2021 Rule Review Catch all Discussion

[Tford]

Please use this thread for preliminary discussion of potential rules changes.

 

Separate threads will be made for votes.

[Tford]

I'm going to throw this out there again.

 

I'm a big advocate for more Devys. I'd like to see 4 or 5 devys per team and one of those devys devoted to defense only.

[terminader55]

I'm in favor of tford proposal and also any chance of increase in fees at least for next year like $10-20 more?

 

[Dragline]

in favor of tfords as well

[Allen Stephey]

I would also be in favor of raising the number of Devy slots and devoting one of them to the defensive side of the ball.

[theblackhand]

Would increase in devy players also mean additional draft rounds?

[Tford]

42 minutes ago, theblackhand said:

Would increase in devy players also mean additional draft rounds?

 

I suppose that it would make sense to add a round or two to the draft to allow room for owners to draft them.

[flemingd]

On 4/5/2021 at 6:56 AM, Allen Stephey said:

I would also be in favor of raising the number of Devy slots and devoting one of them to the defensive side of the ball.

 

Only problem here is you can't automate this and I am a huge proponent of not leaving things up to the commish(es) to enforce manualy.  It's bound to have one slip by and cause a stink.  I say just let there be however many slots and leave it at that.  At some point there's a diminishing return on offensive guys anyway so many are likely to grab an IDP without requiring it.

[flemingd]

I will add that our FT rule stinks.  There's no real benefit to owning the guy vs. bidding on him from another roster - you can just bid the exact same amount and get the exact same contract.  For example if Darin FT's player A and has Player B, why would I trade for Player B?  If I win him for $50 I can give him the exact same contract as if I FT'd him and paid $45 more for the 5 year deal.

 

The rule as-is stifles the benefit to trading for a FT guy.  There's no doubt that having the FT has a benefit, we don't need to address the match/pass part, just the future contract part.  I realize it's too late to do this year, but thought  I would put it out for discussion next year.

[Tford]

10 hours ago, flemingd said:

I will add that our FT rule stinks.  There's no real benefit to owning the guy vs. bidding on him from another roster - you can just bid the exact same amount and get the exact same contract.  For example if Darin FT's player A and has Player B, why would I trade for Player B?  If I win him for $50 I can give him the exact same contract as if I FT'd him and paid $45 more for the 5 year deal.

 

The rule as-is stifles the benefit to trading for a FT guy.  There's no doubt that having the FT has a benefit, we don't need to address the match/pass part, just the future contract part.  I realize it's too late to do this year, but thought  I would put it out for discussion next year.

 

I'm game for a change on the FT but in order for this to be a vote, I need something to change it to.

 

How would you like the franchise tag to be going forward?

[Tford]

I have put the devy number rule change to a vote. As per the rules 67% affirmative is required to pass the rule change.

 

Quote

1.6.1 Rule Changes
League Rules will be reviewed annually during the month of March. Major rule changes can only be made through a league-wide vote requiring 67% yes votes for passage. {minimum number of votes?}

Votes will normally be conducted here on the message board. Commish and Asst. Commish will reach out to owners that fail to cast their vote in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[flemingd]

If you think about it I think the $10 per year thing is the problem.  As is:

 

I can match a solid LB for $20 and give him a 6 year contract.

I can match a good LB for $40 and give him a 6 year contract.

I can match a FT LB $40 bid for $20 but then I have to pay another 40 to give him a 6 year contract.

 

How dumb is it that the FT rule makes me pay more to give the best player the same contract.  The FT rule actually hurts.  The 1/2 price part hardly even matters in truth.  If someone bids $120 on that FT then sure, the match is only $60, but then if you want to give the guy an 8 year contract you still have to pay another 20 bucks.  What dumbass made this a rule?  (rhetorical question - it was me that suggested it in the first place).

 

I have no suggested vote option because I think the best option needs to have some time to be discussed and, more importantly, implemented before RFA starts which we don't have time for with this current schedule.  I"ll suggest a change next year.

[Tford]

I don't disagree with your logic on changing it. And I agree with waiting until next year to implement but if there's a good idea to vote on, I'd rather vote now so everyone is prepared for the 2022 FT cycle.

 

Thoughts on changes? I'm partial to the ATAP/AOTAOP model but not necessarily with the one year deal if you remain. But that's just me.

[flemingd]

I think the key to that rule is the 1 year if you stay.  Creates a big imbalance in value between owners which is what makes trades happen - if everyone valued everything the same nothing would ever happen.

 

What I always hated was that different owners have different picks and therefore way more or less leverage.  Plus the guy with the 1.02 might bid 35 and then the guy with 1.15 bids 36 and the guy with the FT player just got hosed.  Maybe he'd take the 35 and 1.02 but now he can't?

 

My suggestion:

 

FT costs $10

All FT are opened for bidding on March 27th and close March 30th.

Any owner may bid but must bid a minimum of 21 and a 1st round pick (owner chooses which one if they have multiple).  If they do not own a 1st round pick they may not bid.

Bidders only get to post one bid per player - come hard or go home.

Owners may bid on multiple FT players and may overbid or bid the same pick on multiple.  If this happens whichever FT owner accepts first is processed and any conflicting bids are rescinded.

Owner may choose to accept any of the offers or to match the player.  If matching, he pays 1/2 the highest cash bid rounded down.  The $10 FT is credited toward this fee.

[darin3]

I'm open to changing the FT rule.  Obviously it's not going to happen this year since we're already declaring.... or do you think we can come up with something like NOW?

 

I'd rather keep devy's as-is but would be cool with changes if that's what everyone wants.

Edited April 10, 2021 by darin3

[Tford]

1 hour ago, darin3 said:

I'm open to changing the FT rule.  Obviously it's not going to happen this year since we're already declaring.... or do you think we can come up with something like NOW?

 

I'd rather keep devy's as-is but would be cool with changes if that's what everyone wants.

 

I think that both the devy change and the FT change both need to be 2022 cycle if they happen. Need to give teams time to prepare for it.

[Pope Flick]

I’d like to see FTs tradable. They’re a team asset with value like anything else and making them transferable in our game makes sense even though the NFL doesn’t do it.

[flemingd]

32 minutes ago, Pope Flick said:

I’d like to see FTs tradable. They’re a team asset with value like anything else and making them transferable in our game makes sense even though the NFL doesn’t do it.

 

I agree but most just see Have to agree here you have two FT waaaaa.  I've suggested in in other leagues and they threw a fit.  They don't realize that I'm not getting that 2nd FT for free, that I'm  paying  hard for the sunk cost of the fee they paid and for the added value the FT brings.  If you can get others to go with it though I am in.

[flemingd]

Unquestionably next year for the FT, you can't drop something into a calendar that requires future planning like trading 1st rounders or contract/year management like that.

[Tford]

6 hours ago, Pope Flick said:

I’d like to see FTs tradable. They’re a team asset with value like anything else and making them transferable in our game makes sense even though the NFL doesn’t do it.

 

Something about trading a player to a team and having that team tag that player and then trading him back feels off to me.

 

I'd need to time to digest that one.

[Tford]

Still waiting for two more teams to vote in the rule change for devys. We have enough of a majority to confirm that the number of devys should be increased. Other portions of the rule change still up in the air.

 

I will build a followup poll to determine the best way to implement the change.

[Pope Flick]

On 4/11/2021 at 11:28 AM, Tford said:

 

Something about trading a player to a team and having that team tag that player and then trading him back feels off to me.

 

I'd need to time to digest that one.

 

 

Well, some workaround like that never occured to me. I'd be happy with a "can't trade a tagged player back to the team that traded the tag" provision if you think the other ten are sketch enough to do something like that.

[flemingd]

On 4/11/2021 at 2:28 PM, Tford said:

 

Something about trading a player to a team and having that team tag that player and then trading him back feels off to me.

 

I'd need to time to digest that one.

 

Sound like good capitalizing on changing needs to me.  As long as it's not a pre-arranged deal I see no issue with it.  The player had X value as an RFA and once tagged and on an open contract his value is way way higher.  If I trade $20 for Dez and tag him what's the difference if I trad him right back to the guy I got him for for two first rounders or if I trade him to a different owner for two first rounders?  If that's his new value then that's his new value and I don't see any issue with it. 

Edited April 14, 2021 by flemingd

[Pope Flick]

Actually I see we have a league trade veto vote available. Isn't that enough?