04-23-2025, 11:01 AMAgentSmith630 Wrote: This is what hurts the most. Dwight made a clerical mistake, and now Sizz is being forced out against his will. As a secondary result, Tampa is losing a core offensive player and huge war room and LR presence (not that he has to leave the LR, but still), and a second round pick while still theoretically being in a cup window.

04-23-2025, 11:01 AMAgentSmith630 Wrote: ... Tampa is losing a core offensive player and huge war room and LR presence (not that he has to leave the LR, but still) ....

04-23-2025, 11:47 AMSymmetrik Wrote: A clerical mistake should still have consequences to the team. In the PBE my GM made a clerical error in budget forecasting and we were way over spent on cap, we had to trade a few players and we're playing the season with only 3 people in the bullpen.

The GM is responsible for the whole roster and making a clerical mistake should bring consequences to the roster, but it should also be their responsibility to clean it up as they see fit, hence why I still think a cap penalty (equivalent to the minimum contract, or to the contract they signed) in addition to allowing the contract to stand is the ideal punishment. Or perhaps losing the HTD slots as Tomen pointed out is a really interesting idea.

Putting cap pressure forces the GMs to rectify their mistake, but they will have to decide how they want to handle that for their players (and we can hopefully ensure no active players get sent to FA after everyone's rosters are full).

04-23-2025, 11:56 AMHallsy Wrote: Clerical error resulting in being over the cap is not the same thing as any of these punishments.

04-23-2025, 11:33 AMACapitalChicago Wrote: The way I understand it is that it's acting as further deterrence for the GMs to disincentivize malicious hiding of FAs. Things like fines are shown to be ineffective given the gain for the infraction, picks lost punish the entire team, so this was viewed as the only option of sorts

04-23-2025, 11:33 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: This is the punishment we decided on when we instituted the rule; like I've said a couple other places in this thread, we are absolutely open to changing it if anyone can come up with a solution that doesn't screw the entire team instead of just one player, and is scalable for multiple offenses.

04-23-2025, 12:09 PMcharlieconway Wrote: Institute a cap penalty for the following season.

I'm going to refer to the "team" as the franchise for the next paragraph because I think team has a tendency to evoke people rather than the entity of the franchise itself:

I think it's reasonable for GM's behavior to have consequences for the franchise they lead. It turns it from a personal punishment (in this case levied against Sizz) into a general one. Talk of disincentivizing is very reasonable given it's the entire point of rule punishments, but in this case it doesn't make sense to disincentivize Sizz's rule breaking in this signing because Sizz didn't actually break any rules at all.

04-23-2025, 09:33 AMhockeyiscool Wrote: I think it's wise to lock threads if nobody is able to moderate them.

04-23-2025, 12:19 PMNobody Wrote: They've taken my mod permissions away

04-23-2025, 12:17 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: Right but a cap penalty is likely to make it so that some other player has to leave the team instead, maybe even a player who wasn't even remotely involved. And it's not scalable, not realistically. Say it's a 2M cap fine, if a team forgets to move four free agents, do we hit that team with an 8M cap fine? Or is it just a thing where a team could choose not to sign or move any of their free agents at the cost of a flat 2M cap fine?

I completely agree that it absolutely sucks to have players face the consequences for GM offenses, agree that Sizz did nothing wrong, and hope things work out in his favor. But "players catching the brunt of GM offenses" is just the unfortunate end result of most of our punishments, outside of GM salary fines, which have never been much of a deterrent in the first place because there are a lot of rules most competitive GMs would happily ignore for the cost of 8M dollars to their own bank account. Any punishment that isn't just a personal slap to the GM is going to impact the whole team or certain players more than just the GM, that is inherently the weight of a leadership position (and lemme tell you, it really does suck sometimes).

I really do want to find a solution here that doesn't screw over players, we just have not come up with any realistic options.

04-23-2025, 12:26 PMSymmetrik Wrote: I do think that in the case of a different player having to move it's better overall, someone who wasn't involved might have to go but ultimately that's a consequence and a decision for the GM to make, and they might do their best by their players in rectifying their own mistake. Plus, trades would likely include roster players moving, which means everyone stays on a team. At this point Sizz and 2 others are still FAs and it's less than 3 hours until the sim, so they will likely miss out on games because of this too. I think a punishment that impacts the whole team is fair because the GM impacts the whole team. And the GM is left to sort out the consequences of their own mistakes. If a player is traded to take the fall for a GM's mistake then so be it, but at least that decision is a personal choice made by the GM. Hell, maybe in order to protect their team they retire their own player and trade them away.

Also I'd say it's scalable if you adjust it to the value of the contracts. Sizz's minimum is 5 million. If there was a 2nd player with a minimum of 3 million, then the penalty can be 8 million. So on and so forth.

04-23-2025, 12:17 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: Right but a cap penalty is likely to make it so that some other player has to leave the team instead, maybe even a player who wasn't even remotely involved. And it's not scalable, not realistically. Say it's a 2M cap fine, if a team forgets to move four free agents, do we hit that team with an 8M cap fine? Or is it just a thing where a team could choose not to sign or move any of their free agents at the cost of a flat 2M cap fine?

I completely agree that it absolutely sucks to have players face the consequences for GM offenses, agree that Sizz did nothing wrong, and hope things work out in his favor. But "players catching the brunt of GM offenses" is just the unfortunate end result of most of our punishments, outside of GM salary fines, which have never been much of a deterrent in the first place because there are a lot of rules most competitive GMs would happily ignore for the cost of 8M dollars to their own bank account. Any punishment that isn't just a personal slap to the GM is going to impact the whole team or certain players more than just the GM, that is inherently the weight of a leadership position (and lemme tell you, it really does suck sometimes).

I really do want to find a solution here that doesn't screw over players, we just have not come up with any realistic options.

04-23-2025, 11:33 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: This is the punishment we decided on when we instituted the rule; like I've said a couple other places in this thread, we are absolutely open to changing it if anyone can come up with a solution that doesn't screw the entire team instead of just one player, and is scalable for multiple offenses.

04-23-2025, 01:13 PMhockeyiscool Wrote: Personally, I do not like budget penalties, tied to things that are not budget related. I imagine we're trying to not kill organizations over an infraction like this. If a GM were to have malicious intent and get caught, they should retire out of embarrassment and it doesn't make sense to hamstring a new GMs ability to roster a team.