Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: 2012 Preseason: Constitution Up!

[Lucky17]

I am posting a draft version of the league constitution. This reflects standard operating procedure since the beginning of the league, but there are some new items thrown in that I would like people to either ratify or offer alternatives to.

Also, there may be some things not addressed in the constitution that should be. I've allowed comments in the Google doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UbfNv4DLkTd7UL98lvPQPNIrJsM8e4wjVln_-bT-37w/edit

Would appreciate everyone's feedback on this.

We are still looking at a rookie draft during the week of Sept 3, most likely the Wed or Thurs of that week, although I've also heard that folks may want to hold the draft the following week (of Sept 10).

I'm about to start a 3-week vacation, so I can't swear I'll be responding to emails/PMs that promptly, but I'll do what I can.

[fairweatherfan]

Happy to look it over, but could you point out the new items so I can focus on them?  Also, is this one of them:

EDIT:  See ya just fixed that.  Thanks!

[Lucky17]

Happy to look it over, but could you point out the new items so I can focus on them?

Well, that might discourage people from reading closely. I think the Trades/Vetoes section has most of the new stuff.

[Roy H.]

I am posting a draft version of the league constitution. This reflects standard operating procedure since the beginning of the league, but there are some new items thrown in that I would like people to either ratify or offer alternatives to.

Also, there may be some things not addressed in the constitution that should be. I've allowed comments in the Google doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UbfNv4DLkTd7UL98lvPQPNIrJsM8e4wjVln_-bT-37w/edit

Would appreciate everyone's feedback on this.

We are still looking at a rookie draft during the week of Sept 3, most likely the Wed or Thurs of that week, although I've also heard that folks may want to hold the draft the following week (of Sept 10).

I'm about to start a 3-week vacation, so I can't swear I'll be responding to emails/PMs that promptly, but I'll do what I can.

1.  Paragraph 1 references 11 categories; Paragraph 4 says 9.

2.  I'm not sure I agree with "majority vote" of the 20 GMs to change a rule.  Let's say there's a rule proposal, and 10 folks vote in favor, and zero abstain.  By the wording of the Constitution, that means the old rule stays in effect.  I don't love that result.

3.  Didn't we have tacit agreement that a team could use one special roster spot on a foreign player, without it counting toward the 16 player limit?  Where are we on that?

4.  We're going to majority rule for a veto?  I strongly support that, as last year it was 1/3 or something ridiculous like that.  However, I'm not sure Yahoo allows this, so we might have to do the veto vote off-line and go to a Commissioner Veto process.

5.  In terms of confirming trades via email in-season, is the Yahoo trade confirmation enough?

6.  In terms of the new restrictions on protections, shouldn't we vote on those?  If I recall, there wasn't a lot of support for minimizing restrictions.

7.  Related to restrictions, if a team trades away its own second rounder, but acquires another one, can it still place a restriction on it's first rounder (in reference to rule #27).

8.  Err...  Rule #29 directly conflicts with Rule #22 regarding vetoes, as it says 1/3 of the league is required to veto a deal.  That's a crappy rule, that I vote we change. 

[Lucky17]

1.  Paragraph 1 references 11 categories; Paragraph 4 says 9.

Typo changed.

2.  I'm not sure I agree with "majority vote" of the 20 GMs to change a rule.  Let's say there's a rule proposal, and 10 folks vote in favor, and zero abstain.  By the wording of the Constitution, that means the old rule stays in effect.  I don't love that result.

Should we make it easier to change rules/constitution? 1/3?

3.  Didn't we have tacit agreement that a team could use one special roster spot on a foreign player, without it counting toward the 16 player limit?  Where are we on that?

Yes, that was discussed. Should probably add that in. Can this player's rights be traded? If so, can they be traded for non-foreign players?

4.  We're going to majority rule for a veto?  I strongly support that, as last year it was 1/3 or something ridiculous like that.  However, I'm not sure Yahoo allows this, so we might have to do the veto vote off-line and go to a Commissioner Veto process.

I think I prefer a 1/3 vote for veto. The two GMs involved won't veto their own trade, so we're looking more at 7 of 18 votes needed. Also due to the short review period, some GMs may not know about the trade. Open for discussion.

5.  In terms of confirming trades via email in-season, is the Yahoo trade confirmation enough?

Not if picks are involved. I also want some sort of record in my inbox, since the message boards and emails may not be easily retrievable at the end of the season.

6.  In terms of the new restrictions on protections, shouldn't we vote on those?  If I recall, there wasn't a lot of support for minimizing restrictions.

Yes, open to discussion. I am very much in favor of minimizing restrictions after this past season.

7.  Related to restrictions, if a team trades away its own second rounder, but acquires another one, can it still place a restriction on it's first rounder (in reference to rule #27).

That seems fine to me, but should be up for discussion.

8.  Err...  Rule #29 directly conflicts with Rule #22 regarding vetoes, as it says 1/3 of the league is required to veto a deal.  That's a crappy rule, that I vote we change.

See above. I prefer 1/3 votes.

[Gainesville Celtic]

1.  Paragraph 1 references 11 categories; Paragraph 4 says 9.

Typo changed.

sheesh... who typed this thing?!? 

3.  Didn't we have tacit agreement that a team could use one special roster spot on a foreign player, without it counting toward the 16 player limit?  Where are we on that?

Yes, that was discussed. Should probably add that in. Can this player's rights be traded? If so, can they be traded for non-foreign players?

I think this was brought up (by THE walker wiggle?) but i don't think we ever voted on it... As someone who doesn't really follow the international game I guess I'd like to hear some arguments for/against.

right now i might vote against, but could be convinced.

5.  In terms of confirming trades via email in-season, is the Yahoo trade confirmation enough?

Not if picks are involved. I also want some sort of record in my inbox, since the message boards and emails may not be easily retrievable at the end of the season.

I believe Yahoo has added the ability within the site to trade picks -- and I'd imagine that the commish (or the assistant to the commisioner)  should be able to go in during the league setup and manually change the picks that have been dealt prior to Yahoo going live.

I'd put the onus on league members to trade the picks they have within the Y! game.

It seems to be working OK (though we don't have all the contingencies) in the Celticsblog Baseball league that Roy, me and a few other folks are in.

6.  In terms of the new restrictions on protections, shouldn't we vote on those?  If I recall, there wasn't a lot of support for minimizing restrictions.

Yes, open to discussion. I am very much in favor of minimizing restrictions after this past season.

7.  Related to restrictions, if a team trades away its own second rounder, but acquires another one, can it still place a restriction on it's first rounder (in reference to rule #27).

That seems fine to me, but should be up for discussion.

I think this was the same as with the International Players rule proposal.

I proposed not allowing conditions on 2nd round picks -- but no vote was ever taken.

[fairweatherfan]

3.  Didn't we have tacit agreement that a team could use one special roster spot on a foreign player, without it counting toward the 16 player limit?  Where are we on that?

Yes, that was discussed. Should probably add that in. Can this player's rights be traded? If so, can they be traded for non-foreign players?

I think this was brought up (by THE walker wiggle?) but i don't think we ever voted on it... As someone who doesn't really follow the international game I guess I'd like to hear some arguments for/against.

right now i might vote against, but could be convinced.

Here's my feeling on this proposed rule - I don't mind the idea of a prospect in reserve, but I don't like the idea of needing to follow the international game to do it.  And I don't like the prospect of picking up a very young guy and just hanging onto him for years on end.

This is pure spitballing, but what about this - each season a team may designate one draft pick as a "stash" player.  This has to be someone whose rights were acquired by an NBA team for the first time - either they were drafted or they signed an FA deal that offseason.

Once designated, this player cannot be traded, waived, or elevated to the active roster for the entirety of the season.  They're basically frozen in carbonite til the next offseason.  Players can only be stashed for the season after they are initially drafted - no multi-year reserves. 

The stash deadline would be the same as the standard roster deadline, so you don't need to actually draft your stash player, just have their rights before final rosters are due.

This would allow savvy owners to draft top foreign players who have contracts to play out without harming their roster's competitiveness, but owners who don't follow the international game aren't at a major disadvantage because they can do the same with a fringe American rookie.  It lets teams keep a potentially valuable asset while still fielding a strong active roster, and makes 2nd round draft picks more valuable too.

I'm not sure how this would work with the Yahoo framework, but I think it could be a good evenhanded way of addressing the issue.  Thoughts?

[nickagneta]

Boy am I glad my co-GM is a lawyer....and that's all I have to say about the league's constitution.

[mkogav]

3.  Didn't we have tacit agreement that a team could use one special roster spot on a foreign player, without it counting toward the 16 player limit?  Where are we on that?

Yes, that was discussed. Should probably add that in. Can this player's rights be traded? If so, can they be traded for non-foreign players?

I think this was brought up (by THE walker wiggle?) but i don't think we ever voted on it... As someone who doesn't really follow the international game I guess I'd like to hear some arguments for/against.

right now i might vote against, but could be convinced.

Here's my feeling on this proposed rule - I don't mind the idea of a prospect in reserve, but I don't like the idea of needing to follow the international game to do it.  And I don't like the prospect of picking up a very young guy and just hanging onto him for years on end.

This is pure spitballing, but what about this - each season a team may designate one draft pick as a "stash" player.  This has to be someone whose rights were acquired by an NBA team for the first time - either they were drafted or they signed an FA deal that offseason.

Once designated, this player cannot be traded, waived, or elevated to the active roster for the entirety of the season.  They're basically frozen in carbonite til the next offseason.  Players can only be stashed for the season after they are initially drafted - no multi-year reserves. 

The stash deadline would be the same as the standard roster deadline, so you don't need to actually draft your stash player, just have their rights before final rosters are due.

This would allow savvy owners to draft top foreign players who have contracts to play out without harming their roster's competitiveness, but owners who don't follow the international game aren't at a major disadvantage because they can do the same with a fringe American rookie.  It lets teams keep a potentially valuable asset while still fielding a strong active roster, and makes 2nd round draft picks more valuable too.

I'm not sure how this would work with the Yahoo framework, but I think it could be a good evenhanded way of addressing the issue.  Thoughts?

I don't think a year is long enough. I don't see any reason to limit the length of holding onto the euro-stash. Many times when a euro player is drafted by an NBA team, they don't come over for 2 to 3 years.

I do like your idea of freezing the euro-stash until the offseason.

I would also recommend to limit the ways to acquire a euro-shash player to the draft and current roster players going overseas, e.g. AK47 & Aaron Brooks.

Also, I believe we discussed recording the euro-stashes in Lucky's google roster spread sheets.

Mk

[The Walker Wiggle]

Below is the rule as I originally proposed it. The intent was to minimize the need to carry placeholders for lottery picks slow to come to the NBA or vets unexpectedly signing abroad.

I'd suggest, at least for next season while we test this out, not allowing player's rights to be traded.

Here's a rule proposal for next season that might not be as unpopular as my push to cut the Utility spot:

Allow team's to carry the rights to one international player, acquired through the draft (Valanciunas, Mirotic, Singler etc., this season) or previously on the roster (Chandler, Brooks, Smith) with the understanding that whenever the player signs in the NBA that team must immediately make a cut to create roster space or lose the player's rights.

This could be included on the roster document as easily as we track the myriad conditional second round picks. And to prevent prospecting, managers, such as myself, wouldn't be allowed to sign and hold international F.A.s from previous draft classes, the Fran Vasquezes of the world. Could be a benefit to those teams drafting a lottery talent still playing overseas? I hated seeing the Bacon drop Rubio two years ago, but it was defensible given how hard it is to compete nightly carrying place holders.

[Gainesville Celtic]

I guess I'm largely against this proposed rule change -- but am open to discussion.

I don't follow the international game enough -- as I suspect most don't -- that it'd be an overwhelming advantage for the minority of owners who do.

Stashing 1 player of 16 -- like some team had to do with Rubio -- can hurt your team (believe me missing Kirilenko was a big reason I dropped from 4th to 12th or whatever); But it's not crippling.

I see that as part of the challenge: Is player X going to be good enough to warrant keeping a roster spot open for him.

Moreso than even NCAA rookies, most international-stash players teams pick up in this league are gonna be lottery tickets.

2 years ago the following foriegn players were added during the waiver period; I don't think any were added last summer:

Tiago Splitter
Josh Childress*
Nikolas Peckovic
Linas Kleiza*
Timofey Mozgov


The longer-term track record of these players don't seem to warrant (a) the adminstrative work to track who has what stashed player (some teams (lets be honest) can't remember their roster or picks year to year...)) and (b) the advantage a small handful of teams will get from the small handful of these lottery tickets that pan out.

Players that likely would have been eligible under some sort of system since 2009:

2009
Rubio
V. Claver
Sergio Llull
Sergii Gladyr
Nando De Colo
Emir Preldzic
Nick Calathes

2010
Tibor Pleiss
Nemanja Bjelica
Paulo Prestes
Ryan Richards

2011
Jonas Valanciunas
Bojan Bogdanovic
Nikola Mirotic
Donatas Motiejunas
Kyle Singler*
Davis Bertans
Milan Macvan
Chukwudiebere Maduabum   
Tanguy Ngombo
Ater Majok
Adam Hanga

(Then there were Kirilenko, Wilson Chandler, Aaron Brooks, et al who went overseas for the lockout; but that was a once in a decade thing.)

2012
Tomas Satoransky
Kostas Papanikolaou
Izzet Turkyilmaz
Ognjen Kuzmic
Tornike Shengelia
Furkan Aldemir
Tomislav Zubcic
lkan Karaman

And 4-6 of them will be on rosters in this league next season? IMO that's too low a percentage to make a new rule for.

[The Walker Wiggle]

This is pure spitballing, but what about this - each season a team may designate one draft pick as a "stash" player.  This has to be someone whose rights were acquired by an NBA team for the first time - either they were drafted or they signed an FA deal that offseason.

Once designated, this player cannot be traded, waived, or elevated to the active roster for the entirety of the season.  They're basically frozen in carbonite til the next offseason.  Players can only be stashed for the season after they are initially drafted - no multi-year reserves. 

The stash deadline would be the same as the standard roster deadline, so you don't need to actually draft your stash player, just have their rights before final rosters are due.

This would allow savvy owners to draft top foreign players who have contracts to play out without harming their roster's competitiveness, but owners who don't follow the international game aren't at a major disadvantage because they can do the same with a fringe American rookie.  It lets teams keep a potentially valuable asset while still fielding a strong active roster, and makes 2nd round draft picks more valuable too.

I'm not sure how this would work with the Yahoo framework, but I think it could be a good evenhanded way of addressing the issue.  Thoughts?

I originally proposed the rule to - as you point out - allow managers to draft international lottery talent without harming their short term competitiveness. I'm a little less interested in setting up a system in which all 20 managers would carry players' rights. But I suppose I'd be amenable - so long as we didn't make free agents or players acquired via trade eligible as you suggest.

I'd prefer to keep players eligible to a short list. The draft class of 2012 would be one thing, injured and semi-retired NBA players and all past international draft picks, the majority of whom won't be available on Yahoo, a much larger endeavor. And that would, I suspect, help the rich - winners starting the season with high waiver priority - get richer.

[fairweatherfan]

This is pure spitballing, but what about this - each season a team may designate one draft pick as a "stash" player.  This has to be someone whose rights were acquired by an NBA team for the first time - either they were drafted or they signed an FA deal that offseason.

Once designated, this player cannot be traded, waived, or elevated to the active roster for the entirety of the season.  They're basically frozen in carbonite til the next offseason.  Players can only be stashed for the season after they are initially drafted - no multi-year reserves. 

The stash deadline would be the same as the standard roster deadline, so you don't need to actually draft your stash player, just have their rights before final rosters are due.

This would allow savvy owners to draft top foreign players who have contracts to play out without harming their roster's competitiveness, but owners who don't follow the international game aren't at a major disadvantage because they can do the same with a fringe American rookie.  It lets teams keep a potentially valuable asset while still fielding a strong active roster, and makes 2nd round draft picks more valuable too.

I'm not sure how this would work with the Yahoo framework, but I think it could be a good evenhanded way of addressing the issue.  Thoughts?

I originally proposed the rule to - as you point out - allow managers to draft international lottery talent without harming their short term competitiveness. I'm a little less interested in setting up a system in which all 20 managers would carry players' rights. But I suppose I'd be amenable - so long as we didn't make free agents or players acquired via trade eligible as you suggest.

I'd prefer to keep players eligible to a short list. The draft class of 2012 would be one thing, injured and semi-retired NBA players and all past international draft picks, the majority of whom won't be available on Yahoo, a much larger endeavor. And that would, I suspect, help the rich - winners starting the season with high waiver priority - get richer.

Yeah that's why I proposed doing it all in the offseason and only with draftees/FA signings, so the eligible players are limited and the waiver wire doesn't enter into it.

But looking at GC's list, I'm agreeable to his position as well.  It'd be a substantial change and more work for the commish(es) for a pretty narrow range of cases.  I like the wrinkle of American projects being included (we could call it the Fab Melo rule!) but I'm sympathetic to the idea that it isn't worth the hassle.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Stashing 1 player of 16 -- like some team had to do with Rubio -- can hurt your team (believe me missing Kirilenko was a big reason I dropped from 4th to 12th or whatever); But it's not crippling.

I disagree, GC. And you more or less make my point for me. But I'll follow up with some numbers.

The longer-term track record of these players don't seem to warrant (a) the adminstrative work to track who has what stashed player (some teams (lets be honest) can't remember their roster or picks year to year...)) and (b) the advantage a small handful of teams will get from the small handful of these lottery tickets that pan out.

That's why I'd limit a manger to one player, eligible to be held until he joined the NBA (or one year in FWF's plan) and ineligible to be traded. I believe it would be significantly less work than tracking conditional draft picks. I'm not open to making F.A. signings eligible.

I just don't like seeing an active manager put in the position where he has to cut his lottery pick, a Rubio or Valanciunas, to field a competitive team.

[mkogav]

Stashing 1 player of 16 -- like some team had to do with Rubio -- can hurt your team (believe me missing Kirilenko was a big reason I dropped from 4th to 12th or whatever); But it's not crippling.

I disagree, GC. And you more or less make my point for me. But I'll follow up with some numbers.

The longer-term track record of these players don't seem to warrant (a) the adminstrative work to track who has what stashed player (some teams (lets be honest) can't remember their roster or picks year to year...)) and (b) the advantage a small handful of teams will get from the small handful of these lottery tickets that pan out.

That's why I'd limit a manger to one player, eligible to be held until he joined the NBA (or one year in FWF's plan) and ineligible to be traded. I believe it would be significantly less work than tracking conditional draft picks. I'm not open to making F.A. signings eligible.

I just don't like seeing an active manager put in the position where he has to cut his lottery pick, a Rubio or Valanciunas, to field a competitive team.

If this rule is just for Gms who use a lottery pick on a euro player, e.g. Rubio or Valanciunas, but don't want to use an active roster spot then I am fully and completely against it.

Tough luck. If you don't want an inactive player on your roster, don't draft a euro player, trade him, or waive him.

Mk