Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 9:38:56 GMT -5
To be sure that everyone understands my suggestion, here it is in detailed writing:
We keep rules for failing to sign players the same. If you fail to sign a player, you are fined $1,000,000 and the player goes to the 2nd highest bidder (if that owner wants him). If he doesn't, he is offered to the 3rd highest bidder (if applicable). If no one claims him, he is released back into free agency. HOWEVER, we change the time allowed for teams to sign a player they won in FA to 5 days (120 hours). That time does not start until the auction goes final (48 hours after the most recent bid).
Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 10:01:31 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is opposed to giving owners a bit more time to sign players before any fines kick in. Thoughts? Agree. |
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Apr 26, 2017 10:54:49 GMT -5
I'm not saying I think it will play out, and I of course hope it doesn't. However, there is no reason to change a rule to where that type of abuse COULD happen, especially when it's so easy to prevent (just say the player goes to the 2nd highest bidder or enforce the fine as before...). It's not like Mat's proposal couldn't easily be tweeked to still include some type of penalty for failing to sign a player a week after the fact. Whatever we vote on, there 100% needs to be an option to keep the rules the same and just extend the time allowed to sign a player. I don't understand why we're talking about voting on just 2 options (Cards proposal and Yanks proposal) when the vast majority of the league seems to want to keep things the same. In order to help give owners more leeway and time in signing players, the ONLY thing that needs to be tweaked is the time allowed to sign a player. This has gotten shockingly complex for something that is so simple! I don't think anyone is opposed to giving owners a bit more time to sign players before any fines kick in. Thoughts? I want to end the carnage. That's why I made the proposal. I want to stop owners from getting into finger pointing - which is what happens under this rule - and as I said before, we as a league should not be aiming to "penalize" people. This is about the player being bid on, nothing more. That's the target everyone's after. So, not getting that target should be ample "penalty". That's why. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 11:20:06 GMT -5
Carnage? What carnage? Literally everyone who has chimed in has said they like current rules, except potentially giving owners more time to sign a player. Why are we changing the rules because 1 person has complained? Hell, it sounds like even yanks partly agreed with what I said. If you can't sign a player within 5 days, I don't care if you get called out- you should be able to take responsibility for failing to sign a player within 5 days (or at least telling commissioners why you can't sign the player in the allotted amount of time). It's so simple!
And the problem with what you said about not getting the player being penalty enough is it the owner bidding it up has no desire to sign the player, that's not a penalty at all... Please respond to that part
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Apr 26, 2017 11:46:21 GMT -5
Carnage? What carnage? Literally everyone who has chimed in has said they like current rules, except potentially giving owners more time to sign a player. Why are we changing the rules because 1 person has complained? Hell, it sounds like even yanks partly agreed with what I said. If you can't sign a player within 5 days, I don't care if you get called out- you should be able to take responsibility for failing to sign a player within 5 days (or at least telling commissioners why you can't sign the player in the allotted amount of time). It's so simple! And the problem with what you said about not getting the player being penalty enough is it the owner bidding it up has no desire to sign the player, that's not a penalty at all... Please respond to that part The latter portion's fix is the being unable to bid on the re-opening. Let's also not make belief that more than a third of the league has been involved in this conversation. There is no overwhelming feeling one way or another, and sure, we can expand the vote to allow for the status quo to remain in place. But honestly, that's not going to fix anything and we'll continue to deal with this headache over and over again each time an owner- whether Yanks or other - has a beef with the penalties. To me, keeping it as it is puts a bandaid fix on and still takes more maintenance on our end than I'm willing to put in on the issue. If you want to take that on and be the go to guy, so be it, but I'll wash my hands of it if it remains the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 12:04:41 GMT -5
But why would an owner care about being banned from bidding on a player he didn't want? That doesn't really make sense.
I didn't mean to imply that the owners who have been silent want the rules the same. However, of the ones who have chimed in, all but Yankees seem to be fine with the current rules, as long as we expand the time allowed to sign a player. So to say there is no overwhelming feeling one way or another is false (at least from the teams who have chimed in). My entire point is there shouldn't be a 'headache' if an owner cannot sign a player within 5 days. We already provide exceptions to this rule if an owner contacts a commissioner and says something is going on. I can't envision a scenario in which an owner is unable to quickly check in and tell the league (or just Mat and I) that something is going on in their lives. If it's super serious and something that prevented them from getting online altogether, then of course we're going to be lenient with that owner. With the vast majority of owners who have been involved in this discussion wanting to keep things the same (with slight alterations to the rule), why are we creating a poll to vote on 2 options that weren't ones those owners wanted? That also doesn't make sense.
All in all, we should not be altering rules just because someone violated a rule. As I've stated a ton of times now, I'm perfectly fine with altering the rule to give owners more leniency, but to completely change a rule to one that has major flaws (an owner can bid as much as he wants with absolutely no penalty) makes very little sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 12:05:37 GMT -5
I can assure you that an owner abusing the new rule you proposed (bidding up a guy and not signing him) will create a much, much larger headache than 1 owner complaining for being penalized for violating a rule. If you can't sign a guy in 5 days and you get penalized, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 12:15:25 GMT -5
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick, but I'm shocked that this is becoming so difficult haha. If we want to vote on changing this, that's fine. However, we HAVE to include an option to keep the rules the same and expand the time allowed to sign a player considering 5 or 6 teams out of the 7 or 8 who have chimed in want that. It'd be insane not to allow that as an option. So to put all this to rest, here is what the options should be IMO:
1) Keep rules the same, except change the time allowed to sign a player to 5 days (120 hours) instead of the current time allowed (48 hours)
2) Mat's proposal
3) Yanks' proposal
Surely everyone thinks voting on those options is fair. If so, I'll create the poll
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 21:04:05 GMT -5
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick, but I'm shocked that this is becoming so difficult haha. If we want to vote on changing this, that's fine. However, we HAVE to include an option to keep the rules the same and expand the time allowed to sign a player considering 5 or 6 teams out of the 7 or 8 who have chimed in want that. It'd be insane not to allow that as an option. So to put all this to rest, here is what the options should be IMO: 1) Keep rules the same, except change the time allowed to sign a player to 5 days (120 hours) instead of the current time allowed (48 hours) 2) Mat's proposal 3) Yanks' proposal Surely everyone thinks voting on those options is fair. If so, I'll create the poll I'll chime in later tonight but I'm not ok with this going to poll as Stros suggested. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 21:29:13 GMT -5
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick, but I'm shocked that this is becoming so difficult haha. If we want to vote on changing this, that's fine. However, we HAVE to include an option to keep the rules the same and expand the time allowed to sign a player considering 5 or 6 teams out of the 7 or 8 who have chimed in want that. It'd be insane not to allow that as an option. So to put all this to rest, here is what the options should be IMO: 1) Keep rules the same, except change the time allowed to sign a player to 5 days (120 hours) instead of the current time allowed (48 hours) 2) Mat's proposal 3) Yanks' proposal Surely everyone thinks voting on those options is fair. If so, I'll create the poll I'll chime in later tonight but I'm not ok with this going to poll as Stros suggested. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 22:20:41 GMT -5
Stros, we aren't discussing how much time is enough time. We are discussing the unprecedented event that a GM won a bid, posted a transaction to complete the signing but had another GM retroactively review a thread because of personal vindictive motives. That's what we are looking to fix.
Can you answer that part? Cause you keep framing this discussion to make it seem so complicated and unwanted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 6:55:35 GMT -5
This has happened once in hundreds of FA signings. Also, while it sucks it happened, you were still in violation of the rule. It's annoying because you only missed the deadline by 12 hours, but you still knew the rules and missed the deadline. As for my proposal, I can't envision a scenario where a team can't sign a player in a 5 day span. How would that not have prevented what happened to you?
What I really don't understand is why you're opposed to having the league vote on this... I have said countless times that I'm perfectly okay with voting on changing this. My only thing is I'm not okay with voting on 2 options that literally only 2 people have expressed support for (you and Mat). If we're going to vote on this as a league, we HAVE to include the option that 5+ teams have said they prefer. To not do that would be extremely unfair (and dumb). Can you please explain why we should only vote on you and Mats proposals and not mine?
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Apr 27, 2017 8:09:05 GMT -5
This has happened once in hundreds of FA signings. Also, while it sucks it happened, you were still in violation of the rule. It's annoying because you only missed the deadline by 12 hours, but you still knew the rules and missed the deadline. As for my proposal, I can't envision a scenario where a team can't sign a player in a 5 day span. How would that not have prevented what happened to you? What I really don't understand is why you're opposed to having the league vote on this... I have said countless times that I'm perfectly okay with voting on changing this. My only thing is I'm not okay with voting on 2 options that literally only 2 people have expressed support for (you and Mat). If we're going to vote on this as a league, we HAVE to include the option that 5+ teams have said they prefer. To not do that would be extremely unfair (and dumb). Can you please explain why we should only vote on you and Mats proposals and not mine? The only reason that proposal wasn't included was because I was trying to trim things down as much as possible and hadn't seen an actual proposal mentioned. Like I said, if you want to propose that vote with the 3 or 4 options, that's fine, I have no issue with that. |
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Apr 27, 2017 8:10:07 GMT -5
Let's put the options up clearly Ryan and have the vote (I'll let you do it because I'm not well versed on what you envisioned for the 3rd and 4th options).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2017 8:13:53 GMT -5
Let's put the options up clearly Ryan and have the vote (I'll let you do it because I'm not well versed on what you envisioned for the 3rd and 4th options). Sounds good Mat. As far as I know, there are only 3 options (3 ideas proposed so far): Yours, Yanks' and mine. I'll try to create a poll in the next few hours with those 3 options. If there is a 4th option that I'm missing, let me know. |
|
