Posted by jwelsh1023 on 2/2/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
I broke no rules in KP, should my trade be vetoed I shall wreak havoc.

i guess I should go take a look at the goings ons. Been kinda busy getting ready for the new baby.

Another kid? Congrats.

I'm surprised there aren't more Fat Lever jerseys on the internet.

you didnt know that bot? Im sure I posted that here.

We are having a boy, btw. I know I didnt post that here--just on fb.

And jwelsh, that trade violated the salary cap rule. Budget cant go beyond $100 mil. We've enforced that in the past when an owner set their budget incorrectly--and we had to put in the rule v exception to allow budgets to go over 100 mil in only that case.

Posted by r0b0t on 2/3/2011 9:55:00 AM (view original):
I figure I'll at the very least get a couple of picks back for Belliard. And he should mean the difference in more games this season than Morris would have.

He's an absolute difference maker in CF, and definitely a good deal for you. My thinking is that if Clarke gets anywhere those projections, I'll have gotten back from you young talent similar to what Belliard's compensation picks would have gotten, plus Morris, and then next year I'll either keep Morris, or get compensation picks. So, much better long term than just letting him go to free agency, and I don't expect to be a legit contender this year.

Slores get in the $ playoffs. I'm calling it now.

False.

Posted by AlCheez on 2/3/2011 11:20:00 AM (view original):
False.

we are going to make it on pitching and defense... and the **** quality of teams in the AL.

If Colorado falls apart, maybe.

Either way, bret will have a better record.

Posted by AlCheez on 2/3/2011 11:23:00 AM (view original):
If Colorado falls apart, maybe.

Either way, bret will have a better record.

Colorado is not going to fall apart unfortunately.

...and It's Bret! No way.

Posted by dmurphy104 on 2/3/2011 10:43:00 AM (view original):
And jwelsh, that trade violated the salary cap rule. Budget cant go beyond $100 mil. We've enforced that in the past when an owner set their budget incorrectly--and we had to put in the rule v exception to allow budgets to go over 100 mil in only that case.

Then it should say that, all it says now is salary cap. Not salary budget cap.

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 2/3/2011 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dmurphy104 on 2/3/2011 10:43:00 AM (view original):
And jwelsh, that trade violated the salary cap rule. Budget cant go beyond $100 mil. We've enforced that in the past when an owner set their budget incorrectly--and we had to put in the rule v exception to allow budgets to go over 100 mil in only that case.

Then it should say that, all it says now is salary cap. Not salary budget cap.

i added a clarification. Wasnt it you that caught someone going over the budget because of rule v compensation? I added the rules to the rules tab and clarified the salary cap.

Posted by jwelsh1023 on 2/3/2011 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dmurphy104 on 2/3/2011 10:43:00 AM (view original):
And jwelsh, that trade violated the salary cap rule. Budget cant go beyond $100 mil. We've enforced that in the past when an owner set their budget incorrectly--and we had to put in the rule v exception to allow budgets to go over 100 mil in only that case.

Then it should say that, all it says now is salary cap. Not salary budget cap.

sorry welsh - I disagree. I understand what you are arguing but it doesn't hold up. In RL salary cap is just that... a salary cap.

You are now at a $105 mil salary CAP. If your player payroll is at $90 mil you would be 'below the salary CAP'. If your player payroll is at $110 mil you would be considered 'over the salary CAP' in RL terms. The yankees are above the salary CAP every year and have to pay for it. NHL teams can not exceed the $59 mil salary CAP.