Author Topic: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only  (Read 3189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2013, 09:58:28 AM »
Your point is duly noted, though Rob could trade teams with 28 other owners if he was truly bored :)

To clarify, we are voting on whether to allow internal transfers as a regular practice of filling team openings.  In special cases, internal transfers may be approved, but that is NOT the context of the current vote.

Is me applying for LAD not a special case?  Am I now to remain in SD until I leave this league?  Is that how this whole thing got handled? 
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2013, 10:25:20 AM »
The RC voted to limit internal transfers and allow them on a case-by-case basis.  It appears there are two primary qualifications:

1) A proven GM wants to downgrade by moving to a bad team in order to rebuild the franchise for the betterment of the league.
2) A GM wants to move to their favorite franchise.

In any case, your Dodgers application fails those two principals (which should go into the rules as the two key guidelines with acceptable internal transfers).  Boston would be the likely choice for you, but that means nerwffej needs to have a qualifying transfer.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2013, 10:49:34 AM »
The RC voted to limit internal transfers and allow them on a case-by-case basis.  It appears there are two primary qualifications:

1) A proven GM wants to downgrade by moving to a bad team in order to rebuild the franchise for the betterment of the league.
2) A GM wants to move to their favorite franchise.

In any case, your Dodgers application fails those two principals (which should go into the rules as the two key guidelines with acceptable internal transfers).  Boston would be the likely choice for you, but that means nerwffej needs to have a qualifying transfer.

This is all done while there was an open vote for the dodgers that I was winning.  It's out of order.  The 'no internal transfers rule' was rushed through once it was seen I had 3 votes for a transfer.  Roy you didn't like the rules so you changed it once, from the rules that had always been...to a vote for the job....I had three votes and you changed the rules again to completely take me out of it...MT had already thought I won the job.  Where is the sanity in this?  What did I do to be chopped out of transfers?  It's been known I have wanted a transfer to a team I prefer for quite some time.  Why is this brand new rule being implemented to rob me?  Am I a bad guy?  Should I not get the same courteousy as the other members who have transferred for whatever reason they imagined? 

This all would have been a non issue had a member of the league not gone out and asked people who's turn it wasn't to come in and apply for the job.  Who took that upon themselves is an interesting piece to the puzzle?  Who wanted Rick here so they asked him?  This is exactly the situation that happened to me with NYY and Corey had already brought OUDAN as the replacement before it was offered internally.  The total lack of respect for myself as a manager in this league for 3 years is utterly crushing.  I never quit this league and wouldn't think of doing so even after this slap to my face.  Roy rammed through his agenda...in a 3-4 vote.  Those 4 people just spoke for 30 people on an issue no small oligarchy should decide.  Disrespectful to this league as a whole. 

And Roy, your management style on this issue has been questionable.  Why change that clear rule midstream?  Why make a vote for the dodgers job that had me at 3 votes and not follow through?  Why suggest a rule that eliminates me from the problem and becomes an end around to the issue rather than managing the issue like it deserved (I had many valid points that were no longer meaningful because the discussion now cant involve me, like I don't count).  Why is our administrator voting on issues?  Shouldn't we seperate the rules and the Admin?  Maybe he should have a voice but no vote?  Maybe rules shouldn't be decided by a 4 person majority when the league has 30 members?  Maybe there should have been accountability for the job posting becoming a feeding frenzy rather than handled appropriately?

This whole situation has me sick to my stomach.  Go :SD: Padres...Rah Rah Rah!  And just watch out all you fools who questioned my Padres.  Baez has 21 RBI...in May.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2013, 10:56:14 AM »
It's not an issue of a mid-stream change of protocol for hiring.  With the questions surrounding how to fill the Dodgers, and all of the other teams that opened up in the past week, there was a clear need for direction.  Roy put the hiring on hold, sought the RC for legislation, and now there is a clear direction (although more subjective than I anticipated).
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2013, 11:06:10 AM »
It's not an issue of a mid-stream change of protocol for hiring.  With the questions surrounding how to fill the Dodgers, and all of the other teams that opened up in the past week, there was a clear need for direction.  Roy put the hiring on hold, sought the RC for legislation, and now there is a clear direction (although more subjective than I anticipated).

It is an issue of midstream change.  The change occurred twice as well.  The consent was given by the RC (those who voted) and by Roy as the Admin (by creating the format) to use a vote to decide the Dodgers and specifically the Dodgers.  Then when the votes were 3 for me the rules were changed again.  This is clearly the case.  I am not making any subjective statements, bar the first (possibly).

The rules were specifically written knowing that it would exclude me, without thought for grandfathering or any other such.  Then passed by a small oligarchy, in a tight controversial vote.  The issue however, had already been subjected to a vote by consent of the league.  Now for the Nationals and any team not already having an OPEN vote should have to go by the rules.  But there was already a VOTE on the floor, everything else is out of order.  Or is this a Bananana Republic?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Corey

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2013, 11:15:09 AM »
Its a great rule. Roy and the RC handled it correctly and timely.

The new rule is for the betterment of the league.

Good job guys.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2013, 11:18:55 AM »
Its a great rule. Roy and the RC handled it correctly and timely.

The new rule is for the betterment of the league.

Good job guys.

Are you in this league?
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Corey

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2013, 11:43:03 AM »
Yep. And proud that the RC made the right choice. 
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

joeshmoe

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2013, 02:58:32 PM »
Yep. And proud that the RC made the right choice.

I thought you quit in a big huff and puff about the Dodgers situation?

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?action=post;quote=520465;topic=94699.0
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Corey

  • Guest
Re: Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2013, 03:23:56 PM »
I thought you quit in a big huff and puff about the Dodgers situation?

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?action=post;quote=520465;topic=94699.0

I would have resigned and stayed resigned if the rules were not changed for the betterment of the league, there is no doubt about that.

But since the league made the important decision to improve its future, than I will stay.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

Forum Search


Quick Profile

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Chat Room

Refresh History
  • Jwalkerjr88: Lol
    Yesterday at 04:53:59 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I get like that too Eric. My goal every offseason is to do at least 1 trade with every gm. Why not? Its fun
    Yesterday at 04:55:00 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Some guys just dont trade for whatever reason. But the guys who dont arent championship contenders.
    Yesterday at 04:55:47 PM
  • Daddy: They trade, about as often as real teams do. For people that love year round trading, being in one league, one sport, its going to be difficult.
    Yesterday at 05:38:13 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Not everyone trades. But agreed, for one sport folk like myself. It requires patience
    Yesterday at 06:10:32 PM
  • Alpha5: NFL LIVE is the most difficult league for me and it's not even close
    Yesterday at 07:22:33 PM
  • Daddy: Cant just trade because its fun. There needs to be a purpose behind trading. Get guys you believe in or need to keep improving.
    Yesterday at 08:44:03 PM
  • Daddy: NFL LIVE has the toughest GMs & football is the toughest fantasy sport for DYNASTY. Redraft will always be King of football.
    Yesterday at 08:45:00 PM
  • Daddy: Baseball, hockey, basketball guys struggle with NFL LIVE because its just so damn fast (football careers, roster turnover etc.)
    Yesterday at 08:46:19 PM
  • Alpha5: Limited assets
    Yesterday at 11:05:53 PM
  • Daddy: We all have the same assets
    Today at 12:14:51 AM
  • Alpha5: If a team has 2 QB1s another team has none. If a team in baseball has 2 1B it doesn't leave a team without one.
    Today at 09:09:33 AM
  • Alpha5: That's what I mean by limited assets
    Today at 09:09:53 AM
  • Brent: And that's why I haven't traded Carr yet.  Someone doesn't have a QB or thinks they'll get one in FA/draft and might be left wanting.
    Today at 09:12:28 AM
  • Daddy: @Alpha if a team in MLB LIVE has two starting 1Bs then there is also a team without one.
    Today at 10:30:34 AM
  • ldsjayhawk: @jwalker I make like 2-3 trades a year for each of my baseball teams, maybe.  I'll tell you part of the reason I don't trade.  Every trade discussion starts out with the other team wanting my top prospect regardless of what I am trading for.  I am not trading Jackson Holliday for your backup catcher who is going to play 20 games this year.
    Today at 10:56:16 AM
  • Alpha5: Nah cause position eligibility. 1B/OF, 1B,3B etc
    Today at 11:02:48 AM
  • Daddy: CB/S >> DE/LB >> Taysom Hill QB/TE
    Today at 12:06:43 PM
  • Daddy: Football is just harder. You can build a team and 3 years later its irrelevant due to injury, retirement, roster turnover.
    Today at 12:07:41 PM
  • Alpha5: @ldsjayhawk I get the frustration but you're gonna have to get over that man haha
    Today at 12:29:52 PM
  • Alpha5: And maybe you should trade Jackson Holiday lolol
    Today at 12:32:00 PM
  • Brent: In an offsite league, I inquired about Mason Miller and the guy asked for Jackson Holliday.
    Today at 12:39:24 PM
  • dbreer23: Is it like a 4 team redraft league? :rofl:
    Today at 12:40:30 PM
  • dbreer23: Cris, there is a reason that you are a good owner, bc you can discern a value deal vs. a BS deal. Not all owners are that savvy. They will eventually leave...
    Today at 12:42:49 PM
  • Brent: Nope, 32-team contract league.
    Today at 12:49:09 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: I don't have Holiday.  Just used him as an example since he was the #1 prospect
    Today at 12:56:05 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: @Alpha I do make trades.  I am just not giving up the entire farm to land a guy I can get out of the FA pool
    Today at 12:59:21 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: Trading should be a win-win situation for both teams.
    Today at 01:00:32 PM
  • dbreer23: Agreed. I think the Devers deal in FGM is a good example of that. Devers gives SD some now (and future) pop, giving up substantial pieces to get him (Mayo, Keith, and one other).
    Today at 01:03:48 PM
  • Brent: I had Holliday in FGM before I stepped away.
    Today at 01:24:07 PM
  • Brent: I am glad I cut back on leagues, I was spread too thin.
    Today at 01:24:25 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: @idsjayhawk i understand that. To be clear, i wasnt judging anyone. I just know in NFL Live, you cant just draft 1-7 rds every year and sign a few FAs and be the champion. It wont happen
    Today at 01:52:08 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Trading isnt easy. But neither is winning
    Today at 01:52:22 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: If you made a list of the most aggressive gms to have stepped foot in nfl live, you will notice the champions will be among them
    Today at 01:53:06 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: You arent gonna win every trade and you HAVE to have a plan. Ive made some horrible trades. I have every year
    Today at 01:53:50 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Carolina has kyren williams right now cause i traded him for a 2nd and a 4th. Id rather have kyren today lol
    Today at 01:54:28 PM
  • Brent: Agreed.  I have Amon Ra St. Brown and Aiyuk because I traded JJ.  I couldn't have acquired a player like ASB where I was picking in the 1st so I down tiered at WR to make a trio of Chase, ASB and Aiyuk instead of JJ, Chase and fill in the blank.
    Today at 02:09:02 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: That is probably even more true in baseball since your drafts don't payoff for 5 years or so.  And I will admit my conservatism may be the reason I only have one championship here at ProFSL
    Today at 02:10:04 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: jwalkerjr88 is right
    Today at 02:25:49 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: on that u havat trade a bit here and there
    Today at 02:25:57 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: although my last draft class and fa class kinda lead me to a run so it can happen
    Today at 02:27:21 PM
  • Brent: Yeah, it does help to have a big draft class and available cap.
    Today at 02:36:56 PM
  • Brent: I'm contemplating doing a complete tear down in NFL Live and rebuild.  Honestly, I probably should have postered for it to be this season.  I still might, but I would legit need to go into the draft with 3-4 top 10 picks/+ many others.
    Today at 02:38:21 PM
  • Brent: postured
    Today at 02:38:35 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Yea nailing drafts and some key FAs helps too. But if you remember BAB you traded alvin kamara for the rams 1-7 draft picks. So the extra picks helped you nail the 2023 draft the way you did
    Today at 03:13:02 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Its the combination of all three that is required is what im saying
    Today at 03:13:31 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: And brent a tear down with you assets would look interesting. Personally i just think you need break one big asset down into 3 good ones and move carr and go from there. But you have an A1 nfl mind so im sure you will nail whatever it is you decide
    Today at 03:14:39 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: *your
    Today at 03:14:50 PM
  • BayAreaBallers: very good pt yes i did gain lot of capital which propelled me to make more moves from that trade
    Today at 03:34:25 PM
  • Brent: Thank you.  Yes, I agree.  I do need to break one asset down to 3.  I did that with JJ, went from S tier to 2 A tiers.  Now I need to potentially go from an A tier to 3 Bs or something like that.  I've had some inquiries on Carr, but nothing worth moving him.
    Today at 03:48:17 PM