ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: WestCoastExpress on November 17, 2019, 03:19:52 AM
-
Don’t mean to make waves but I do agree with what Flash said:
Hmmm...maybe there should be a reinterpretation of the rule to prohibit the inclusion of players who are subject to the 60 day moratorium and do away with trades which cannot be approved and processed within the standard 48 hours.
Doesn’t make sense to let a trade sit for 60+ days before it can be voted on. As he pointed out it messes with salary cap implications if FA starts up
Also apparently makes trades overall tough to make or be Approved
All started with a fun joke but got taken way too seriously and now it’s a topic for discussion
:rofl:
-
I understand that this league is supposed to mimic the MLB as best it can, but the 60 day rule does not make sense for this league. The real MLB Draft is before the trade deadline so it prevents teams from trading players that they just picked at the deadline. It is also in place because teams/players aren't sure who will sign and who will go to college right when they are drafted.
I personally think the rule is obsolete and is only hurting the league
-
This isn't a recall on the 60 day rule. Although, I agree with that rule too. What's the point in restricting the trading of draft picks, if you're just going to trade them right after the draft.
I agree with Flash and West Coast. It makes things too messy and it's basically an end around the rules.
-
In a free league, we should always be looking at the simplest route for the owners' sake and more importantly Flash's sake. The 60-day rule is obsolete, it's not stopping any sort of trading it's just delaying it and complicating it, especially when it comes to the FYPD. I understand the argument for the rule with free agency as owner's make an effort to sign players, but with the draft, half the teams are on autodraft, or skipping it entirely.
I think we need an official proposal but I would love some input and discussion first. What's the point of a rule that just pisses everybody off.
-
I think that if we talk about removing the 60 day rule then we should just open up trading draft picks. However, this league has always stayed true to MLB where they don't trade draft picks. There is also the concern of a team trading all their picks and then quitting and leaving a new owner with less of a chance to rebuild. There are two ways to look at it.
-
I'm actually okay with not being allowed to trade draft picks but not restricting when we can trade a drafted player. Trading draft picks can get messy when you are trading multiple years i.e. 2019 and 2020 draft picks in the same deal, because our team pages only keep up with the current draft.
We should also consider the fact that we lose draft picks if we sign top tier FA, so trading them away is another way to get around not losing that pick.
But once we've drafted a player he is in our organization and we should be allowed to do with them what we please.
-
I'm actually okay with not being allowed to trade draft picks but not restricting when we can trade a drafted player. Trading draft picks can get messy when you are trading multiple years i.e. 2019 and 2020 draft picks in the same deal, because our team pages only keep up with the current draft.
We should also consider the fact that we lose draft picks if we sign top tier FA, so trading them away is another way to get around not losing that pick.
But once we've drafted a player he is in our organization and we should be allowed to do with them what we please.
:iatp: :iatp:
-
I think that the compulsion to trade has become such an obsession some GMs are willing to do whatever it takes to get a deal done. FGM, like MLB, doesn’t allow the trading of draft picks as a protection against recklessness, yet I think a greater problem is evolving. I think the latest trades involving 2019 draftees is a total circumvention of the 60 Day moratorium rule. Yes, draftees, like newly signed free agents, are part of our organization, but FGM, like MLB, has recognized that sometimes we need to protect GMs from themselves.
At some point, we have to have a little integrity and follow the rules. We have teams in this league that have been devastated by GMs who only think in the short term and forget about the long term effects. The list of teams who have had multiple GMs are endless. We have witnessed the destruction of teams by GMs who want immediate results that are characteristic of redraft leagues. We’ve had GMs who make ridiculous trades and trade away assets for paltry returns. Or misuse their salary cap and sign free agents to egregious contracts. The list of gung-ho GMs who come into FGM like gangbusters and then go MIA and have to be removed is endless. It’s an ongoing problem and the current disregard for protocol only exasperates this ongoing concern. I may be the only one who feels it’s a situation which will lead to greater difficulties, but as a moderator, I would be remiss if I didn’t voice my growing sense of dispair.
All of us want to win, but there has to be some parameters within a league structure for it to survive. During my tenure within FGM I have helped bring about positive changes for the good of the league. I fixed the Trade Committee approval process, got rid of the Compensatory Draft Round, got rid of the EDR and fixed the use of the MiLB roster, got rid of the June 1st off-season free agency moratorium, updated our pitching rules, and have done my best to stop owners from destroying teams by monitoring activity and vetoing bad trades. But I also know that sometimes we have to throw down the gauntlet and say enough is enough.
For what it’s worth, if we continue to dilute the integrity of FGM by circumventing the rules, it will be a signal that my leadership is no longer compatible with the interests of this league and someone else needs to take the helm. I think my history within this league has shown that I have always done whatever is necessary to help FGM. I started out as a newbie and gradually took on a variety of responsibilities to help the league as needed, and in many cases, because no one else wanted to do it. I’m not pointing this out as a veiled threat or because I am looking for a pat on the back. Everything I’ve done to help this league has been done willingly, but by the same token, this issue has placed me at a crossroads because I simply don’t, and can’t, support actions which circumvent the rules. I want what’s best for FGM, but I don’t see how doing away with our 60 day rule is anything more that trading draft picks and for me, that is simply unacceptable.
-
I think that the compulsion to trade has become such an obsession some GMs are willing to do whatever it takes to get a deal done. FGM, like MLB, doesn’t allow the trading of draft picks as a protection against recklessness, yet I think a greater problem is evolving. I think the latest trades involving 2019 draftees is a total circumvention of the 60 Day moratorium rule. Yes, draftees, like newly signed free agents, are part of our organization, but FGM, like MLB, has recognized that sometimes we need to protect GMs from themselves.
At some point, we have to have a little integrity and follow the rules. We have teams in this league that have been devastated by GMs who only think in the short term and forget about the long term effects. The list of teams who have had multiple GMs are endless. We have witnessed the destruction of teams by GMs who want immediate results that are characteristic of redraft leagues. We’ve had GMs who make ridiculous trades and trade away assets for paltry returns. Or misuse their salary cap and sign free agents to egregious contracts. The list of gung-ho GMs who come into FGM like gangbusters and then go MIA and have to be removed is endless. It’s an ongoing problem and the current disregard for protocol only exasperates this ongoing concern. I may be the only one who feels it’s a situation which will lead to greater difficulties, but as a moderator, I would be remiss if I didn’t voice my growing sense of dispair.
All of us want to win, but there has to be some parameters within a league structure for it to survive. During my tenure within FGM I have helped bring about positive changes for the good of the league. I fixed the Trade Committee approval process, got rid of the Compensatory Draft Round, got rid of the EDR and fixed the use of the MiLB roster, got rid of the June 1st off-season free agency moratorium, updated our pitching rules, and have done my best to stop owners from destroying teams by monitoring activity and vetoing bad trades. But I also know that sometimes we have to throw down the gauntlet and say enough is enough.
For what it’s worth, if we continue to dilute the integrity of FGM by circumventing the rules, it will be a signal that my leadership is no longer compatible with the interests of this league and someone else needs to take the helm. I think my history within this league has shown that I have always done whatever is necessary to help FGM. I started out as a newbie and gradually took on a variety of responsibilities to help the league as needed, and in many cases, because no one else wanted to do it. I’m not pointing this out as a veiled threat or because I am looking for a pat on the back. Everything I’ve done to help this league has been done willingly, but by the same token, this issue has placed me at a crossroads because I simply don’t, and can’t, support actions which circumvent the rules. I want what’s best for FGM, but I don’t see how doing away with our 60 day rule is anything more that trading draft picks and for me, that is simply unacceptable.
Thank you. There is a reason why FGM is the flagship and longest running league on the site. No changes are needed.
-
Flash, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and what you do for this league and for this site as a while. In no way am I ever trying to disrespect you or belittle you or the commissioner powers. The fact that you have lasted this long, implemented that many changes, and dealt with troublesome to downright awful GMs is a testament to your leadership abilities.
As League Manager I will have to respect what decision that you make because I know it will be for the good of the league and not a selfish attempt to help yourself.
That being said, all I am asking for is a vote on the rule with the GM's reasons on why that voted that way. If this idea is in the minority then I'll drop it because the health of the league is more important than getting what I want. :toast:
I don't know about y'all but I'm here for the long haul. I love this Crap.
-
Flash, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and what you do for this league and for this site as a while. In no way am I ever trying to disrespect you or belittle you or the commissioner powers. The fact that you have lasted this long, implemented that many changes, and dealt with troublesome to downright awful GMs is a testament to your leadership abilities.
As League Manager I will have to respect what decision that you make because I know it will be for the good of the league and not a selfish attempt to help yourself.
That being said, all I am asking for is a vote on the rule with the GM's reasons on why that voted that way. If this idea is in the minority then I'll drop it because the health of the league is more important than getting what I want. :toast:
I don't know about y'all but I'm here for the long haul. I love this BooYah! .
Under Rules Committee Protocol any GM is welcome to initiate a referendum for a rule change by doing the following:
8.) Any GM in the league may propose a general referendum to be considered by the entire league if at least eight (8) member co-sponsor the referendum. A referendum must receive at least 16 votes to be implemented—this would be a simple majority of 15 + 1.
-
The draftees are going to get traded regardless, the 60 days are just delaying the inevitable. I don't think it protects any bad GM's from making moves outside of any added on in December/January.
I'm fine with whatever the best for the league. I feel as if my voice is the voice of the simplest route.
Note* not sure how easy this would be, but the rosters might benefit by instead of a "signed by" note next to players, a "Can't be traded until" instead. Simple aesthetic change might be all the change we need if it's decided.
-
The draftees are going to get traded regardless, the 60 days are just delaying the inevitable. I don't think it protects any bad GM's from making moves outside of any added on in December/January.
I'm fine with whatever the best for the league. I feel as if my voice is the voice of the simplest route.
Note* not sure how easy this would be, but the rosters might benefit by instead of a "signed by" note next to players, a "Can't be traded until" instead. Simple aesthetic change might be all the change we need if it's decided.
Although I enjoy what I'm doing, adding a "draft date" is just something more I have to do. Then when it expires I have to erase it. No problem, just something more to do. Seems like a blanket day, the end of the draft is something that is easy, but I guess not.
As for protecting the league, I guess you're right. Let's make it easier because it's going to happen anyway. Seems logical. Let's clutter up the Transactions Board with trades that aren't going to be processed for 60 days and in the meantime, watch some GM spend money he doesn't have because he "forgot" that his cap was going to be affected by the impending 60 day trade. I think it's a little more involved than simple aesthetics, but hey, I could be wrong.
At this point, I guess the issue is mute and there is no way around it. I will post the trades with the eligible date and let them sit around until they can be processed. But, I'm going to stick to the original plan of the 60 day moratorium beginning at the end of the draft because I'm not going to go through each transaction to get a particular date.
FYI, the elimination of the 60 day moratorium was put up for a vote last year and it was defeated. We did get rid of the June 1st prohibition, but the 60 day moratorium was upheld by those voting.
-
Although I enjoy what I'm doing, adding a "draft date" is just something more I have to do. Then when it expires I have to erase it. No problem, just something more to do. Seems like a blanket day, the end of the draft is something that is easy, but I guess not.
As for protecting the league, I guess you're right. Let's make it easier because it's going to happen anyway. Seems logical. Let's clutter up the Transactions Board with trades that aren't going to be processed for 60 days and in the meantime, watch some GM spend money he doesn't have because he "forgot" that his cap was going to be affected by the impending 60 day trade. I think it's a little more involved than simple aesthetics, but hey, I could be wrong.
At this point, I guess the issue is mute and there is no way around it. I will post the trades with the eligible date and let them sit around until they can be processed. But, I'm going to stick to the original plan of the 60 day moratorium beginning at the end of the draft because I'm not going to go through each transaction to get a particular date.
FYI, the elimination of the 60 day moratorium was put up for a vote last year and it was defeated. We did get rid of the June 1st prohibition, but the 60 day moratorium was upheld by those voting.
You already add a signed by date next to players, correct? Changing the wording wouldn't do much, but I don't do the spreadsheets so I'll defer to you there.
Also leaving the transactions on the board is the opposite of what I said. I proposed to remove the rule altogether. With some new members and new ideas, and the vote being close last year, worth another shot.
-
You already add a signed by date next to players, correct? Changing the wording wouldn't do much, but I don't do the spreadsheets so I'll defer to you there.
Also leaving the transactions on the board is the opposite of what I said. I proposed to remove the rule altogether. With some new members and new ideas, and the vote being close last year, worth another shot.
Then you need to muster the necessary support for such a rule change if “worth another shot”.
Under Rules Committee Protocol any GM is welcome to initiate a referendum for a rule change by doing the following:
8.) Any GM in the league may propose a general referendum to be considered by the entire league if at least eight (8) member co-sponsor the referendum. A referendum must receive at least 16 votes to be implemented—this would be a simple majority of 15 + 1.
-
Solid conversation. I see both sides of the coin here.
From my brief experience in MLB leagues, it seems like any drafted players we get, are usually years away from the MLB, are they not? At least 2 years, maybe more?
It's not like NFL or NBA where drafted guys, especially 1st rounders, jump right in and contribute. Or you at least know they're going to contribute something right away. It seems like it's more of "who knows what will happen" with these drafted players. Obviously if you're in the first round you have a pretty good shot at turning into something, but you're still a ways away.
As someone else said, if they're going to get traded, they'll get traded eventually anyways. I guess the only thing it's protecting from is if a new GM comes in (like me) during the draft and wants to make trades right away, then he/she will be within that 60-day period and can't do so. If a new GM comes in well after that, then it doesn't matter as much.
I get the point though of having trades made with cap implications, and having to wait it out that bleeds into FA and not knowing exactly how much cap a team has, unless they're really on top of things and paying attention to their cap.
Either way, I didn't mean to start a big fuss. I can already see that this league is very well run. Even the rules and headings are a lot neater and more organized than the ones I've made up for my leagues, and I'm pretty OCD, haha.
Would it be nice to make trades right away? Yeah sure. But hey I'm the new guy. Had I taken over in 2 months this would be a totally moot point anyways. Like I said in my post, I can wait 60 days for a trade to be voted on, it's not a big deal to me.
I think Flash took my comments the wrong way there (can never tell reading things online what tone the sentence is put in). I was pretty much saying it doesn't matter to me when the trade is voted on. Tomorrow, or in 60+ days, so long as it's before the MLB season (April) I'm cool with it.
All good here any way she goes :toast:
-
Can I ask a question?
If the rule is that we cannot trade within 60 days, why are these trades not declared invalid? It seems like this could start a bigger issue. Say someone who has posted a trade and then wants to go back on it because it's still in the 60 day window.
-
Can I ask a question?
If the rule is that we cannot trade within 60 days, why are these trades not declared invalid? It seems like this could start a bigger issue. Say someone who has posted a trade and then wants to go back on it because it's still in the 60 day window.
Very good question. If I'm not mistaken that's what used to happen in such cases. Not sure when/how we changed.
-
After venting, and thinking about the ramifications of this issue, it seems like a definitive course of action is required. We can’t keep dancing around the central issue and be satisfied with massaging something that is really an established rule within this league. A player who is subject to a 60 day trade moratorium simply cannot be traded. It doesn’t need to be a slippery slope, if a player cannot be traded for 60 days, then post-dating trades only circumvents the rule and makes a mockery of things.
The argument that they are rostered players and we should be be able to do with them as we please is not viable. We have a variety of safeguards that monitor roster decisions, such as our Trade Committee, and the 60 day moratorium is simply another one. With that, the argument that FYPD players will be traded regardless of any moratorium may be true, but they will have to wait to be traded until after the moratorium is lifted.
So I am going to remove the post-dated trades on the board and rule them invalid because they violate the spirit of the rule. I will go through the list of FYPD draftees, give them a roster date, and repost all the ProFSL rosters, so there will be no question as to when they are available.
While this may not be a pleasant ruling for all, as the league moderator, I am entrusted with the responsibility of insuring we maintain a degree of stability. I wavered for a bit, but I believe this is the proper course of action for FGM. The recourse for those who disagree is to initiate a referendum. Find 8 GMs who support changing the rule, create a referendum, and call for a league wide vote.
I will also post this on the Transactions Board in a News Flash.
-
After venting, and thinking about the ramifications of this issue, it seems like a definitive course of action is required. We can’t keep dancing around the central issue and be satisfied with massaging something that is really an established rule within this league. A player who is subject to a 60 day trade moratorium simply cannot be traded. It doesn’t need to be a slippery slope, if a player cannot be traded for 60 days, then post-dating trades only circumvents the rule and makes a mockery of things.
The argument that they are rostered players and we should be be able to do with them as we please is not viable. We have a variety of safeguards that monitor roster decisions, such as our Trade Committee, and the 60 day moratorium is simply another one. With that, the argument that FYPD players will be traded regardless of any moratorium may be true, but they will have to wait to be traded until after the moratorium is lifted.
So I am going to remove the post-dated trades on the board and rule them invalid because they violate the spirit of the rule. I will go through the list of FYPD draftees, give them a roster date, and repost all the ProFSL rosters, so there will be no question as to when they are available.
While this may not be a pleasant ruling for all, as the league moderator, I am entrusted with the responsibility of insuring we maintain a degree of stability. I wavered for a bit, but I believe this is the proper course of action for FGM. The recourse for those who disagree is to initiate a referendum. Find 8 GMs who support changing the rule, create a referendum, and call for a league wide vote.
I will also post this on the Transactions Board in a News Flash.
:iatp:
Is what it is and every league has different quirks. No harm done.
Making things as black and white as possible makes things easy in the long run :thumbsup:
-
Then you need to muster the necessary support for such a rule change if “worth another shot”.
Under Rules Committee Protocol any GM is welcome to initiate a referendum for a rule change by doing the following:
8.) Any GM in the league may propose a general referendum to be considered by the entire league if at least eight (8) member co-sponsor the referendum. A referendum must receive at least 16 votes to be implemented—this would be a simple majority of 15 + 1.
"Muster up the necessary support" is what I plan to do, but like any rule change, I want some discussion first so I'm waiting to see what owners have to contribute here.
I agree with just calling trades involving these players invalid, as the whole point of the discussion is to make the rules more black and white and that's the best solution at the current moment.
-
Im ok with voteing on this 60 day rule. Its not end of the world if it diesnt pass. U gotta look at the way flash see it. As a league we try and make it as easy as possible running it. Flash does a hell of job doing all he does and adding a rule change just makes it more work fir him to do. My idea is switching it from 60 days to maybe 30 day rule. This would to me would be the easiest and not change that much.