Ok....I'm gonna say a bunch of things here. There are some things I support and some things I don't. I want to make some points here.
Me too....
[side note --- i'd really like to thank everyone for having and participating in what I think has been a really good, serious discussion about these issues without turning it into a flame war!!]
One....things don't happen in a vacuum. We know each other fairly well. We know the history of both leagues pretty well. Realistically this rule proposal isn't because we have had a historical problem with this in this league. If we're keeping with the here and now then why is this coming up now? Has this ever been asked for in this league till now? Last year when I gutted my team in a trade with the commissioner nobody said "woah woah. A new guy gutting his team may not be so great". If "in a dynasty format the worst thing is a new GM gutting his team" then why wasn't it the first amendment proposed, instead of proposed right after I submitted my trade?
This kind of idea -- a moratorium on new GMs making huge, franchise (his own and another) altering moves -- has been discussed in one form or another in just about every keeper/dynasty fantasy league that I've been in. (including both the H2H and Points leagues before (and after IIRC) you joined each)
Those types of trades have happened in both leagues a number of times. Just because some of them are "fair" deals or work out in hindsight doesn't change the need in my mind to formally, temporarily discourage them.
(In each league pts last year, h2h the year before -- a trade veto argument threatened to tear the league apart and made it really unpleasant for a number of the GMs. I'd argue both could be traced back to lopsided (or perceived lopsided) deal by a new GM and the surrounding subjective debate around value.)
As a fellow GM, I think a new GM (a) needs to get a handle on player value(s), other rosters, the constitution, etc. and (b) if they're serious player should reach out to a number of other other 19 GMs to maximize value.
I purposely proposed the restricted trade pieces to what I think are the most valuable to the incoming team and other teams in the league: (something like) top 50 players and #1 draft picks. On even the most stacked team that still leaves 10-14 other players you can trade, waiver wire moves (in season), etc.
There's nothing that stops a new GM from discussing trades. This isn't the trade deadline a new GM is working against. Doing some due dilligence will also show he's here to stay, IMO.
FWIW, I'd be willing to be 100 tommy points that some of the teams that got excoriated for 'tanking' last year were teams that came in guns-ablazing and made a type of deal that this rule seeks to curb -- but i'm too tired to go back and look definitively.
Next. The timing isn't great. Our new GMs have been operating normally and now all of sudden they wouldn't be able to. I would be more supportive of this if it were for next year and new GMs could be told right off the bat what the deal is.
I agree totally. In hindsight I should have kept the moratorium in tact until after we voted on any constitutional changes.
Because of that, this rule would only apply officially to the NEXT new GM.
If it passes I'd reiterate it as a good guideline to our current new GMs, DinoGanja and Jayhovaone. ("reiterate" since I said some of this to them one-on-one when I was discussing their entry into the league... the importance of settling in slowly since this was a league a lot of folks are quite serious about and have sunk a lot of time into).
Any deals involving our 2 new GMs will be subject to the current constitution -- for better or worse.
Next. I think we need to define a new GM. Jay has been in the other league for 3 seasons and we know him largely. He has been playing fantasy basketball since 2001. I don't really think of him as a new GM. If mkogav hypothetically had been a new GM this year (or say me last year) does that mean we shouldn't be able to operate normally? I'd say if you've been in another CG league for 3 years or on Yahoo for 10 you shouldn't be considered a new GM. What if Lucky decided to come back next year or so? Does he have a moratorium? I just think 3 years in a CG league, 10 in yahoo, and one in this should make you vested.
This is the definition: A new GM is a GM who has newly joined this league, whether or not he's been in this or any other league.
if when Lucky17 comes back... we still got love for ya Luck!... he'd be a new GM...
As I've said before in other discussions (particularly around the tanking discussions last year) and will continue to repeat -- I prefer rules that are as unsubjective as possible, even if they are somewhat arbitrary in their objectivity (i.e. a Top 50 player vs. a top 60 one...)
As commish, I don't want to get into deciding "is this NEW GM 'vested' or 'seasoned'...." i'll consider that when letting them in but not whether a specific part of the constitution is waived or not.
This isn't a judgement against new GMs, it's trying to reflect and account for the pressures they're under as a new GM to a deep, long-running league.