reasoning for wanting more free cuts when I don't think half of the teams in the league will even use all their 3 downs this year.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 13 minutes ago, bcb1213 said: Correct. We need your thoughts on whether retired players so be auto releases It's not just that it also prevents you from holding onto them and trading them as dead weight in deals too. So if someone wants to speculate on a guy that comes back like Lynch, Witten etc they can't. That's mainly what Mike thought was crazy about being able to trade Retired guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlash Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, SirA1 said: But I understand the reasoning for wanting more free cuts when I don't think half of the teams in the league will even use all their 3 downs this year. I sense the sarcasm here, but honestly what is the point of forcing a team to keep a player that's retired? For people claiming there are contract shenanigans who signs a guy hoping he'll retire during that same year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirA1 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 We already have a 53 man roster plus a 17 man Practice Squad. Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 11 minutes ago, SirA1 said: In our league what is the difference between a player that Retired midseason after you signed them in the off season and a player that gets put on IR/PS/FA Cut etc. It was a rhetorical question because there is Absolutely nothing different. You can get rid of the player the following season with no penalty. But I understand the reasoning for wanting more free cuts when I don't think half of the teams in the league will even use all their 3 downs this year.. We already have a rule that says unlocked players that retire can disappear off roster. This is completely different from IR and PS because eventually they may come back. You sometimes hit and miss with FAs because the thought was to get a guy that may help and imhas a good bet to win a position but is cut and still again may resurface. Retired is retired. The player no longer intends to play period. The team is not on the hook salary wise, yet here if a player is signed or resigned that year they are locked into a contract with a guy that chose to forefit his money and leave the game. The team already is penalized because they dont get to use a player they intended to use. We don't sign players hoping they retire. There is no advantage to that. As I was joking around with JLash you guys are basically acting like this... "You get an advantage because you get cap space later in the season because he retired!" When in reality, if we knew he was going to retire we wouldnt have used the cap space to begin with to sign the guy. This is not looking for a handout SirA. This is not a pull yourself up by uour bootstraps moment. This rule already exists for unlocked. No team locked or unlocked should be forced to carry a retired player on their team all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.