|
Post by MetDaMeats on Sept 20, 2018 14:53:39 GMT -5
An "exemption" for a new GM is impossible because of the other party to any trade. Yeah. But that's my point. The Commish would give the exemption for both of the trading team and the receiving team. That's not the idea being impossible, that's just how it would work.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 20, 2018 18:04:55 GMT -5
Looks like the league has spoken pretty overwhelmingly. Thanks for the feedback everyone. I will revert the rule to the original verbiage and will shut those types of deals down whenever they come to my attention.
I do kind of like Colorado's idea of an exemption. But I only like it one way. If a new GM wants to unload a starter for some draft picks that would probably help. I do not like the idea of a new GM coming in and immediately trading away future picks.
Right now I am leading towards not implementing that exemption mostly for simplicity sake. But I will put up a poll for it if it gets some love.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Sept 20, 2018 18:26:03 GMT -5
...whenever they come to my attention. Understood.....
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Sept 20, 2018 19:04:22 GMT -5
...whenever they come to my attention. Understood..... An honest question that I do not have the answer to. Since we have penalties for illegal contracts, are there penalties in play if team(s) make a deal to include future picks beyond the upcoming season or outside of the trading picks window? Understanding enforcement isn't easy and the commish will only take action whenever it comes to his attention, I ask the question to help possibly deter the chance it occurs? Just thinking out loud, first offense could be loss of said draft pick, second offense could see a reduced budget and finally if a third offense is determined to have taken place, removal from the league? Again, just spit-ballin' here but you get the idea. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Sept 20, 2018 20:32:02 GMT -5
Those are some pretty intense punishments for a violation of a rule whose criteria seems to amount to "I'll know it when I see it."
I would think it'd be more fair to just say the trade is invalidated, all players return to their original teams, and maybe a fine for wasting the Commish's time. Like when someone leaves players on the DFA.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Sept 20, 2018 20:57:54 GMT -5
Those are some pretty intense punishments for a violation of a rule whose criteria seems to amount to "I'll know it when I see it." I would think it'd be more fair to just say the trade is invalidated, all players return to their original teams, and maybe a fine for wasting the Commish's time. Like when someone leaves players on the DFA. My intent in mentioning penalties such as I did was to suggest breaking a rule comes with consequences. The greater the consequence, the less likely the act is taken, or so the thinking goes. I think the variable of the commish only knowing when it is brought to his attention, indicates the penalties won't come into play very often. But IF a team is desperate enough to do this kind of trade and IF the commish is made aware of it, then I have zero sympathy in applying the penalty for the infraction. It's not like we all don't know well enough about it now, right? At any rate, all that to say it was simply a suggestion to get the conversation started. I'm certainly not married to the suggestions I provided. But i do believe it is imperative to have a stiff consequence called out for when/if this takes place. I hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Sept 21, 2018 5:04:46 GMT -5
Those are some pretty intense punishments for a violation of a rule whose criteria seems to amount to "I'll know it when I see it." I would think it'd be more fair to just say the trade is invalidated, all players return to their original teams, and maybe a fine for wasting the Commish's time. Like when someone leaves players on the DFA. My intent in mentioning penalties such as I did was to suggest breaking a rule comes with consequences. The greater the consequence, the less likely the act is taken, or so the thinking goes. I think the variable of the commish only knowing when it is brought to his attention, indicates the penalties won't come into play very often. But IF a team is desperate enough to do this kind of trade and IF the commish is made aware of it, then I have zero sympathy in applying the penalty for the infraction. It's not like we all don't know well enough about it now, right? At any rate, all that to say it was simply a suggestion to get the conversation started. I'm certainly not married to the suggestions I provided. But i do believe it is imperative to have a stiff consequence called out for when/if this takes place. I hope that makes sense. I absolutely agree there should be stiff penalties involved with teams doing this. Since it is breaking the rules it is cheating. Also the commish is already aware of GMs that have done this in the past so future trades by these individuals should be scrutinized and overturned if deemed a "handshake" deal is in play and the GM sanctioned in some fashion.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Sept 21, 2018 9:09:40 GMT -5
I feel like we need to pull back from the brink here. John (sansterre) had a pretty detailed argument about two ways of handling the "legality" of handshake deals on the other thread which I will use to summarize my understanding: I took the wording of the rule, and the lack of specific punishment for its violation to mean that although handshake deals weren't officially sanctioned, you were welcome to engage in them as long as you didn't go crying to the Commish if they went wrong. That this was not a form of "cheating" but rather something that was legitimate if both parties agreed, and neither was a douche about it. I was under the impression everyone felt this way. Which is why, when I have done this (and I'm happy to admit that I have), they have always been tiny deals that have been conducted politely with an extra pick here or there to make a mid-level trade viable. Yes, a person could take this loophole to its logical extreme and promise massive picks for superstars, but doing so would heighten the possibility of someone being a douche. I don't see why we need more than the rule as stated and the gentleman's agreement not to exploit it.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 21, 2018 10:17:11 GMT -5
I think I am comfortable with the verbiage in the governance as it is now and do not see a compelling reason to identify specific penalties or exemptions.
It is not my perception that this is a common or significant issue in the league. I think the occasional mid to lower draft pick may be moving outside of the window. I have never seen any evidence of major value being moved in this manner.
How I plan to handle these situations:
1) If a trade is posted that references a part 2 I will veto that trade. 2) If anyone approaches me to ask how these kind of trades can be done I will answer that they cannot. 3) If there is an obviously one side trade posted and I can tie that to a previous one sided trade involving the same two teams I will query the league for volunteers so that 3 or 4 of us can look at the specific circumstance and decide on appropriate actions. Likely rolling back resources and assessing a penalty.
To me, this is a no smoking sign in a public park. If you are observed smoking you will be asked to put it out. If the behavior continues or escalates from sneaking a butt in the bushes to jumping up and down screaming "look at me I am smoking" right in front of a cop then you are probably asking to get fined.
Let me know if there are concerns with this approach.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Sept 21, 2018 10:53:21 GMT -5
I feel like we need to pull back from the brink here. John (sansterre) had a pretty detailed argument about two ways of handling the "legality" of handshake deals on the other thread which I will use to summarize my understanding: I took the wording of the rule, and the lack of specific punishment for its violation to mean that although handshake deals weren't officially sanctioned, you were welcome to engage in them as long as you didn't go crying to the Commish if they went wrong. That this was not a form of "cheating" but rather something that was legitimate if both parties agreed, and neither was a douche about it. I was under the impression everyone felt this way. Which is why, when I have done this (and I'm happy to admit that I have), they have always been tiny deals that have been conducted politely with an extra pick here or there to make a mid-level trade viable. Yes, a person could take this loophole to its logical extreme and promise massive picks for superstars, but doing so would heighten the possibility of someone being a douche. I don't see why we need more than the rule as stated and the gentleman's agreement not to exploit it. My understanding why the league voted so heavily in favor of this is because it has always been this way and no one has been a dousche and gone to the extreme. I too am happy to admit that I have also partook in the trading of a future pick but rarely ever has it been a first rounder always a third or a fourth. so the two people who seem consumed that this is tearing apart the league is just not true. Very similar to borrowing money from a friend, my friend is taking a risk that I will never pay him back money, if he has known me long enough and trusts me that I will indeed pay him what I told him I will, then there is no issue and when I have the appropriate funds to pay him back I will do so in future time, a deal agreed in principle. Crazy how the few (2) who think this is egregious, have never noticed it before seeing as how they think it should be spotted and penalized or rectified. And again I will revert back to why it's not noticeable. It looks like an unequal trade, which happens quite frequently. I can at any point trade my 1st round pick, top prospect, or best player in the majors for a few 1 star prospects. And there is ZERO that can be done about it. I could funnel all of my top players to one team systematically over a period of a few years, and again nothing can be done about it. There have been 4 page threads on a particular trade where people complain about how one sided it is, and has always gone through. Why? There is not veto on a trade. We have had countless GMs come and go, we are in year 2048. It started in 2011?? We have never had ANY ISSUE!! Why? We are a bunch of nerds playing a computer simulation game, now add the fact that we are so nerdy we want to play online with other live people. What's the ante you ask? Oh, nothing. Quite literally play FOR FREE, I spend more hours scouring the league than I do ALL of my 4 fantasy football leagues I am in, none of which cost less than $100. Why? Time invested, wanting to prove your "knowledge" and expertise in an area ? No one has violated these unwritten rules because there is no fun and enjoyment in that. I want to destroy each and everyone of your franchises, not aid and help you. At this point the horse is bludgeoned! Someone mentioned we are adults ? Then accept when the masses don't agree with you, either you're wrong or the 28 other people are, what's more likely? (Based on these unrelenting comments I think I know the answer to that)
|
|