ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise NHL: Transactions => Franchise NHL => NHL Leagues => Franchise NHL: Completed Transactions => Topic started by: joeshmoe on September 08, 2010, 11:12:47 AM
-
I propose this to limit shady moves. I can see someone joining the league in order to help a friend and then quitting. I think any GM to join the league should fulfill a two week probationary requirement. They will be named the new GM but must wait 2 weeks before making a trade or roster claim. This would limit any of this shifty behavior because people are less likely to wait for two weeks if they're not here to play honestly. Any thoughts? Votes?
4 Yes, 0 No's :judge:
-
Agreed. In Franchise GM, the person isn't even considered a GM until they make it through the two week period.
-
sounds good, as a new gm recently this rule sucks! but its a must lol. I think the rule should be allowed to be lowered in case of a join close to trade deadline.l
-
sounds good, as a new gm recently this rule sucks! but its a must lol. I think the rule should be allowed to be lowered in case of a join close to trade deadline.l
I will waive it if necessary in special circumstances. Also, it won't go into effect until the season begins.
-
Agreed, but how about with this amendment: all new GMs (including us), for x months, when requested to do so by commish, must answer why they made a particular trade. If their answer is reasonable, trade goes through, if not reasonable, manager gets put on probation again.
For example, if I am the Boston Bruins, I am loaded at center, but let's say I have no left wingers. I may want to trade Savard to Edmonton for Paarvi (Svensson). On paper, that looks like a stupid trade, but if the Boston manager can say "I have lots of centers, I need young, cheap LWs, and I am cutting salary for another deal in the works" that is reasonable. Just another "safety valve" so that mangers can't run their teams into the ground.
-
The New GM will simply not be allowed to make the transaction until the two weeks is up. They could agree in principle, but would have to wait to post. Again, I would waive this rule for anyone hired in the preseason of the inaugural campaign. After the season starts, any new hirees will be required to wait 2 weeks before processing a transaction. Does that make sense?
-
Sure, but that still doesn't do anything to protect managers frm themselves, if you know what I mean.
But I'm okay for dealing with stuff as it comes up, as well. We certainly can't make a rule for EVERY possible situation that MIGHT happen in this league.
-
Sure, but that still doesn't do anything to protect managers frm themselves, if you know what I mean.
But I'm okay for dealing with stuff as it comes up, as well. We certainly can't make a rule for EVERY possible situation that MIGHT happen in this league.
It's a rule borrowed from other another league. The idea behind it is; if you are here to help a buddy and sabotage your team doing so, you'd be less likely to wait two weeks to do it. Then we have Trade Committee's and such which monitor fishy situations as such. I think this rule alone would increase our chances of limiting this behavior.
I do like that you are questioning the rule change. It is important we have an opposing view for our discussions.
-
It's a rule borrowed from other another league. The idea behind it is; if you are here to help a buddy and sabotage your team doing so, you'd be less likely to wait two weeks to do it. Then we have Trade Committee's and such which monitor fishy situations as such. I think this rule alone would increase our chances of limiting this behavior.
I do like that you are questioning the rule change. It is important we have an opposing view for our discussions.
True, but I think it is even more important for all of us to understand the rules, as well as the intent of the rules, so that we are able to apply them, when the need arises.
-
True, but I think it is even more important for all of us to understand the rules, as well as the intent of the rules, so that we are able to apply them, when the need arises.
agreed
-
I would definitly vote yes.
-
I am good with whatever the committee decides, as long as it is truly in the best interest and operation of the league. Somewhere down the road I would like the committee to give thought to a belief I have, in that, to add a rule you have to remove a rule. Just an idea for later.
Papa