GC's Yahoo! H2H League 2014 Constitutional Convention

[Gainesville Celtic]

Proposed Amendment #2:
-------------------------------
NEW Article 19. Each team may have a maximum of 2 players listed as N/A in the Y! system and/or overseas players as described in #18 above.

Also just wanted to clarify -- since this came up in discussions toward the end of last year -- there are no (and i'm not proposing) any restictions on the number of players listed as INJ a team can carry.

esp. since the NBA does not, like MLB or NFL, have a DL/IR list.

[fairweatherfan]

One solution could be to say top 150 O-rank OR Rank --- since those 2 lists overlap quite a bit... and it wouldn't be impossible amount of work.

This could work - I'd say maybe add the opportunity to appeal to the league in a fluky circumstance like the ones I've mentioned.  Majority vote revokes the penalty; default is the penalty stays. Ideally while the benching is still happening instead of after the fact.

 I think whichever criteria is used, there can always be a weird situation where it makes sense that a competitive owner still benched the guy for a while.

[Gainesville Celtic]

One solution could be to say top 150 O-rank OR Rank --- since those 2 lists overlap quite a bit... and it wouldn't be impossible amount of work.

This could work - I'd say maybe add the opportunity to appeal to the league in a fluky circumstance like the ones I've mentioned.  Majority vote revokes the penalty; default is the penalty stays. Ideally while the benching is still happening instead of after the fact.

 I think whichever criteria is used, there can always be a weird situation where it makes sense that a competitive owner still benched the guy for a while.

An public appeal process might work --- what I'd like to avoid is having to go to a GM and say:

"Gerald Green played 75 games, but only 40 for you. why?" and have him say "I didn't think he was good enough to play". and have to have a he-said/he-said debate with that GM.

With an appeal process, He can make his case by pointing to Bkref.com game logs, etc. But I think most of that 'evidence' when presented won't meet muster and the appeal will fail --- but I agree that when i is necessary it's better to have then not.

I forgot to add that I was gonna suggest a all-star break audit just to put teams on unofficial notice (of course teams can always track their own GPs). again i'm expecting to not have to really use this --- more that the presence of the rule and the relatively harsh penalty will keep folks from sitting players.

I'll revise when i get back from lunch.

[fairweatherfan]

I think objective criteria are important to avoid that kind of situation, and the inevitable allegations of commish bias.  It's just the zero-tolerance style unforeseen circumstances that worry me.  So some kind of "safety valve" like an appeal process is I think a good hedge against that.

It's a different issue, but maybe there should be some wiggle room in case an owner is gaming the rule - I could just bench Carmelo+Klay for 19 games, then start them but bench Monroe+Parsons for another 19, or something like that.  A savvy tanker could always stay just under the bar. 

[Eja117]

I like the idea of appeals. It just gives the league time and opportunity to make judgements. Case by case is not bad

[ChampKind]

Should we address inactivity here? We have a few GMs who are notorious (and who may or may not have already been removed from the league in the past) for not showing up, setting lineups, or responding to trades.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Proposed Amendment #2:
-------------------------------
NEW Article 19. Each team may have a maximum of 2 players listed as N/A in the Y! system and/or overseas players as described in #18 above.

I think I like

I think it means you can stash up to two Euros and that if a guy gets hurt it won't hurt you in the games not played category because he's not a top 150 player.

Actually, I believe this is purely a competitive balance measure and that both N/A players would have to be carried as part of a team's 16 man roster. I did put forward a proposal several years back to add an additional inactive roster spot similar to what your suggesting, but that didn't pass in voting. If there's enough interest to revisit, I'll dig it up.

Anyway, I officially second Proposed Amendment #2.

[Gainesville Celtic]

Proposed Amendment #2:
-------------------------------
NEW Article 19. Each team may have a maximum of 2 players listed as N/A in the Y! system and/or overseas players as described in #18 above.

I think I like

I think it means you can stash up to two Euros and that if a guy gets hurt it won't hurt you in the games not played category because he's not a top 150 player.

Actually, I believe this is purely a competitive balance measure and that both N/A players would have to be carried as part of a team's 16 man roster. I did put forward a proposal several years back to add an additional inactive roster spot similar to what your suggesting, but that didn't pass in voting. If there's enough interest to revisit, I'll dig it up.

Anyway, I officially second Proposed Amendment #2.

Correct -- if you have 1 or 2 N/A or euro stash guys (like YH has Mirotic), they occupy a spot on your 16 man roster.

This is amendment is basically to avoid teams carrying MORE than 2 N/A guys which at least one team did last year, which GMs objected to after the fact.


----

This has been seconded and will be voted on next week --- feel free to continue to discuss. Discussion can lead to friendly amendments of course still.

[The Walker Wiggle]

I'm gonna spitball something here:

A moratorium on new GMs trading either their 1st rounder or any top 50 player (by O-ranK) for 2 months upon joining the league.

----------

we've seen this be a much bigger problem in the Pts. league, but in a dynasty format the worst thing is a new GM gutting his team (wittingly or unwittingly), IMO.

I'm in favor of this, or potentially a much stricter threshold for review? Any new GM trading a lottery pick or top 50 player in their first two months must have the trade approved by 70% of the league?

[The Walker Wiggle]

21. In-season trades shall have a 1 day approval period, to allow league GMs to review and exercise veto, if necessary. One-third of league GMs exercising veto power (e.g., at least 7) are required to overturn any trade. (Validated by league vote, summer 2012.)

Proposed Amendment #3

Extended the trade review period to 2 days to allow for some debate and wider participation?

22. Waivers will be 1 day and will be by a continual rolling list that does not carry over from year to year. Waiver order is reset at the beginning of each season to the reverse order of the first round of the draft, with the league Finalists from the previous season owning the waiver priority #1 and #2, followed by the highest winning percentage teams from the previous season (except those teams that have improved their draft position based on lottery results), etc.

Proposed Amendment #4

Waiver order is reset at the beginning of each season according to regular season finish.

When the league began waiver priority was set as above, regardless of post-season results. I don't recall that a change was ever put to an official league vote, though it may have passed "roll call" style? The 'Ayes' have it. Still, I've always preferred the original method. I'd argue that it both creates some added incentive to win out in the final weeks of the regular season and offers some small consolation to a regular season winner upset early in the playoffs.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm gonna spitball something here:

A moratorium on new GMs trading either their 1st rounder or any top 50 player (by O-ranK) for 2 months upon joining the league.

----------

we've seen this be a much bigger problem in the Pts. league, but in a dynasty format the worst thing is a new GM gutting his team (wittingly or unwittingly), IMO.

I'm in favor of this, or potentially a much stricter threshold for review? Any new GM trading a lottery pick or top 50 player in their first two months must have the trade approved by 70% of the league?

I would second Wiggle's proposal, at least the gist of it - I don't really like flatout banning trading good assets, but a higher bar for approval would add some training wheels to new ownership.  70% might be hard since it's hard to get 70% of the league to vote on anything in the offseason.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Proposed Amendement #5

Champkind must immediately change his team's name from "I Hate You WW" to "I Hate to Love You WW." owing to the fact that the latter is both more honest and makes for a better team name.

[Eja117]

I'm gonna spitball something here:

A moratorium on new GMs trading either their 1st rounder or any top 50 player (by O-ranK) for 2 months upon joining the league.

----------

we've seen this be a much bigger problem in the Pts. league, but in a dynasty format the worst thing is a new GM gutting his team (wittingly or unwittingly), IMO.

I'm in favor of this, or potentially a much stricter threshold for review? Any new GM trading a lottery pick or top 50 player in their first two months must have the trade approved by 70% of the league?

I would second Wiggle's proposal, at least the gist of it - I don't really like flatout banning trading good assets, but a higher bar for approval would add some training wheels to new ownership.  70% might be hard since it's hard to get 70% of the league to vote on anything in the offseason.

I'd like to point something out here.....technically that's the way it is now. You need a third to veto a trade. So if a trade passes it basically means 70% of the league approved every trade. Realistically I don't think we could up it to like 90%. And then after 2 months you just go back to 70%?  In fact since vetoes can be so contentious I just offered maybe vetoes should require 50%. 
So.....technically there is a very high threshold right now for all trades. The issue is do we keep these trades at a high threshold and lower others, or just keep them all high or what?

I don't think this is the easiest question exactly

[fairweatherfan]

I'm gonna spitball something here:

A moratorium on new GMs trading either their 1st rounder or any top 50 player (by O-ranK) for 2 months upon joining the league.

----------

we've seen this be a much bigger problem in the Pts. league, but in a dynasty format the worst thing is a new GM gutting his team (wittingly or unwittingly), IMO.

I'm in favor of this, or potentially a much stricter threshold for review? Any new GM trading a lottery pick or top 50 player in their first two months must have the trade approved by 70% of the league?

I would second Wiggle's proposal, at least the gist of it - I don't really like flatout banning trading good assets, but a higher bar for approval would add some training wheels to new ownership.  70% might be hard since it's hard to get 70% of the league to vote on anything in the offseason.

I'd like to point something out here.....technically that's the way it is now. You need a third to veto a trade. So if a trade passes it basically means 70% of the league approved every trade. Realistically I don't think we could up it to like 90%. And then after 2 months you just go back to 70%?  In fact since vetoes can be so contentious I just offered maybe vetoes should require 50%. 
So.....technically there is a very high threshold right now for all trades. The issue is do we keep these trades at a high threshold and lower others, or just keep them all high or what?

I don't think this is the easiest question exactly

That's not the way it is now, this proposal flips the default for early-ownership trades from "approved" to "not approved".  That's a really important difference, not a technical one.  And a big part of why I think 70% might be too high.

[Eja117]

I'm gonna spitball something here:

A moratorium on new GMs trading either their 1st rounder or any top 50 player (by O-ranK) for 2 months upon joining the league.

----------

we've seen this be a much bigger problem in the Pts. league, but in a dynasty format the worst thing is a new GM gutting his team (wittingly or unwittingly), IMO.

I'm in favor of this, or potentially a much stricter threshold for review? Any new GM trading a lottery pick or top 50 player in their first two months must have the trade approved by 70% of the league?

I would second Wiggle's proposal, at least the gist of it - I don't really like flatout banning trading good assets, but a higher bar for approval would add some training wheels to new ownership.  70% might be hard since it's hard to get 70% of the league to vote on anything in the offseason.

I'd like to point something out here.....technically that's the way it is now. You need a third to veto a trade. So if a trade passes it basically means 70% of the league approved every trade. Realistically I don't think we could up it to like 90%. And then after 2 months you just go back to 70%?  In fact since vetoes can be so contentious I just offered maybe vetoes should require 50%. 
So.....technically there is a very high threshold right now for all trades. The issue is do we keep these trades at a high threshold and lower others, or just keep them all high or what?

I don't think this is the easiest question exactly

That's not the way it is now, this proposal flips the default for early-ownership trades from "approved" to "not approved".  That's a really important difference, not a technical one.

The two are equal opposites. Instead of 70% to approve it's 33% to disapprove.