I am in several Ottoneu leagues and I like the rule structure Niv has in place. I am in a league where the top two teams did not make cuts and get under the cap. In my opinion it is an advantage not to cut and view the player pool then have the commish make cuts. Looking for the proper way to handle it. My vote is to remove the top salary players off the team until they are under the cap. Any ideas?
Not saying this is a great way to handle it but this would be my suggestion. You remove players starting with the players listed on the teams trade block first. Start with the highest listed player on the block and go from there. If they are still not “legal” after clearing the block, then you start removing the highest salary players off the roster. In most cases but not all, an owner will be more inclined to place future drop players on their trade block. Like I said, maybe not the best way to handle the situation but I think if you started with the trade block, the owner would be more understanding. Plus you do it that way once and owners will get the idea that the block list will double as a cut list should they not make the deadline next year. Again just a random thought I had on the situation.
Thanks for the reply I am kicking around ideas. I was going to go with the same thoughts Art u had about removing the top salary players from the team until they are under the cap bot in numbers and dollar value.
If the team did not make necessary cuts to get legal, the first order of business should be to confirm if those teams should even remain in the league. Odds are they are not engaged enough to stay (did they pay season dues yet?) and should be replaced.
I’ve only had this happen once, but in my league we just let the owner cut players after the auction. That way, lack of participation in the auction is the only penalty, and no one has to make judgment calls about method of cutting. I wouldn’t make cuts for someone unless my league constitution already said that is what happens. If team was abandoned, new owner gets to do it.
This. I’d let them make cuts after the deadline (in fact they can), but they’ll simply have to take the %50 penalty for those cuts.
However: procedural question @Niv: does having an illegal roster prevent them from drafting? And I assume the penalties would disappear, as usual, when the cut player was drafted by another team. 1) would the penalty remove in real time (i.e. the offending owner gain $ in the draft in real time)? 2) Would the offending owner be allowed to draft the previously cut/penalty players?
An illegal roster prevents participating in the auction draft.
Cap penalties disappear once a cut player with cap penalties is taken in the auction draft, i.e. in the case of someone making a cut after the keeper deadline.
Those players who have been cut will have a minimum starting price, even in the auction draft, of their cap penalty.
There is no 30-day rule in the auction draft, since drafts can happen within 30 days of the keeper deadline. So anyone can participate in any player nominated in the auction draft.
Niv can u clarify this rule. “Teams that are not under roster limits as defined in VII. c. are not allowed to participate in the Auction Draft ii. Commissioners have the right to remove players from teams that are over limits after the keeper deadline in order to allow them to participate in the Auction Draft. Commissioners should work with the other owners in the league and use their best discretion in making these types of roster moves.” This rule is a little different than the one listed above.
What specifically is different? Or what specifically do you need clarity on?
I guess what my question is that the above rule gives a definitive coarse of action the one in the message would appear that the commissioner could amend such rule as to benefit the team in violation. Not looking to be to harsh but when playing for money commissioner discretion that totally invalidates the rule seem a little crazy. I understand under extreme consequences discretion must be used but using it because a guy went bowling and decided not to make his cuts til five days later seems to benefit the team that was in violation. More of a statement at this point. Just looking for your thoughts as the designer of the league.
Commissioner discretion doesn’t totally invalidate the rule. The rule states Commissioners have the right to remove players. That does not mean they are under any obligation to do so. The rule states that commissioners should work with the other owners in the league and use their best discretion, which means that if the offending team is trying to game the system, the commissioner can use their discretion and make no cuts on the offending team’s behalf.
The point of the rule is to give the commissioner leeway to help teams out in situations where it makes sense, but not to obligate the commissioner to do anything. The language as it is written captures that.
To speak to a real example from our league, I’m the commish and received a request from an owner to do cuts the day after the deadline because he had lost power in Chicago as part of the terrible weather. He owned up to waiting until the last minute and how this wouldn’t have been an issue if he got things done beforehand, which helped. I put his request to the league and said we’d only do it if there were no objections. After some good-natured ribbing about how it would only be okay if he cut Juan Soto and Victor Robles, everyone agreed, and we deemed it the Great Polar Vortex Exception of 2019. So I very much appreciate there being some discretion in the tools, and direction, offered to the commissioner and feel like each league has to work out for itself where the appropriate line is with these sorts of things.
Mkirsh. thanks for the post and I totally agree that a power outage should be in my opinion 100% free of any penalty I am not against discretion at all in the commissioners decisions in a situation like that. The league I was in the guy went bowling after being on earlier in the day and got home late and didn’t make the deadline. Then it took him 5 days to make the cuts. It was worked out tho. Thanks for the post. Niv thanks again quick response on the rule.
This is my first offseason in Ottoneu. What happens to the teams that are still over the 40/$400 limit when the keeper deadline passes?
I think this thread kinda covers it.
If the commish doesn’t help out, you have to get legal but with cap penalties and won’t be able to participate in the auction draft (no cuts until after auction draft)
I believe there is an exception: if the team owner changes after the keeper deadline and before the auction, then the new owner gets a round of penalty free cuts. I think that happens automatically, although it may be something that the commissioner has to enable. In all the leagues I’ve been in, the new owner always gets a round of penalty free cuts when they join the league.
As Trey noted a couple of years ago in this thread, if a team fails to adhere to the keeper deadline, then they may not be interested in continuing with the league. It’s in everyone’s interest to get them replaced ASAP if that’s the case. If I’m correct about new owners getting to cut upon joining, then the problem takes care of itself if there’s a change in team owner.