|
Post by stevethepict on May 20, 2021 16:44:05 GMT -5
This is a dynasty league, with 24 teams. Some turnover among owners should be expected, and certainly has occurred. However, I think a dynasty league needs a hedge against owners making bad decisions and then quitting, and owners benefiting from said bad decisions. So I'm proposing the following rule:
If Team A quits the league, every other team that made a trade with Team A in the past year forfeits their first round pick to the new owner of Team A. If a team made more than one trade with Team A, they forfeit subsequent picks (2nd, 3rd, etc.). If the team forfeiting picks has traded those picks, then the new owner of Team A has the option of taking two picks from subsequent rounds (no first equals a 2nd and 3rd; no 2nd equals a 3rd and 4th, etc.) OR taking two picks from the following year (a first for a first and a second a year later). If neither of those options are viable, then the forfeiting team may protect 20 players on their roster and Team A may select an unprotected player.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 17:11:33 GMT -5
This is a dynasty league, with 24 teams. Some turnover among owners should be expected, and certainly has occurred. However, I think a dynasty league needs a hedge against owners making bad decisions and then quitting, and owners benefiting from said bad decisions. So I'm proposing the following rule: If Team A quits the league, every other team that made a trade with Team A in the past year forfeits their first round pick to the new owner of Team A. If a team made more than one trade with Team A, they forfeit subsequent picks (2nd, 3rd, etc.). If the team forfeiting picks has traded those picks, then the new owner of Team A has the option of taking two picks from subsequent rounds (no first equals a 2nd and 3rd; no 2nd equals a 3rd and 4th, etc.) OR taking two picks from the following year (a first for a first and a second a year later). If neither of those options are viable, then the forfeiting team may protect 20 players on their roster and Team A may select an unprotected player. Lol, come on Steve.
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on May 20, 2021 17:34:23 GMT -5
I didn't expect you to recognize this as a problem, or to be open to potential solutions. Some of your trades are exactly why I'm proposing this. And I'd remind you, you are one of 24 votes. Being commish doesn't give you any veto power over proposed rule changes. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the additional effort you put in to league governance. But your role as commissioner is distinct from your opinions as an owner.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 17:42:04 GMT -5
I didn't expect you to recognize this as a problem, or to be open to potential solutions. Some of your trades are exactly why I'm proposing this. And I'd remind you, you are one of 24 votes. Being commish doesn't give you any veto power over proposed rule changes. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the additional effort you put in to league governance. But your role as commissioner is distinct from your opinions as an owner. Steve, that proposal is so poorly thought out, so convoluted, and ultimately addressing another problem that doesn't exist at all. It wouldn't survive even the slightest bit of actual scrutiny or practical application. Frankly, it makes more sense as a troll than a serious proposal. In short, lol. rg
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on May 20, 2021 17:46:25 GMT -5
I didn't expect you to recognize this as a problem, or to be open to potential solutions. Some of your trades are exactly why I'm proposing this. And I'd remind you, you are one of 24 votes. Being commish doesn't give you any veto power over proposed rule changes. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate the additional effort you put in to league governance. But your role as commissioner is distinct from your opinions as an owner. Steve, that proposal is so poorly thought out, so convoluted, and ultimately addressing another problem that doesn't exist at all. It wouldn't survive even the slightest bit of actual scrutiny or practical application. Frankly, it makes more sense as a troll than a serious proposal. In short, lol. rg OK, let's break it down. Do you think it is a problem if a dynasty team owner makes bad trades, making their team uncompetitive, and then quits the league? Let's start there.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 17:49:25 GMT -5
Steve, that proposal is so poorly thought out, so convoluted, and ultimately addressing another problem that doesn't exist at all. It wouldn't survive even the slightest bit of actual scrutiny or practical application. Frankly, it makes more sense as a troll than a serious proposal. In short, lol. rg OK, let's break it down. Do you think it is a problem if a dynasty team owner makes bad trades, making their team uncompetitive, and then quits the league? Let's start there. Yes, in general, that's a problem for every dynasty league that exists. Now, let's get practical. First, we already have a rule (a great rule imo) that addresses this potential problem. We limited trades of draft picks only one year into the future. Second, name me the franchise in our league that qualifies as having made a bunch of bad decisions and then quit such that we should even consider your proposal to harshly punish every team he made a trade with the year before. rg
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 17:51:25 GMT -5
What if there is a situation like last year where we have 4 new franchises, or even 2 new ones? The number of teams surrendering 1st round picks could be in the double digits and that's not even considering trades between the teams, owners that traded with them and others, how you parse the priority, and a million other process questions that would have to be answered and administered by exactly one person that already has enough admin nuts to do.
Ridiculous.
rg
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 17:52:27 GMT -5
Antifa traded Nao a 7th for Mitch Trubisky in the last week. By your proposal, if either quits the other has to surrender their FIRST ROUND PICK.
Get fvcking serious.
rg
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on May 20, 2021 18:25:11 GMT -5
I appreciate you being willing to engage in the discussion. In your role as commissioner, I appreciate you raising issues with implementation. That's reasonable. And I'm not saying my solution is perfect. You make some good points. And you agree that it is a problem, theoretically. And you make a case that an existing rule solves the problem. All fine. I disagree, though. I think we need more significant deterrents for owners who might benefit from a bad trade that destabilizes the league.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 18:29:23 GMT -5
Let's use the most recent example just to show how dumb of an idea this is. The attached picture are the 3 trades Scott (Greyhounds) made last year. He then stopped paying attention and quit the league b/c he was upset about players kneeling or some other bullshit. By your proposal, 3 owners would have to surrender FIRST ROUND PICKS to the new owner Brad (Me, Joe Cooper, and Lil' Lebowski). Well, Joe had the 1.01 among 5 1st round picks. Does it sound remotely prudent that he should have to surrender any of those based on the trades above? If so, which one? Same for the other two owners. Does it even sound right that the 3 owners would have to surrender any picks to the new owner? Also, he notified me via email midyear. Would the 3 of us then be obligated to hold at least a first (or any pick) all year to surrender to the new owner bc we happened to have made some low stakes trades with the previous owner? How about going back another year. Lay out for me how your proposal would've worked when 4 teams quit, how you would write the thesis paper to sort through that, and how much time it would take to do. Then answer if all of that actually solved the problem you think it did. Finally, and most important to me (the owner), ask yourself if you're targeting an actual documented problem that you can show an example of or if you're targeting me and targeting owners that are active in trades. I'm pretty sure I know the answer. rg
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on May 20, 2021 18:31:32 GMT -5
In my experience, people who benefit from the status quo have trouble identifying problems, and are resistant to solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 18:32:46 GMT -5
I appreciate you being willing to engage in the discussion. In your role as commissioner, I appreciate you raising issues with implementation. That's reasonable. And I'm not saying my solution is perfect. You make some good points. And you agree that it is a problem, theoretically. And you make a case that an existing rule solves the problem. All fine. I disagree, though. I think we need more significant deterrents for owners who might benefit from a bad trade that destabilizes the league. I'm not saying your proposal is imperfect. I'm saying it's laughably ridiculous on its face and d**n near impossible to implement. I'm saying that you're not targeting a problem that actually exists as you state. You're targeting me and other owners highly active in the trade market. rg
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on May 20, 2021 18:32:56 GMT -5
View AttachmentLet's use the most recent example just to show how dumb of an idea this is. The attached picture are the 3 trades Scott (Greyhounds) made last year. He then stopped paying attention and quit the league b/c he was upset about players kneeling or some other bullshit. By your proposal, 3 owners would have to surrender FIRST ROUND PICKS to the new owner Brad (Me, Joe Cooper, and Lil' Lebowski). Well, Joe had the 1.01 among 5 1st round picks. Does it sound remotely prudent that he should have to surrender any of those based on the trades above? If so, which one? Same for the other two owners. Does it even sound right that the 3 owners would have to surrender any picks to the new owner? Also, he notified me via email midyear. Would the 3 of us then be obligated to hold at least a first (or any pick) all year to surrender to the new owner bc we happened to have made some low stakes trades with the previous owner? How about going back another year. Lay out for me how your proposal would've worked when 4 teams quit, how you would write the thesis paper to sort through that, and how much time it would take to do. Then answer if all of that actually solved the problem you think it did. Finally, and most important to me (the owner), ask yourself if you're targeting an actual documented problem that you can show an example of or if you're targeting me and targeting owners that are active in trades. I'm pretty sure I know the answer. rg I never said my solution was perfect. Let's see if we can build consensus on the problem first. You are attacking my proposed solution as a way to avoid addressing the problem.
|
|
|
Post by stevethepict on May 20, 2021 18:34:18 GMT -5
I appreciate you being willing to engage in the discussion. In your role as commissioner, I appreciate you raising issues with implementation. That's reasonable. And I'm not saying my solution is perfect. You make some good points. And you agree that it is a problem, theoretically. And you make a case that an existing rule solves the problem. All fine. I disagree, though. I think we need more significant deterrents for owners who might benefit from a bad trade that destabilizes the league. I'm not saying your proposal is imperfect. I'm saying it's laughably ridiculous on its face and d**n near impossible to implement. I'm saying that you're not targeting a problem that actually exists as you state. You're targeting me and other owners highly active in the trade market. rg I made a trade in the first 3 rounds of this draft too. Try to separate your self interest from the health of the league.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan G. on May 20, 2021 18:36:18 GMT -5
In my experience, people who benefit from the status quo have trouble identifying problems, and are resistant to solutions. This is laughable as you've now identified two "problems" that don't exist and two sets of solutions that wouldn't address the problems you say do. Steve, I am pretty d**n open to any and all suggestions, but you're not identifying actual problems and the solutions you're proposing to them are just ridiculous in every regard. If you want to come after me for trades I've made, we've got roughly 11 paragraphs of rules about challenging any trade. In 10 years in the league there has been exactly one time it was invoked and the challenge lost soundly. rg
|
|