When did we go from 'Assuming 1 year' last year to docking people credits all of a sudden?

[CARBoys]

If this is the way we're going to do it you need to go back and start retroactively taking credits from every owner FA thread that ends in "assuming 1 year' from a commissioner. The rule that keeps getting quoted was added 2 years ago and isn't even in the free agency portion of the rules.

 

This selective enforcement is problematic. I'm not a fan.

[fuz]

I forgot the rule was there as well.  Shane mentioned it to me just the other day.  The ruling pertains to all roster acquisitions - not just free agency - which is why it was located there and not duplicated everywhere that it is pertinent along with its current location.

 

I'm not sure how to proceed with what you are recommending with retroactive credits, as we do not know if someone would have responded immediately or not in any past incidences.

 

Imperfect commissioner here.  Not trying to be selective purposefully.  I do agree that it is problematic - but, I'm not sure how to address it.  Any other suggestions?

[CARBoys]

I think you have to let it slide and either say 'from here on out' or 'starting next year.' I don't know Stanley Morgan, he seems a little lost on the whole thing, but to arbitrarily start enforcing a rule and docking him credits all of a sudden when a precedent has already been set seems not cool.

 

I don't expect anyone to get it perfect, this is a complicated thing, but consistent would be great while we're all still hashing this out. I know it's hard for the commissioners too. I run my own league as well. Do what you think is right.

[AdamB]

Rules are rules so it sucks, but I'm losing over half my credits to a rule that's never really been enforced before.  

 

May be a conversation for elsewhere but it doesn't seem to make sense to say it pertains to all roster acquisitions, RFAs you have until contract years are due to assign, same as draft picks.  Trades, correct me if I'm wrong, you take what is left on their contract years at the time of the trade.  Is there another instance other than FAs that this rule would pertain to?   I would think a change to something like, if you don't assign the years within 24 or 48 hours, you can't use the player that week might make more sense for FAs.  Or keep the rule for when the acquired player results in exceeding active players/cap years.  

 

 

Titsburgh Feelers

 

[Gizmo]

 

Tim & I are going to get together and talk about ways to handle this better. 

 

My personal opinion is....I don't think we, as commissioners should assume anything not written within the rules (ex...assuming a 1 year contracts), and all directions should come from the team owners.  Again this is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of Tim.

 

Most of you were with us when we started this league, this rule came about the first season when one of the Gee's bid on Phillip Lindsey, won the bid, and never made any adjustments to his roster to accommodate the newly acquired player and never assigned any contract years to him.  This essentially was a "block move" to not allow other owners the rights to the player and it left the player in "Limbo" for 3 weeks. Please, don't get me wrong...... I DON'T believe this to be anything like the case described in any way, but that case called for a rule change.

 

As I stated Tim & I will talk about how to handle this better.  I'll post a conclusion of our conversation.

 

As a side note: We would love to get together over a Sunday and watch games together, an discuss issues such as these and other potential changes that could make the league more clear and fun.

 

Thanks,

Shane

[Sallen]

my personal take, i dont think the "assume 1 year" should take place retroactively because 1) im pretty sure over half of previous FA bids fall into this category and it would be a pain to go through all of them, and 2) from what I can tell the commissioners weren't aware that this was a rule in the first place. I believe the role of a commissioner is to enforce rules, and I dont think this was enforced correctly. 

 

of course it would be most ideal to layout contract years and any roster moves in the original, bid but i would be ok with a 48 hour window upon the aquisition to finalize any roster moves and contract years. and after that point, a penalty can be put in place

[fuz]

Alright - here's the approach that Shane and I would like to suggest.

 

First - Allan, thank you for the accountability.  We want this league to be fun and enjoyable for all.  We welcome critique of this league and how it operates.  I apologize for the inconsistency.  We were trying to get things on the right track with how the rules have been written.

 

Secondly - we want this to be as transparent and agreeable to all - so please let us know what you think of this course of action:

 

Since we have been inconsistent, I think the most obvious course of action is that all penalties for these recent FA bids should be waived as they have been incurred in the past.  However, from this point on, we need to enforce the rules as they are written.  I don't think we can waive the rule for the year.  The problem now is that Stanley can just sit on Malcolm Brown, not assign any years to him, and wait to give him the right length of contract when it best suits him without any recourse.

 

However, I do have a proposal for a solution that will be less work being consistent for the commissioners, may be easier for everyone, and will allow me to close out player acquisition.

 

I would like to propose a rule change relating to FA bids: that the owner has 24 hours after the bid is closed on the player to get their team rosters and contract years in order.  At the 24 hour mark, I would like to propose that the assumption is that the contract length is 1 year.  At that point in time, when the player is assigned to your roster, if you have transgressed the already in place rules on roster player numbers (20) and contract years (40), those penalties would be enforced.  I would scratch the current credit penalty in lieu of this change.

 

If I have enough people that like this approach, I will make a formal rule proposal.  We need all 12 owners to vote yes to pass a rule change during the season.  Otherwise, it will not have a chance to be implemented until we get to the offseason where only 8 of the owners must agree on the change.

 

I am also open to any other suggestions on modifying the rules to best fit the intent of committing to your free agent bids and resolving your roster as expeditiously as possible.

 

Let me know what you think.

[CARBoys]

I agree with that rule change 100%.

[AdamB]

I agree as well.  When will Goedert hit my roster on the site?

[Icarus]

I agree

[Sallen]

Im cool with it. Not sure youll get a timely 12 votes, but worth a shot. 

 

 

In general, is there a "deadline" to submit votes for rule changes? seemed like the other two rule changes took at least a week and that was just to get 8 votes.

[jbart]

I agree

[Fiese]

I agree

[fuz]

I will put together the verbiage for the rule change and put it up for a vote.

[Stanley Morgan]

I agree