Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2013 offseason: Post-lottery

[Kwhit10]

I'm thinking the week of Oct 15th for roster cuts. Opening night is Tuesday, Oct 30th. Two weeks before would be the 16th, so I'm thinking that might be a good day for cuts to be finalized and rosters uploaded to Yahoo! Thoughts?

Yea that sounds good.  It's nice to be able to see some players in preseason, but also give you ample time to upload all the rosters without having to rush to do it.

[mkogav]

I'm thinking the week of Oct 15th for roster cuts. Opening night is Tuesday, Oct 30th. Two weeks before would be the 16th, so I'm thinking that might be a good day for cuts to be finalized and rosters uploaded to Yahoo! Thoughts?

Yea that sounds good.  It's nice to be able to see some players in preseason, but also give you ample time to upload all the rosters without having to rush to do it.

Works for me.

Mk

[mkogav]

Another deal:

Toine's Boys send Terrence Williams

Utah Flash send Utah Flash 2013 2nd rounder

Free agent guard Terrence Williams has agreed to a training camp contract with the Detroit Pistons, league sources tell Y! Sports.

Well, I guess Darko won out over TWill. My dream of TWill on the Cs is over... for now.

As far as TWill goes, it's not a good sign when you have to take a 'training camp' contract with a lottery team who already have... (5) small forwards on their roster; Prince, Maggette, Daye, Middleton, and Singler.

Then again, those aren't All Stars in front of him either.

Mk

Cheer up Mk... it's not like you traded a 2nd rounder for Jordan Williams a guy who was waived 15 days later 

Given Danny Ferry's record as a GM, I fully expect Williams to be starting for some other NBA team by the end of the season.

Mk

[Lucky17]

So, I've heard of a trade (still pending) that involves the right to swap picks.

One of the things I wanted to resolve before the start of next season is the trading of draft picks.

I am proposing the following:

1. Protection on 1st rounders can only be top-3. If the pick ends up in the top 3, a 1st rounder the following year will be owed, with no protection.

2. The right to swap picks cannot be subsequently traded to another team. Put differently, you cannot trade a pick you may, or may not, end up with; you may only trade what picks you currently have.

3. No protections on 2nd rounders.

We also need to resolve the following:

1. number of league votes required for change to league rules
2. number of league votes required to overturn/veto trades

[Birdman]

i like what u are proposing

[fairweatherfan]

So, I've heard of a trade (still pending) that involves the right to swap picks.

One of the things I wanted to resolve before the start of next season is the trading of draft picks.

I am proposing the following:

1. Protection on 1st rounders can only be top-3. If the pick ends up in the top 3, a 1st rounder the following year will be owed, with no protection.

2. The right to swap picks cannot be subsequently traded to another team. Put differently, you cannot trade a pick you may, or may not, end up with; you may only trade what picks you currently have.

3. No protections on 2nd rounders.

To clarify, protections on 1sts are an option to include in a deal, but not mandatory?  And while you can't trade the right to swap, you can still trade your own 1st with the right to swap attached, right?

Example:  Last year TWW had swap rights with Webskins.  I traded for WW's pick, so the right to swap transferred with that, right?  (it was moot for me because I also already had Webskins' 1st).

I'm ok with all those rules if I'm understanding them correctly though.

We also need to resolve the following:

1. number of league votes required for change to league rules
2. number of league votes required to overturn/veto trades

What's the current standard for #1, and what are the proposed alternatives? 

I'm fine with #2 staying the way it is, because I think it's a fair bar and because it'd be a lot more work to do it outside of the Yahoo system.

[mkogav]

1. Protection on 1st rounders can only be top-3. If the pick ends up in the top 3, a 1st rounder the following year will be owed, with no protection.

agreed

2. The right to swap picks cannot be subsequently traded to another team. Put differently, you cannot trade a pick you may, or may not, end up with; you may only trade what picks you currently have.

agreed

3. No protections on 2nd rounders.

agreed

1. number of league votes required for change to league rules

same as veto

2. number of league votes required to overturn/veto trades

Whatever the Y! default is. Seven I believe.

Mk

[fairweatherfan]

BTW trade winds are a blowin' here in Rustland.

[nickagneta]

I'm okay with the trade restrictions, though maybe we could clarify that a bit and also list which picks are grandfathered in because they already have been made and have provisions attached(that is if there are any.

Regarding league rules and the veto I still feel that the majority of the league should be in accord with each other to change rules and create a veto of a trade. If something is going to change for the good of the league a minority of 7 owners' votes shouldn't be enough to change things. It can lead to groups of owners banding together to change the league to their advantage. While it is unlikely, it may have already happened with last year's infamous veto and I fear for what just a one third vote could do to the rules if a similar minority gather together to manipulate the rules to their advantage.

Just one man's opinion and not necessarily that of my team's.

[Lucky17]

To clarify, protections on 1sts are an option to include in a deal, but not mandatory? 

Correct. Not mandatory.

And while you can't trade the right to swap, you can still trade your own 1st with the right to swap attached, right?

Example:  Last year TWW had swap rights with Webskins.  I traded for WW's pick, so the right to swap transferred with that, right?  (it was moot for me because I also already had Webskins' 1st).

Actually, this scenario is what I'm trying to cut down on. The above example is simple enough to track; it's the nth commutation of the right to swap picks that drove me nuts last year.

So, by our new rules, TWW would have had to relinquish the right to swap picks with Webskins before trading his own first rounder to you, FWF.

BTW, our constitution currently says any triggered protections on a 1st round pick require immediate payment of a 2nd, and that any team that has traded a protected 1st cannot also trade its 2nd rounder. I think that should be amended to the proposals now on the table.

We also need to resolve the following:

1. number of league votes required for change to league rules
2. number of league votes required to overturn/veto trades

What's the current standard for #1, and what are the proposed alternatives? 

I'm fine with #2 staying the way it is, because I think it's a fair bar and because it'd be a lot more work to do it outside of the Yahoo system.

Constitution calls for a majority for #1. I guess that's a little ambiguous. Not sure whether we need simple majority of GMs in the league, or of votes cast. I think we need a majority of GMs.

Constitution calls for Yahoo! league settings for #2, which is 1/3 of the league, or 7 votes.

[Kwhit10]

I have no problem with the veto currently being 7 votes.

I also don't have a problem with it being increased to a majority, but only if ever owner makes a vote.

What happens in the instance where we increase the veto # to 10 votes but only 7 out of 9 managers make a vote.  That certainly is a majority of those who voted, but if the veto # was increased would mean the trade stands.

[nickagneta]

I have no problem with the veto currently being 7 votes.

I also don't have a problem with it being increased to a majority, but only if ever owner makes a vote.

What happens in the instance where we increase the veto # to 10 votes but only 7 out of 9 managers make a vote.  That certainly is a majority of those who voted, but if the veto # was increased would mean the trade stands.

By not casting a vote, isn't a manager in fact casting a vote to abstain? And if that is the case shouldn't the majority of 10 votes still be needed no matter what?

I don't know the answers to these questions but I think they should be considered. I mean if a GM decides that he or she doesn't care one way or another and doesn't vote, I think abstaining is in fact a vote.

[Lucky17]

I have no problem with the veto currently being 7 votes.

I also don't have a problem with it being increased to a majority, but only if ever owner makes a vote.

What happens in the instance where we increase the veto # to 10 votes but only 7 out of 9 managers make a vote.  That certainly is a majority of those who voted, but if the veto # was increased would mean the trade stands.

Part of the reason why I want to keep Yahoo! settings. I don't want to have to wait to collect votes from everyone for every trade.

To me, 7 votes in a 24-hour trade review window doesn't seem like setting the bar especially low. Considering some GMs log on once or twice a week, those 7 votes might actually represent something closer to half of the GMs not directly involved in the trade.

[Birdman]

Marvin Williams, Carl Landry, Nick Young, Pyscho T, Alonzo Gee are available..like to find a center

[fairweatherfan]

And while you can't trade the right to swap, you can still trade your own 1st with the right to swap attached, right?

Example:  Last year TWW had swap rights with Webskins.  I traded for WW's pick, so the right to swap transferred with that, right?  (it was moot for me because I also already had Webskins' 1st).

Actually, this scenario is what I'm trying to cut down on. The above example is simple enough to track; it's the nth commutation of the right to swap picks that drove me nuts last year.

So, by our new rules, TWW would have had to relinquish the right to swap picks with Webskins before trading his own first rounder to you, FWF.

I don't like this then - I like not being able to stack multiple swap rights like we had with some 2nd rounders last year.  But if one right-to-swap is attached to a pick I don't see any reason why it can't be traded with the rights to the original pick.

Multiple swaps get really confusing really fast but limiting it to a single swap that stays attached to the pick doesn't seem difficult at all.

BTW, our constitution currently says any triggered protections on a 1st round pick require immediate payment of a 2nd, and that any team that has traded a protected 1st cannot also trade its 2nd rounder. I think that should be amended to the proposals now on the table.

I support this, and all the other stuff on the table, including keeping rule changes to a simple majority and vetos to 1/3rd