Rule Change -- Fair?

[stevegrab]

A lot of that same "its not that big a deal, lets just vote" sentiment played into this decision that hurt the Rice owner.

 

And you alluded to that clearly in a recent post when you said

"Thinking about it, the grandfather option was brought up briefly, but dismissed because it thought it would be too hard to track going forward, and there would be a ton of other stuff to have to think about in how it would work. That alone should have been enough to put off the vote, but it wasn't."

 

Its really too late to fix what happened, but hopefully next time a rule change is proposed with these complex issues more owners will realize it and agree to table the vote for another time.

[Caveman_Nick]

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

 

 

QFT.

[SNOWBOUND33]

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!

the rule change should have went into effect the following year. That way everyone had time to adjust to it.

[matt770]

That's not true. It's clear that the commish did "understand the ramificiations" and opposed the rule being cahnged, knowing full well he'd lose Rice too... But he left his bias to the side, and did his job, letting a vote pass that the majority of the league wanted.

 

You can't blame him for not imposing his will like they did... Again, it appears they were not malicious in the rule chang,e but it certaibly wasn't right that he expressed his concerns that the rule had a great retroactive affect on them, and they disregarded that to put through a rule that didn't bother them... It's not a matter of rules or woulda, shouldas here, other than they shouldn't have voted it in, knowing full well that it unnecessarily negatively affected someone.

 

Not sure how you recify it now, but this is the equivalent of a league veto, when people are so irresponsible to not recognize that their rule change slights someone out of a first-round pick in the same year they lose Rodgers.

Plain and simple, a rule change should not retroactively affect transactions from past seasons. By failing to add a grandfather clause or a future date to start enforcing the new rule, the commish screwed an owner. The owner happened to be himself, but it doesn't make him any less incompetent. He let the rest of the league roll over him, now he looks weak and ineffectual. Good luck to that league when future disputes arise that need a decisive commish.

[SNOWBOUND33]

Plain and simple, a rule change should not retroactively affect transactions from past seasons. By failing to add a grandfather clause or a future date to start enforcing the new rule, the commish screwed an owner. The owner happened to be himself, but it doesn't make him any less incompetent. He let the rest of the league roll over him, now he looks weak and ineffectual. Good luck to that league when future disputes arise that need a decisive commish.

Exact opposite of my commish, depending on who you are!!!!!!

[delusions of grandeur]

Plain and simple, a rule change should not retroactively affect transactions from past seasons. By failing to add a grandfather clause or a future date to start enforcing the new rule, the commish screwed an owner. The owner happened to be himself, but it doesn't make him any less incompetent. He let the rest of the league roll over him, now he looks weak and ineffectual. Good luck to that league when future disputes arise that need a decisive commish.

I agree that a grandfather clause should have been put in that the time, and that's on the commish just the same as the rest of the league...

 

But I disagree that the commish just the let the league roll over him... For one, the commish is supposed to enforce the will of the league, not to necessarily decide what's best. It depends on league makeup how much reign you give a commish in settling disputes, and this one is all friends, so the commish's role is probably much more organizer than arbitrator.

 

But more importantly, the commish had a percieved conflict of interest here, with his team being the one in question. Thus all he did, and all he should hve done, is to make his case that the rule isn't fair, vote against it, and hope that others keep in mind his objection when voting (and not just whether it affects them or not). I really don't think he should have been any more decisive (other than obviously to propose the clause) than to voice his objection and allow a league vote if that's what they want (again, not in spite of but because his team is the one in question who is objecting to the majority. So without bringing his own personal interests into his commission position (valid as they may be), his only fair recourse was lobbying and voting).

 

As for where you go from here, only your league can decide, but I think it's more than just "sour grapes" here, being that he objected prior to the rule, and then had to watch all year as the rule change caused him to blow his chance at the cash. I'd be pretty peeved too...

[BeeR]

Basically what most others are saying. He got screwed and has every right to be livid and quit the league. What a stupid move. Any player affected should have been "grandfathered."

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Frankly I don't think much of any owner in your league that voted for something so patently unfair. Shame on those who brought this to fruition.