Rookie Signings

[Loony BoB]

After all the current players are signed up still six to go. Then the club captains will email you asking if you want to sign for them. If you do them they post the details of your contract and you confirm in this thread.

I think thats about right.

Still waiting on feedback from Burkey at our end - if anyone has any contact with him, please ask him to advise Jack and/or myself in the Colts thread or via email on how long he'd like to be contracted so we can push things forward.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Still waiting on feedback from Burkey at our end - if anyone has any contact with him, please ask him to advise Jack and/or myself in the Colts thread or via email on how long he'd like to be contracted so we can push things forward.

I asked him and he told me to tell you to "**** off"

 

[GIMH]

I'm itching to get signed up.

 

[corza_nz]

im CR McMeekin and cant wait to get signed up when the rookie signings are open. bring on the offers.

 

[readie]

Can anyone please tell when the season starts, and when we rookies can be signed

​

Thanks

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Going on this, I'd say it'd be soon. (within 24 hours or so). Though the cap breaches at Blue may hold that up a few days or so.

 

[readie]

Going on this, I'd say it'd be soon. (within 24 hours or so). Though the cap breaches at Blue may hold that up a few days or so.

Cheers

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Teams may sign rookies now. Colts up first. 36 hours between posting of a contract and signing of it, or the draft moves to the next team in line.

Cricket Web Blue will miss the first draft pick due to the salary cap infringement.

 

[steds]

Cricket Web Blue will miss the first draft pick due to the salary cap infringement.

Poor mananagement.

 

[Goughy]

Cricket Web Blue will miss the first draft pick due to the salary cap infringement.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Who did you release to get under the salary cap?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Poor mananagement.

Actually the root of the problem was Pete Young being named as a B rated player, which no one picked up on in the initial stages, and I had discussed the signings with Fuller on that basis. Then when I went to announce Young's contract, I saw the B rating and figured that's unfair, seeing as Simon is an A rating. So I upgraded Young to an A rating, not thinking that it would take Blue 1 point over the salary cap. In essence, it was me doing the honest thing.

And if anyone, as I expect people will, thinks that I just made that up as an excuse, Haakon or Daniel can confirm it, as they can reference the initial list of ratings I gave them via email, where Young was listed as a C (that I then upgraded to a B, then reconsidered and upgraded to an A).

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sorry, I must have missed it. Who did you release to get under the salary cap?

It wouldn't be fair to force a player who has made a commitment to CW Blue to play for another team on account of the error. Rather, CW Blue is missing the first draft pick and therefore stands the possibility of missing out on signing one of the top 7 rookies. And when you consider the small number of quality batsmen in the rookie batch, that's a pretty harsh punishment.

Simply releasing a player would go directly against the rules, because it would open up the possibility of a team signing less than the required 15 for the same 60 points. It effectively means that a team would be able to spend to buy the good players, disregarding the need for 15 in total, then fill the gaps with rookies. This way CW Blue is punished, but still adheres to the 15-man requirement.

 

[AussieDominance]

It wouldn't be fair to force a player who has made a commitment to CW Blue to play for another team on account of the error. Rather, CW Blue is missing the first draft pick and therefore stands the possibility of missing out on signing one of the top 7 rookies. And when you consider the small number of quality batsmen in the rookie batch, that's a pretty harsh punishment.

That will give you an unfair advantage over the rest of the playing field now with the more points being allocated giving you a better squad the issue is basically you will have a good team short term but it gives you time to make up for that with the option of picking up better players next season to cover the influx of "substandard rookies" this season.

 

[Matteh]

I think Camp's solution to it is fine given that it was an honest mistake due to the upgrading of a player twice and wasn't someone simply signing 15 players and then going oops i'm over the salary cap.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That will give you an unfair advantage over the rest of the playing field now with the more points being allocated giving you a better squad the issue is basically you will have a good team short term but it gives you time to make up for that with the option of picking up better players next season to cover the influx of "substandard rookies" this season.

Er what? I spent 61 points on 15 players. Where exactly is the unfair advantage here? It would have technically been an unfair advantage if I spent 60 points on 14 players.

61/15 = 4.07 per player
60/14 = 4.29 per player

 

[Goughy]

Er what? I spent 61 points on 15 players. Where exactly is the unfair advantage here? It would have technically been an unfair advantage if I spent 60 points on 14 players.

61/15 = 4.07 per player
60/14 = 4.29 per player

Well wouldnt both examples be against the rules of the cap?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well wouldnt both examples be against the rules of the cap?

Thus we picked the fairer as a solution.

 

[Travis_Teh]

Sad, why are you people always so eager to be over the top anal about the smallest of screw ups?

He is human, he made an error of judgment on ONE player that meant ONE team was ONE point above the cap. Wahhhh, wahhh!! Give Liam a break, jesus.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Hmm, I don't mind the solution, it's fine by me to be a little lenient.

But I doubt I'd have been afforded such leniency by the CWBCC and especially the player pool if I had done such a thing.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hmm, I don't mind the solution, it's fine by me to be a little lenient.

But I doubt I'd have been afforded such leniency by the CWBCC and especially the player pool if I had done such a thing.

To suggest that CW Black would have been treated any differently than CW Blue is pretty bold. Considering that Haakon - CW Red captain - was consulted, it was a pretty fair process. It also wasn't a rushed decision. And it really was the fairest thing that could be done in the situation, as there are no non-rookies left in the player pool and it wouldn't be fair to axe a player to punish a club.