2014 RULES: Empty Roster Spot Charges

[vikingfan]

The advantage is they don't have any consequence for not paying for a player. I still believe there should be game check charge when the open spot is filled the same as if a player was filling it. No player association would allow this to go on.

If they were to play a GM simulation game in Madden or anywhere else they would be required to have 53 plays. I'm not suggesting penalizing them but having them pay the veterans minimum for those slots to encourage all GMs to fill out their rosters since they could do it cheaper with younger players, especially since we don't mandate or regulate 53 man rosters.

Sorry, only just noticed this. What I'm saying is that if someone chooses not to have a developmental player in that slot, they already disadvantage themselves. I agree that they should still have to pay for the roster slot, but I can't see a good reason why it should be more than the rookie minimum.

The only reason to make them pay more than the rookie minimum is, as you say, to 'encourage' them to fill their roster. However you phrase it, making someone pay more if they don't act in a certain way sounds like a penalty to me, and I just don't see that it creates any benefit.

Maybe we just agree to disagree on this one

[Knighty Knight]

I see your point but I just don't undertsand why we would assume they would fill that open spot with a rookie. I think the safest assumption would be they are more likely to fill with a veteran since it hasn't been filled by a rookie already.

[Jared A]

They are already getting punished for not having depth. No point in punishing them more. If they wanted to hire a chubby 20 year old off the street to fill a roster spot, they could. If they want a vet, they can spend the money. It would be their choice.

[Knighty Knight]

The point is the least you should be able to do is field a 53 man team to be considered an active and participating GM. So you can call it punishment, but I see it as an incentive to encourage GMs to do so. Unless we take a hard stance and say you have to have a full team to remain a GM in these leagues. I understand being down a few during the season due to injuries or such but some teams go into the season with 46 players. Yeah I think those GMs should be 'penalized' (although I disagree with your use of the word in that context) from the league and not just in depth and ratings. If they don't take the time to find a rookie available we should assume they would sign a name they are familiar with, likely to be a vet. If we truly wanted to penalize teams we could fine them in terms of larger sums of money or draft picks for breaking NFLPA and NFL minimum roster requirements. Yes we will continue to agree to disagree in this case. I think this measure would improve the quality of the league.

[RyanM]

The point is the least you should be able to do is field a 53 man team to be considered an active and participating GM. So you can call it punishment, but I see it as an incentive to encourage GMs to do so. Unless we take a hard stance and say you have to have a full team to remain a GM in these leagues. I understand being down a few during the season due to injuries or such but some teams go into the season with 46 players. Yeah I think those GMs should be 'penalized' (although I disagree with your use of the word in that context) from the league and not just in depth and ratings. If they don't take the time to find a rookie available we should assume they would sign a name they are familiar with, likely to be a vet. If we truly wanted to penalize teams we could fine them in terms of larger sums of money or draft picks for breaking NFLPA and NFL minimum roster requirements. Yes we will continue to agree to disagree in this case. I think this measure would improve the quality of the league.

Agree 100% with this logic.

[Onyxgem]

They are already getting punished for not having depth. No point in punishing them more. If they wanted to hire a chubby 20 year old off the street to fill a roster spot, they could. If they want a vet, they can spend the money. It would be their choice.

Agree

[Jared A]

The point is the least you should be able to do is field a 53 man team to be considered an active and participating GM. So you can call it punishment, but I see it as an incentive to encourage GMs to do so. Unless we take a hard stance and say you have to have a full team to remain a GM in these leagues. I understand being down a few during the season due to injuries or such but some teams go into the season with 46 players. Yeah I think those GMs should be 'penalized' (although I disagree with your use of the word in that context) from the league and not just in depth and ratings. If they don't take the time to find a rookie available we should assume they would sign a name they are familiar with, likely to be a vet. If we truly wanted to penalize teams we could fine them in terms of larger sums of money or draft picks for breaking NFLPA and NFL minimum roster requirements. Yes we will continue to agree to disagree in this case. I think this measure would improve the quality of the league.

I disagree. The idea behind this is that you can build your team without spending a ton of time on here, or you can be incredibly active. Being an active GM is great, but not a requirement. Punishing GM's who aren't as overly active as others, and don't do as much rookie research as others.... not a good way to go.

Also, real teams already have a TON of advantages. If we sign a rookie or vet, and he ends up not getting a grade, we're hosed. Then we're hosed because if he was a vet, we can't release him without paying in full. Then, on top of that we're not supposed to be allowed to have less than 53 man rosters just so we can have a couple empty spots to sign someone? Makes no sense.

Auto signing ANY non-vet to fill out a roster would make more sense. Then the GM could release them and fill their roster at their convenience.

[Knighty Knight]

Doesn't take a ton of time to sign any player. Even if that player is out of the NFL, fill your roster. That seems to be the easiest solution.

[Zapotek]

Doesn't take a ton of time to sign any player. Even if that player is out of the NFL, fill your roster. That seems to be the easiest solution.

And it achieves... what? It may not be true-to-life for rosters to be less than full, but does it actually make any difference to any other manager? There are plenty of unrealistic things in this sim, but only some of them actually make any difference. I don't see that this is one of them. If it pains you to see a roster that is not quite full, maybe don't look at it. That seems to be the easiest solution.

[charlie813brown]

Doesn't take a ton of time to sign any player. Even if that player is out of the NFL, fill your roster. That seems to be the easiest solution.

And it achieves... what? It may not be true-to-life for rosters to be less than full, but does it actually make any difference to any other manager? There are plenty of unrealistic things in this sim, but only some of them actually make any difference. I don't see that this is one of them. If it pains you to see a roster that is not quite full, maybe don't look at it. That seems to be the easiest solution.

The difference is, with a full roster, to sign a new player, you have to cut an old one and that counts against your cap a little bit. without a full roster, signing doesn't cause this problem and that is gaming the system and loophole should be closed.