Rule Change -- Fair?

[i_am_the_swammi]

5 years ago, our redraft league instituted a keeper policy, which was pretty simple: each team would be allowed to keep a QB, RB & WR for three seasons. So in essence, if you drafted a guy who turned out to be keeper worthy, you'd have him on your team for four seasons (the year you drafted him, and 3 subsequent seasons in which you kept him). The final year, you had two choices: trade him to another team (who could then keep him for 3 years), or just ride the rest of the season out and lose him. The idea was to recycle the players from time to time, so no one team would have the super-studs for, basically, their career. Would ideally also keep the drafts interesting by having it sprinkled with studs.

 

Two years ago, an owner traded for Ray Rice, which was a good deal for him, as he felt he'd be getting him for 3 more seasons. He gave up some decent value to get him, but felt compelled to pull the trigger, knowing he's have him for three more years. On draft night this past season, an owner threw out the idea that we should go from a three-year keeper policy to a two-year policy, stating that he'd like to see some of the bigger names go back into the draft on a more frequent basis. The Rice owner (who is also the Commish) objected, but it was put to a vote, and since no other teams were affected this year, it was passed. That left the Rice owner essentially having to trade him this year, or lose him at the end of the year.

 

That owner is now a bit rankled. He made the playoffs, but lost by a very small margin....a margin he would have overcome had he been able to keep Rice. Moreover, he actually would have won the Super Bowl had he been able to keep his team in tact. there is a decent monetary prize associated with this league, so to say it "cost him" is valid. His argument is that when he made the trade two years ago, his trade evaluation at the time was that he was getting Rice for three years. he feels that to change the rule mid-tenure should never have been done. His trade two years ago may or may not have ever been done if he knew he was getting Rice for only two years. Oddly, his team was the only one affected by the rule change (all other teams were in year 1 or 3 of their keepers, so no one else would be losing a player they traded for). That owner is saying we should abolish all rosters, and start over with the new rule in place, since he was basically forced to trade Rice this year, and is left with a lesser roster than he would have had.

 

So two questions:

 

1. Was it fair to change the rule?

2. Does he have a valid argument that, when changing a rule such as this, that we should the league start over?

 

I will be sharing this thread with our league, as there is some animated discussion going on. Thanks!

[tosberg34]

5 years ago, our redraft league instituted a keeper policy, which was pretty simple: each team would be allowed to keep a QB, RB & WR for three seasons. So in essence, if you drafted a guy who turned out to be keeper worthy, you'd have him on your team for four seasons (the year you drafted him, and 3 subsequent seasons in which you kept him). The final year, you had two choices: trade him to another team (who could then keep him for 3 years), or just ride the rest of the season out and lose him. The idea was to recycle the players from time to time, so no one team would have the super-studs for, basically, their career. Would ideally also keep the drafts interesting by having it sprinkled with studs.

 

Two years ago, an owner traded for Ray Rice, which was a good deal for him, as he felt he'd be getting him for 3 more seasons. He gave up some decent value to get him, but felt compelled to pull the trigger, knowing he's have him for three more years. On draft night this past season, an owner threw out the idea that we should go from a three-year keeper policy to a two-year policy, stating that he'd like to see some of the bigger names go back into the draft on a more frequent basis. The Rice owner (who is also the Commish) objected, but it was put to a vote, and since no other teams were affected this year, it was passed. That left the Rice owner essentially having to trade him this year, or lose him at the end of the year.

 

That owner is now a bit rankled. He made the playoffs, but lost by a very small margin....a margin he would have overcome had he been able to keep Rice. Moreover, he actually would have won the Super Bowl had he been able to keep his team in tact. there is a decent monetary prize associated with this league, so to say it "cost him" is valid. His argument is that when he made the trade two years ago, his trade evaluation at the time was that he was getting Rice for three years. he feels that to change the rule mid-tenure should never have been done. His trade two years ago may or may not have ever been done if he knew he was getting Rice for only two years. Oddly, his team was the only one affected by the rule change (all other teams were in year 1 or 3 of their keepers, so no one else would be losing a player they traded for). That owner is saying we should abolish all rosters, and start over with the new rule in place, since he was basically forced to trade Rice this year, and is left with a lesser roster than he would have had.

 

So two questions:

 

1. Was it fair to change the rule?

2. Does he have a valid argument that, when changing a rule such as this, that we should the league start over?

 

I will be sharing this thread with our league, as there is some animated discussion going on. Thanks!

 

It was fair to change the rule because a majority of owners voted for it but that owner should have been able to be grandfathered in and hold onto rice for his 3 years. You and the other owners basically changed the terms of the contract while the other owner was still in it. You should have applied it only to new pickups/trades, not trades and pickups that were done when the old contract was still in effect.

 

So, yes, I think the owner has a valid argument.

Edited January 6, 2012 by tosberg34

[Chief Dick]

It was fair to change the rule because a majority of owners voted for it but that owner should have been able to be grandfathered in and hold onto rice for his 3 years. You and the other owners basically changed the terms of the contract while the other owner was still in it. You should have applied it only to new pickups/trades, not trades and pickups that were done when the old contract was still in effect.

 

So, yes, I think the owner has a valid argument.

 

Agree.

[Duchess Jack]

I have always felt that any rule change involving what is happening with people's rosters now, shouldn't take effect for a couple seasons (or enough time for the teams to account for and prepare for the change.)

 

Why did he even let it come up for a vote?

[ABearWithFurniture]

Current keepers should have been 'Grandfathered' in when the new rule was implemented.

[delusions of grandeur]

You cannot change rules that affect previous draft and trade decisions, unless you phase it in over a few years (not sure how you do that here, other than to announce it now, and wait until the current crop of keepers expire)... To me, this is not alot different than changing scoring rules that people drafted based on, after the fact.... We all know that keeper considerations can mean jsut as much for a deal as how much they can help you that year, so yes, it is totally shafting the guy who it's conceivable paid more to secure Rice for 3 more years. You can't even pretend that that wasn't part of the consideration for the trade....

 

Up to you how you want to handle it from here, but the last thing you want to do in a rule change is slight someone... It doesn't matter if he was the only one slighted by the rule change. It still means someone was unfairly slighted.

 

(ETA: actually, I like the idea of grandfathering in current keepers to retain their 3 years)

Edited January 6, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[The Next Generation]

It was fair to change the rule because a majority of owners voted for it but that owner should have been able to be grandfathered in and hold onto rice for his 3 years. You and the other owners basically changed the terms of the contract while the other owner was still in it. You should have applied it only to new pickups/trades, not trades and pickups that were done when the old contract was still in effect.

 

So, yes, I think the owner has a valid argument.

 

^this, but no restart. Also, you may want to make the now 2 years firm regardless of trades so the players go back into the pot every 3 years.

Edited January 6, 2012 by The Next Generation

[detlef]

He has a legit reason to be pissed, but the problem is, given the nature of keeper rules, there would never be a "fair" time to make a switch like this. In hindsight, however, perhaps he should have campaigned to make any players who were traded for grandfathered into the 3 year deal. But he didn't. That would have been a nice compromise.

 

All in all, at this point, I think it's just pretty much sour grapes. Especially the bit about saying you should have started over. There was one team that got the short end (him), one team that got the long end (the team he traded with), and everyone else was unaffected. Unless the team that won it all was the team that got the better end of that deal (and let's be honest the deal was made a couple of years ago), then I think that's just him getting carried away.

 

Also, I'm assuming he got something good for Rice, so I don't understand why he feels he'd be better off starting from scratch.

[keggerz]

5 years ago, our redraft league instituted a keeper policy, which was pretty simple: each team would be allowed to keep a QB, RB & WR for three seasons. So in essence, if you drafted a guy who turned out to be keeper worthy, you'd have him on your team for four seasons (the year you drafted him, and 3 subsequent seasons in which you kept him). The final year, you had two choices: trade him to another team (who could then keep him for 3 years), or just ride the rest of the season out and lose him. The idea was to recycle the players from time to time, so no one team would have the super-studs for, basically, their career. Would ideally also keep the drafts interesting by having it sprinkled with studs.

 

Two years ago, an owner traded for Ray Rice, which was a good deal for him, as he felt he'd be getting him for 3 more seasons. He gave up some decent value to get him, but felt compelled to pull the trigger, knowing he's have him for three more years. On draft night this past season, an owner threw out the idea that we should go from a three-year keeper policy to a two-year policy, stating that he'd like to see some of the bigger names go back into the draft on a more frequent basis. The Rice owner (who is also the Commish) objected, but it was put to a vote, and since no other teams were affected this year, it was passed. That left the Rice owner essentially having to trade him this year, or lose him at the end of the year.

 

That owner is now a bit rankled. He made the playoffs, but lost by a very small margin....a margin he would have overcome had he been able to keep Rice. Moreover, he actually would have won the Super Bowl had he been able to keep his team in tact. there is a decent monetary prize associated with this league, so to say it "cost him" is valid. His argument is that when he made the trade two years ago, his trade evaluation at the time was that he was getting Rice for three years. he feels that to change the rule mid-tenure should never have been done. His trade two years ago may or may not have ever been done if he knew he was getting Rice for only two years. Oddly, his team was the only one affected by the rule change (all other teams were in year 1 or 3 of their keepers, so no one else would be losing a player they traded for). That owner is saying we should abolish all rosters, and start over with the new rule in place, since he was basically forced to trade Rice this year, and is left with a lesser roster than he would have had.

 

So two questions:

 

1. Was it fair to change the rule?

2. Does he have a valid argument that, when changing a rule such as this, that we should the league start over?

 

I will be sharing this thread with our league, as there is some animated discussion going on. Thanks!

1. No it wasn't (yes fair to vote to change rules but not as it was done/implemented)

2. No it shouldn't require a reboot...if voted in it should have just been made to take place after 3 yrs, stating any NEW keepers would only have 2 yrs of keeper status

Edited January 6, 2012 by keggerz

[Brentastic]

It was fair to change the rule because a majority of owners voted for it but that owner should have been able to be grandfathered in and hold onto rice for his 3 years. You and the other owners basically changed the terms of the contract while the other owner was still in it. You should have applied it only to new pickups/trades, not trades and pickups that were done when the old contract was still in effect.

 

So, yes, I think the owner has a valid argument.

100% This^^^

 

You can change the rules "moving forward" but any new rule change should not affect contracts that were initiated under the old rules. The older keepers/contracts should remain consistent with the terms/rules that were in place when that contract was made.

 

The Rice owner has a valid argument but unfortunately he should have made this known before the season ended. It's going to be hard to fix this now.

[loaf]

he should have been grandfathered in and allowed to keep Rice for 3 years.

[i_am_the_swammi]

The problem is that now, in hindsight, its a tad late to use that grandfather rule....Rice has already been traded, the owner that had him has now lost in the playoffs, and its quasi-moot. It cost him about $500 in winnings. He had a strong roster already, and made the playoffs even without Rice....with Rice on the team for Week 15, he'd have won his semi-final matchup....and then cruised in the Super Bow.

 

The question he raises now is: should all rosters be scraped? His RB keeper for next year is either Matthews or Mcfadden (both iffy when compared to Rice, who he would have had). He feels he's been slighted, and thinks the best way to make it right at this point is for everyone to just start over. He basically feels he got bent over this year, took it, and now that this year is over, everyone can be on equal footing heading into next year by just starting over with the new 2-year rule in place.

Edited January 6, 2012 by i_am_the_swammi

[delusions of grandeur]

He has a legit reason to be pissed, but the problem is, given the nature of keeper rules, there would never be a "fair" time to make a switch like this. In hindsight, however, perhaps he should have campaigned to make any players who were traded for grandfathered into the 3 year deal. But he didn't. That would have been a nice compromise.

 

All in all, at this point, I think it's just pretty much sour grapes. Especially the bit about saying you should have started over. There was one team that got the short end (him), one team that got the long end (the team he traded with), and everyone else was unaffected. Unless the team that won it all was the team that got the better end of that deal (and let's be honest the deal was made a couple of years ago), then I think that's just him getting carried away.

 

Also, I'm assuming he got something good for Rice, so I don't understand why he feels he'd be better off starting from scratch.

Dude, the guy is getting 1 less year with a guy who could be the #1 overall pick then.... That's kind of a big deal....

 

But yes, I agree that he should have addressed this before he was "forced" to trade Rice if he was that opposed to losing him due to the rule change.... I just disagree that it's jsut a matter of "sour grapes" that the rest of the league is forcing him to abandon his #1 pick a full year earlier than he expected to when he traded for him.

[i_am_the_swammi]

100% This^^^

 

You can change the rules "moving forward" but any new rule change should not affect contracts that were initiated under the old rules. The older keepers/contracts should remain consistent with the terms/rules that were in place when that contract was made.

 

The Rice owner has a valid argument but unfortunately he should have made this known before the season ended. It's going to be hard to fix this now.

 

he did....when the rule was proposed.....but was outvoted, and the rule was instituted. He didn't want to be a Hitler-commish....even though he felt it was grossly unfair, he allowed it to go to a vote. And the other owners who it wasn't affecting likely didn't give it much thought, and voted for the change.

[loaf]

The problem is that now, in hindsight, its a tad late to use that grandfather rule....Rice has already been traded, the owner that had him has now lost in the playoffs, and its quasi-moot. It cost him about $500 in winnings. He had a strong roster already, and made the playoffs even without Rice....with Rice on the team for Week 15, he'd have won his semi-final matchup....and then cruised in the Super Bow.

 

The question he raises now is: should all rosters be scraped? His RB keeper for next year is either Matthews or Mcfadden (both iffy when compared to Rice, who he would have had). He feels he's been slighted, and thinks the best way to make it right at this point is for everyone to just start over. He basically feels he got bent over this year, took it, and now that this year is over, everyone can be on equal footing heading into next year by just starting over with the new 2-year rule in place.

No, I don't buy his argument here.

[delusions of grandeur]

The problem is that now, in hindsight, its a tad late to use that grandfather rule....Rice has already been traded, the owner that had him has now lost in the playoffs, and its quasi-moot. It cost him about $500 in winnings. He has a strong roster already, and made the playoffs without him....with Rice on the team for Week 15, he'd have won his semi-final matchup....and then cruised in the Super Bow.

 

The question he raises now is: should all rosers be scraped? His keeper for next year is either Matthews or Mcfadden (both iffy when compared to Rice, who he would have had). He feels he's been slighted, and the best way to make it right at this point is for everyone to just start over.

Again, did he raise any concern prior to the rule change? Because it's starting to sound like something that wasn't a hugh deal before, is now because he lost his payout because of it.... Him demanding a "redo" after the fact (assuming he didn't complain about it at the time of the rule change), is lamer than changing the rule that affected him, if he's only concerned now that he sees how it's turning out for him.

Edited January 6, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

Dude, the guy is getting 1 less year with a guy who could be the #1 overall pick then.... That's kind of a big deal....

 

But yes, I agree that he should have addressed this before he was "forced" to trade Rice if he was that opposed to losing him due to the rule change.... I just disagree that it's jsut a matter of "sour grapes" that the rest of the league is forcing him to abandon his #1 pick a full year earlier than he expected to when he traded for him.

Well, it was a big deal when everyone was discussing the rule change. That was his chance to insist that they do what we all seem to be agreeing on, that Rice be grandfathered. But he played out the season and is now complaining. What if it was Chris Johnson that he was forced to give up a year early? Now what is done is done.

 

I just don't see how resetting the rosters fixes what happened.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Also, I'm assuming he got something good for Rice, so I don't understand why he feels he'd be better off starting from scratch.

 

Week 4 trade....he trade Rice and Torain for Chris Johnson and Hakeen Nicks. Obviously a lopsided deal now that we know how Johnson turned out, but at the time, seemed reasonable. He did then move Johnson for Manning, which improved him at QB.

[delusions of grandeur]

Well, it was a big deal when everyone was discussing the rule change. That was his chance to insist that they do what we all seem to be agreeing on, that Rice be grandfathered. But he played out the season and is now complaining. What if it was Chris Johnson that he was forced to give up a year early? Now what is done is done.

 

I just don't see how resetting the rosters fixes what happened.

I agree, and I think a little bit of clarification is need with how on board he was or wasn't with the rule change beforehand... If he didn't say a word until the season shaked out, then I tend to agree, TS buddy...

[keggerz]

fwiw, he didn't have to trade Rice...he could have rode him in the playoffs...he just wouldn't have been able to keep him....while I don't think it was handled properly when it was done, I don't see how this is anything more than sour grapes at this time...and no, scraping rosters shouldn't be an option.

[matt770]

It was fair to change the rule because a majority of owners voted for it but that owner should have been able to be grandfathered in and hold onto rice for his 3 years. You and the other owners basically changed the terms of the contract while the other owner was still in it. You should have applied it only to new pickups/trades, not trades and pickups that were done when the old contract was still in effect.

 

So, yes, I think the owner has a valid argument.

Yep, he got screwed and has a valid beef. Grandfathering him in is a no-brainer and could be done easily enough. If it were me, no way I trade Rice, I ride out the season, insisting over and over that I should get to keep him another year, and if the commish still didn't relent at the end of the season, I would resign from the league. Then I would write a long, rambling, hate-filled diatribe on the league message board, blasting the commish for his gross incompetence, ending with "and the horse you rode in on".

[detlef]

fwiw, he didn't have to trade Rice...he could have rode him in the playoffs...he just wouldn't have been able to keep him....while I don't think it was handled properly when it was done, I don't see how this is anything more than sour grapes at this time...and no, scraping rosters shouldn't be an option.

I was going to mention this as well. Bird in hand, after all. In a high dollar league with very minimal keepers, I would think long and hard about moving a stud like Rice just so I'd be in better shape the next year. Winning the league once pays for a lot of years of not doing so.

[detlef]

Yep, he got screwed and has a valid beef. Grandfathering him in is a no-brainer and could be done easily enough. If it were me, no way I trade Rice, I ride out the season, insisting over and over that I should get to keep him another year, and if the commish still didn't relent at the end of the season, I would resign from the league. Then I would write a long, rambling, hate-filled diatribe on the league message board, blasting the commish for his gross incompetence, ending with "and the horse you rode in on".

That assumes the grandfathering idea was brought up and shot down. If nobody mentioned it, he's as guilty as the rest. You're assuming that everyone was out to get him where it's more likely a case of guys just not thinking it through.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Well, it was a big deal when everyone was discussing the rule change. That was his chance to insist that they do what we all seem to be agreeing on, that Rice be grandfathered. But he played out the season and is now complaining. What if it was Chris Johnson that he was forced to give up a year early? Now what is done is done.

 

I just don't see how resetting the rosters fixes what happened.

 

Side I had been leaning on...if rice had suffered a Peterson-type injury, would he be complaining?

 

His argument is: "well, there are a million "ifs"...we can only logically evaluate what is, not what if." And to his credit, he did lobby strongly that this rule not be implemented, for all the reasons stated above....but was outvoted. It was changed on draft night, when all the guys are together discussing any rule changes before the draft gets started. A grandfather rule would have been ideal, but it wasn't mentioned (at least I don't think it was).

[i_am_the_swammi]

Yep, he got screwed and has a valid beef. Grandfathering him in is a no-brainer and could be done easily enough. If it were me, no way I trade Rice, I ride out the season, insisting over and over that I should get to keep him another year, and if the commish still didn't relent at the end of the season, I would resign from the league. Then I would write a long, rambling, hate-filled diatribe on the league message board, blasting the commish for his gross incompetence, ending with "and the horse you rode in on".

 

The Rice owner is the commish.