Mariners receive penalty

[VolsRaysBucs]

Rob just brought a good idea in the above post.  I am torn on this.  My main concern is penalizing a "team" when in fact it is the "GM" that should be penalized.  Allow me to explain...Generally speaking, a team in cap trouble has other issues as well.  In a lot of the cases, the "trouble" is the result of negligence.  This negligence in many cases has manifested itself in the form of poor roster maneuvers, missed free agency periods, not protecting guys, ect.  My worry is that we are going to apply a penalty that will further degrade an already deteriorating situation.  I like the ideas of forfeits being applied.  The wins and loses absolutely count in this league in the form of future cap room, ect, but it does not carry with it the perpetuity of lost roster spots or draft picks.  We always have to keep an eye on the next guy so to speak.  In leagues of this scope, one almost has to make decisions based on the "next guy who will be GM of that team."  I hope that makes sense.  Negligent owners get weeded out, either on their own accord or that of the league's majority.  Forfeits most effectively penalize the perpetrator while at the same time, leave the team's assets intact for a new GM.  In my mind, an orphaned team lacking resources is a bigger problem for the league long-term.  The forfeits could also better weed out guys who aren't putting in the due diligence required to be competitive in this league.  This concludes my dissertation lol.

[Colby]

[kungfuwig]

I just have to throw in my 2 cents and say that the 10% is a huge penalty and will push away owners, granted not the best owners if they are never on. Also a good point was made about it affecting future owners which shouldnt happen either. I like the draft pick idea the most but we could also take a smaller penalty, like 2%. Thats still a good penalty but doesnt cripple the team. I do really think that the draft picks is the way to go.

[Colby]

I just have to throw in my 2 cents and say that the 10% is a huge penalty and will push away owners, granted not the best owners if they are never on. Also a good point was made about it affecting future owners which shouldnt happen either. I like the draft pick idea the most but we could also take a smaller penalty, like 2%. Thats still a good penalty but doesnt cripple the team. I do really think that the draft picks is the way to go.

 

[h4cheng]

My proposal:
a) Losing up to 5 picks after warning (starting from round 9)
b) If still no action, week's score forfeited (I put this second because it could affect multiple teams)

[Colby]

My proposal:
a) Losing up to 5 picks after warning (starting from round 9)
b) If still no action, week's score forfeited (I put this second because it could affect multiple teams)

Does your proposal suggest that the 10th round pick always stays?  I don't like the idea of the week's score being forfeitted as it is unfair to the competition of the teams that benefit.  It is a good idea, but I'm not a fan of the results.  Freddy's 2% cap hit is a good idea.  Ultimately though, if someone has a warning, and receives a penalty every 72 hours, for 5-6 straight penalties, then that is 2-3 weeks of not responding to the violations meaning one of the following.

1) GM is inactive for at least two weeks without prior notice.  This is against our activity policy and opens the possibility of forcing the GM to resign.
2) GM is blatantly ignoring violations and wants to get around the rules.  There should be no place for this either.

I think the first five rounds should be protected, so draft picks 6-10 and then 2% cap penalties should suffice for a full season.  If we were strict with this in the past then the most we would have seen was 4-5 penalties in a year.

[h4cheng]

I agree with you Colby. Chances are we will never go beyond the 5 round scenario.

[VolsRaysBucs]

Does your proposal suggest that the 10th round pick always stays?  I don't like the idea of the week's score being forfeitted as it is unfair to the competition of the teams that benefit.  It is a good idea, but I'm not a fan of the results.  Freddy's 2% cap hit is a good idea.  Ultimately though, if someone has a warning, and receives a penalty every 72 hours, for 5-6 straight penalties, then that is 2-3 weeks of not responding to the violations meaning one of the following.

1) GM is inactive for at least two weeks without prior notice.  This is against our activity policy and opens the possibility of forcing the GM to resign.
2) GM is blatantly ignoring violations and wants to get around the rules.  There should be no place for this either.

I think the first five rounds should be protected, so draft picks 6-10 and then 2% cap penalties should suffice for a full season.  If we were strict with this in the past then the most we would have seen was 4-5 penalties in a year.

  

[rcankosy]

I would be in favor of something harsher.  I would protect the 1st round pick and start by taking away the 2nd round pick and moving down for repeated infractions.

[Dan Wood]

I like the higher round pick forfeiture idea by Roy - rounds 5-10, who cares? Plus if said team is forfeiting a week, then they will move up in the draft pick order. Another scenario is to drop them to the back of every round instead of taking away picks.

I understand that we don't want another GM to take over a bad situation caused by inactivity, but we as a league can only do so much to protect each franchise. Some people look at taking over a bad team as a challenge. Not to say the M's are a bad team, they are definitely better than last year, but you get my gist. Several recent GMs took over awful teams and have improved them. It is all part of the challenge.