Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dexter Manley

Members
  • Posts

    5,415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dexter Manley

  1. Is Josh Willingham a better add than any of these guys who are currently on my team? Desomond Jennings Alfonso Soriano Yoenis Cespedes
  2. Do not give her your dog. 98% of the advice in this thread has been great, but the guys telling you to give her your dog are insane. Some of the worst advice I've ever seen on the internets.
  3. They can't, without being in trouble.edited to add: Are public transcripts available of arbitration hearings? I have no idea. I'm just hoping that Stephen Burbank, the guy who is the arbitrator for this case, isn't an Eagles or Giants fan. Also, it would be nice if they actually set a date for when this hearing is going to be held. The sooner the better. http://pwblogger.com/articles/15993/news This is good to hear.
  4. Ideally, the Skins and Cowboys would get the penalties overturned AND receive compensation (i.e. draft picks and/or additional cap space in the future) since they've already suffered irreparable harm from these "penalties." My understanding, however, is that the arbitrator can only overturn or uphold the penalty - he doesn't have the authority to award additional compensation to the aggrieved parties.The Skins right now are sitting with 7.6MM in cap space, while the Cowboys are at 2.1MM, according to the last numbers I've seen. I believe the Skins pushed back half of the penalty, 18MM, to next year, with the other 18MM being taken off of this year's cap. So if the Skins and Cowboys win arbitration and have the penalties nullified, I assume the Skins would gain an additional 18MM this year and 18MM next season. (I'm guessing the Cowboys did the same thing and pushed back half of their penalty to next year, but since I don't know for sure I'll let someone else comment on their situation.)The timing of this arbitration hearing and ruling is going to be critical. I'm guessing most, if not all, of the 7.6MM they have in cap space right now is going to be used to sign their draft picks and rookie FA's. Hopefully, this all gets resolved by the end of May, so the Skins can go after the FA's who are cut at the beginning of June. They can also sign a guy like Fred Davis to a long term deal pushing some of that $$$ to this year. And if they have extra cap space that they don't have any use for they can always restructure contracts to take a bigger cap hit in 2012 I would think.
  5. They can't, without being in trouble.edited to add: Are public transcripts available of arbitration hearings?I have no idea. I'm just hoping that Stephen Burbank, the guy who is the arbitrator for this case, isn't an Eagles or Giants fan. Also, it would be nice if they actually set a date for when this hearing is going to be held. The sooner the better.
  6. So now McNair says that the NFLPA didn't receive anything for signing off on these cap penalties, which makes no sense whatsoever. If this is actually true, which I cannot fathom (D. Smith can't be this inept, can he?) could congress get involved and blow up the new CBA?http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/02/mcnair-says-there-was-no-quid-pro-quo-for-redskins-cap-penalties/
  7. So was it Joffrey or his mom who ordered all of Robert's bastards to be killed? There's some disagreement on this.
  8. Guys, 16 already said that she told him that he can have the dog at some point earlier. And he's been paying all of the bills for the dog. So legally he's in the clear. There is no way in hell he should give up the dog, especially when it would entail a significantly worse quality of life for his dog. Quite frankly, if his ex can't be trusted to keep her pants on around a personal trainer despite being in a committed relationship for several years, there's no way she can be trusted to properly take care of a dog. Maybe if his ex rehabilitates herself the next few years, she can eventually be trusted to properly take care of a cat. Maybe.
  9. Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?First I've heard of this too. So I guess the NFLPA agreed to lower the 2014 cap by some amount to raise the 2012 cap. We'd have to speculate until we hear something definitive. Could be the NFL agreed to a dollar for dollar switch, just moving $X million from 2014 player slice (or other years) to 2012. Could also be the NFLPA agreed to drop their percentage of revenue in certain years. I'd hope not the latter for the players sake. One of the larger issues here: whatever mechanisms they used to increase the salary cap this year, it is a change to the CBA and does it need to be voted on by all of the owners and players?Not sure if it is considered a change to the CBA or not. There are several places in the CBA that mention items may be modified or supplemented by mutual agreement. But for all I know that might require an owner vote itself as well. I won't be surprised if the manner in which this went down plays a role in how it plays out with an arbitrator or in court. I read somewhere that the general thinking is that the Skins/Boys will primarily contest this from a procedural standpoint (i.e. the NFL approved the contracts, there was no formal vote on the salary cap changes, etc.).
  10. The bolded below is the first I've seen anyone mention that it's possible that the union now has an opening to refile collusion charges. If that happens, will it have any effect on the new CBA? http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4691175/im-not-sure-john-mara-should-be-talking
  11. With respect to Mara, all I can say is that this is what I understand to be true: (1) the decision to impose the penalties was made unilaterally by the NFL Management Council Executive Committee, and agreed to by the NFLPA only after the owners' strong-armed them into acceptance; (2) John Mara is the chair of that Committee; (3) Jerry Jones, who is also a member of that Committee, had no knowledge of this decision until it was reached; and (4) Mara is the only NFL-affiliated person I know of who has spoken publicly in defense of the penalties.Draw your own conclusions, I guess. Doesn't really take much effort to do so, though. And I'll add that John Mara was just appointed as chairman of the NFL Executive Committee last October. Now, I'm not sure exactly how the NFL goes about appointing owners as chairman of committees, but I'm willing to bet that they just don't draw names out of a hat. I'm going to assume that Mara made a push to be named chairman of the NFL Executive Committee last fall unless someone can show me evidence that suggests otherwise.Also, here's the Management Council Executive Committee: John Mara (Chairman) Mike Brown Clark Hunt Jerry Jones Robert Kraft Mark Murphy Art Rooney Dean Spanos I had no idea Hunt and Rooney were on this committee until I just looked it up. Wow, I just lost all respect for those 2 guys who are supposed to be 2 of the best owners in the league. Kraft has always been shady so no surprise there. Virtually no one respects Brown or Spanos, and I would expect them to go along with this sort of scheme. No reason to assume they know about it- after all, Jones didn't know about it. And presumably self-interest alone isn't grounds for excluding someone from the process, since Mara didn't exclude himself from the process despite his obvious self-interest in docking his division rivals cap space.The only person we know for sure was part of this fiasco is Mara. Until someone gives me a reason to think otherwise I'm just gonna assume that the guy is a cheater and a sleaze, a guy who used his position on a committee to impose a penalty on his rivals despite the fact that they didn't violate a rule (and in fact that contracts in question were approved by the league at the time). Everything his team accomplishes from here on out should be downgraded based on his ridiculous behavior in this case. Plenty of evidence to support that conclusion. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I haven't heard a lot of it. I guess that's fair, although I've been under the impression that Jones was the only committee member that didn't know about this. I would think the committee would of voted on these penalties, no? That would require 5 votes to pass if this works like a standard committee. But I guess it's possible that they didn't know even if a vote took place since only 4 other committee members besides Mara would have needed to be on board with this.
  12. With respect to Mara, all I can say is that this is what I understand to be true: (1) the decision to impose the penalties was made unilaterally by the NFL Management Council Executive Committee, and agreed to by the NFLPA only after the owners' strong-armed them into acceptance; (2) John Mara is the chair of that Committee; (3) Jerry Jones, who is also a member of that Committee, had no knowledge of this decision until it was reached; and (4) Mara is the only NFL-affiliated person I know of who has spoken publicly in defense of the penalties.Draw your own conclusions, I guess. Doesn't really take much effort to do so, though. And I'll add that John Mara was just appointed as chairman of the NFL Executive Committee last October. Now, I'm not sure exactly how the NFL goes about appointing owners as chairman of committees, but I'm willing to bet that they just don't draw names out of a hat. I'm going to assume that Mara made a push to be named chairman of the NFL Executive Committee last fall unless someone can show me evidence that suggests otherwise.Also, here's the Management Council Executive Committee: John Mara (Chairman) Mike Brown Clark Hunt Jerry Jones Robert Kraft Mark Murphy Art Rooney Dean Spanos I had no idea Hunt and Rooney were on this committee until I just looked it up. Wow, I just lost all respect for those 2 guys who are supposed to be 2 of the best owners in the league. Kraft has always been shady so no surprise there. Virtually no one respects Brown or Spanos, and I would expect them to go along with this sort of scheme.
  13. Probably too late now, but the first time she mentioned wanting to see the dog I would of sent her a reply like this: "You made the decision to cheat on me. That decision has consequences. One of those consequences is that you no longer have a dog."
  14. Can anyone shed light on why this would be, or how it works?From what I've seen, the salary cap was going to be as low as 113 million this season. This may of cost D. Smith his job, as he was recently just reelected. Apparently, all this extra cap space that was given to everybody wasn't just due to the "bribe" that Goodell and the league gave to the players' union in exchange for signing off on the Skins and Cowboys cap penalties. It appears that some of that money was borrowed from future years. I haven't seen the full details of his anywhere yet.
  15. The penalties are that the uncapped years' activities circumvented future years' salary caps. They state that is what affected competitive balance. They were not penalized for overspending in the uncapped year.So WTF does underspending have to do with anything? You're connecting two completely irrelevant issues. The Bucs, Chiefs and Jags hoarded cash and salary space that they would have been required to spend in a capped/floored year, and that money was available for future spending once the salary cap returned. The Bucs, a team that's usually one of the most frugal in the league, signed a ton of free agents this season. According to the PFT rankings they got the #3, #11, and #40 free agents. That sound like the Bucs franchise you know? If you look closely you'll also see the Jags and Chiefs doing OK in free agency. The Skins would have loved to get Eric Winston or Carl Nicks, but they were hamstrung not only by the ridiculous salary cap limit placed on them but also on the fact that the Chiefs and Bucs were in a position to outbid them after hoarding cash and space. There was no salary floor in 2010. None in 2011. Won't be one in 2012. It will go into effect in 2013. To single out not spending in 2010 is off, IMO. And what does those teams' spending in 2012 have to do with those bullets cited about how playoff teams (except the Giants) beat up on them in 2011?It's "off," you say. OK. Why? Don't those teams benefit from their actions in the unfloored year (or years)? once the floor returns? How is that different from benefiting from actions in the uncapped year once the cap returns?The bullets wasn't my post. That was a different point about the competitive balance in 2010, which I don't think is the issue. Since the punishment for the Cowboys and Redskins was (supposedly) about them gaining an "unfair benefit" in future cap years by taking a more aggressive approach during uncapped years, why are we not punishing the Bucs, Jags and Chiefs for gaining a benefit in future floored years by taking a more aggressive approach during unfloored years? What's the difference? You and I both know the answer- the difference is that John Mara knows teams with limited spending capacity in other divisions aren't nearly the threat to his team that free spending teams in the NFC East are. That is the ONLY difference I can see. If you can think of another one, let me know. And even if we ignore the teams that disrupted competitive balance by not spending and hoarding cap space, let's look at the punishments doled out to the 4 teams that allegedly disrupted competitive balance. The Skins and Cowboys got hammered by losing 46 million combined in cap space. The Saints and Raiders? They basically got off with no punishment. They just don't get the extra 1.5 million or so in additional cap space that the other 28 teams got, but they are losing a combined $0 in cap space. It's pretty obvious to me why there is such a great discrepancy in punishments: the Skins and Boys are in the NFC East, while the Saints and Raiders aren't.
  16. Has that been verified?! I never saw who the one abstention vote was.Yes.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/bucs-abstained-from-redskins-cowboys-vote/
  17. YOU ARE MISSING PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION IN YOUR EXAMPLE (to make it closer to the situation): The owners verbally agreed to limit the amount of waiver wire transactions to 20 in the supposedly unlimited year until they could set a limit on the amount of waiver wire transactions for the following year.ETA: A large portion of owners were relying on a verbal agreement (salary cap collusion in the NFLs case) and were thus adversely impacted by the few owners who did not want to abide by the agreement. This gave them an unfair competitive advantage in future years.I was waiting for someone to bring this up. When discussing the proposed rule change about eliminating the waiver wire limit of 20, several owners say that no team should be allowed to go "crazy" with pickups. That is, teams shouldn't have much more than 20 transactions. At least one owner says that teams should be allowed to pick up however many players they want, since THAT'S THE RULE. There's some disagreement with this, but the owners still vote to change the rule to allow unlimited waiver wire pickups. Some time after the rule is officially changed to allow unlimited pickups (and in writing), the majority of owners form a verbal pack to not exceed 20 pickups, despite the official rule allowing them to do so. There is never an official vote to change the rule during the season. Just a gentlemen's agreement between most, but not all, of the owners.And one of the owners who went hog wild with 40+ pickups plucked Cam Newton off the waiver wire, which obviously is a boon for his team since this is a keeper league.Are you still ok with how this fantasy league is run?Absolutly. Competitive balance should be maintained at all costs.Ok, so you prioritize competitive balance over abiding by existing rules and regulations. I respect your opinion even though I completely disagree with it. I would certainly never play in a fantasy league with a commish that operated under such protocol for obvious reasons. So what's your take on Tampa not getting penalized in similar fashion to the Skins/Cowboys (and actually getting slightly rewarded) despite gaining a comparable, if not bigger, competitive advantage to the Skins and certainly a much bigger competitive advantage than the Cowboys had gained?
  18. 2 words: Tampa Bay.There's a reason they abstained from the vote on this matter the other day. That reason is the Bucs benefitted from the uncapped year more than probably any other team by spending about 40 million under what the salary floor would have been last year, then being able to carry all of that extra cap space over to this season. Not only was Tampa not punished, they were one of the teams that was REWARDED by receiving additional salary cap space when these penalties were handed down.Goodell, Mara, and co. are speaking poison with two tongues.
  19. YOU ARE MISSING PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION IN YOUR EXAMPLE (to make it closer to the situation): The owners verbally agreed to limit the amount of waiver wire transactions to 20 in the supposedly unlimited year until they could set a limit on the amount of waiver wire transactions for the following year.ETA: A large portion of owners were relying on a verbal agreement (salary cap collusion in the NFLs case) and were thus adversely impacted by the few owners who did not want to abide by the agreement. This gave them an unfair competitive advantage in future years.I was waiting for someone to bring this up. When discussing the proposed rule change about eliminating the waiver wire limit of 20, several owners say that no team should be allowed to go "crazy" with pickups. That is, teams shouldn't have much more than 20 transactions. At least one owner says that teams should be allowed to pick up however many players they want, since THAT'S THE RULE. There's some disagreement with this, but the owners still vote to change the rule to allow unlimited waiver wire pickups. Some time after the rule is officially changed to allow unlimited pickups (and in writing), the majority of owners form a verbal pack to not exceed 20 pickups, despite the official rule allowing them to do so. There is never an official vote to change the rule during the season. Just a gentlemen's agreement between most, but not all, of the owners.And one of the owners who went hog wild with 40+ pickups plucked Cam Newton off the waiver wire, which obviously is a boon for his team since this is a keeper league.Are you still ok with how this fantasy league is run?
  20. It blows my mind that people on a fantasy football message board can't see how wrong this is. Think about it this way. Imagine you're in a longtime 12 team redraft league which allows you to keep a few players on your roster every year. Since the inception of the league, there has always been a limit of 20 waiver wire pickups per team for the entire season, with each pickup costing $x. All the rules and bylaws for this fantasy league are voted on and written down so everyone is clear on what's allowed. Let's say before last season (2011), most of the owners thought it would be a good idea to change the rules and allow unlimited waiver wire pickups during the season, with each pickup still costing $x. The rule change was voted on and passed by the league. During the 2011 fantasy season, every team in the league except 2, didn't have more than 20 waiver wire pickups over the course of the year, despite the rule change. The other 2 teams went hog wild and each had 40+ waiver wire pickups, as was allowed by the rules. This upset many owners in the league, even though they could of done the same thing that the 2 owners did, but didn't for whatever reason (i.e. too cheap to spend the extra $$$, etc.). The majority of other owners felt that the 2 teams that went hog wild with waiver wire pickups had a competitive advantage. Fast forward to the next season. The majority of owners want the waiver wire rule changed back to the maximum of 20 pickups per season (with each still costing $x). There's a league vote, and the prior rule is reinstated where teams have a maximum of 20 waiver wire pickups per year, costing $x each. But behind the scenes, some of the owners upset at the 2 guys who went hog wild want to see them punished for picking up 40+ guys last year, even though they broke no rules. So these upset owners get with commish and concoct this punishment for the 2012 fantasy season: the 2 owners who went hog wild last year will have a maximum of 15 waiver wire pickups (instead of 20), during the 2012 season. All the other teams will get an extra waiver wire pickup for this year, for a total of 21 waiver wire pickups, so "in theory" the pot of waiver wire $$$ shouldn't diminish. The commish spews some nonsense about competitive balance as a reason for the penalties. You guys who are on the NFL's side wrt the Skins/Boys cap penalties would be perfectly alright with a fantasy league run in this manner, right?
  21. Going back to when the Redskins were doing their thing during the uncapped year, I actually thought they were doing the rest of the league a huge favor, since so many other teams weren't spending $$$$ they normally would due to their being no salary floor. Since the Redskins spent all that $$$ during the uncapped year, it would be basically impossible for the union to prove collusion. Little did I know that this crooked SOB Mara and his cohorts would cook up this scheme to cheat the Skins and Cowboys out of salary cap space since they didn't agree to collude with the other 28 owners.
  22. No surprises here:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/27/owners-vote-to-impose-cap-penalties-on-cowboys-redskins/
  23. This seems like the best available strategy. If this doesn't work then they can go nuclear. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/22/redskins-hope-to-rally-support-at-league-meetings/
  24. Oh really, read the NFL statement one more time and then tell me what you think they are for....(though I do fully agree with you on the collusion thing:) )."The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years. To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons." Yeah, this is straight up BS from top to bottom. Such hypocrites. I think we're just talking past each other right now. My whole point is if we injected truth serum into whoever was releasing the nfl's statement it would say nothing about competitive balance. Instead it would read something like this:"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year violated a gentlemen's agreement between all 32 teams that using the uncapped year to clear an abnormal amount of cap space in future years by manipulating player contracts was prohibited. As punishment for violating the gentlemen's agreement, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons."
×
  • Create New...