CBPL Offseason 2015 Rules Discussion

[LarBrd33]

My tanking days are donezo, so I don't really care either.  And frankly, I support tanking as a method of improving long term.  It's good enough for the NBA so it's good enough for me.  I'm fine with voting on stuff, though if people think it's necessary.   

Perhaps if a team exceeds 100 missed games, it can result in the forfeiting of their most valuable draft pick (or next year's 1st if they have none). 

[hpantazo]

My tanking days are donezo, so I don't really care either.  And frankly, I support tanking as a method of improving long term.  It's good enough for the NBA so it's good enough for me.  I'm fine with voting on stuff, though if people think it's necessary.   

Perhaps if a team exceeds 100 missed games, it can result in the forfeiting of their most valuable draft pick (or next year's 1st if they have none).

There is no reason for that. It only accomplishes forcing that team to stay horrible long term, and the GM likely leaving , with a team that no one would want to come in and take. If a GM is inactive or benching good players repeatedly, that is a different issue for a different rule. Taking away a teams best asset, likely their only asset , for sucking is absurd.


 What you have implied in the past, for teams to dump or trade their prospects for waiver wire level vets that play more often, is out of line in a number of ways. Some prospects don't play much in their first year or two. Forcing people to trade them for vets with no upside that average 16 fantasy points a game is offensive and dumb.It is telling other GMs how to run their teams, and it is forcing teams who are trying to improve to dump their potential assets for worthless players just to meet a games played minimum, which will result in them sucking forever.

[byennie]

My tanking days are donezo, so I don't really care either.  And frankly, I support tanking as a method of improving long term.  It's good enough for the NBA so it's good enough for me.  I'm fine with voting on stuff, though if people think it's necessary.   

Perhaps if a team exceeds 100 missed games, it can result in the forfeiting of their most valuable draft pick (or next year's 1st if they have none).

There is no reason for that. It only accomplishes forcing that team to stay horrible long term, and the GM likely leaving , with a team that no one would want to come in and take. If a GM is inactive or benching good players repeatedly, that is a different issue for a different rule. Taking away a teams best asset, likely their only asset , for sucking is absurd.


 What you have implied in the past, for teams to dump or trade their prospects for waiver wire level vets that play more often, is out of line in a number of ways. Some prospects don't play much in their first year or two. Forcing people to trade them for vets with no upside that average 16 fantasy points a game is offensive and dumb.It is telling other GMs how to run their teams, and it is forcing teams who are trying to improve to dump their potential assets for worthless players just to meet a games played minimum, which will result in them sucking forever.

Good natured early warning system: you can disagree without calling other GMs' ideas absurd, offensive and dumb. You make some salient points.

[Eja117]

What if we just sorta put this in the commissioner's hands and at the end of the season he writes a recommendation based on the general rules and after minor discussion on possible tanking and punishments we vote on it.  Because there's no perfect way. Just make the league responsible for watching it and accepting the situation.

[LarBrd33]

What if we just sorta put this in the commissioner's hands and at the end of the season he writes a recommendation based on the general rules and after minor discussion on possible tanking and punishments we vote on it.  Because there's no perfect way. Just make the league responsible for watching it and accepting the situation.

i assumed this was a thread for making suggestions for rules to vote on... Not for voting on rules.  I assume that if one seems worth voting on, they'll be included in a vote before the season starts. 

[LarBrd33]

double post

[hpantazo]

My tanking days are donezo, so I don't really care either.  And frankly, I support tanking as a method of improving long term.  It's good enough for the NBA so it's good enough for me.  I'm fine with voting on stuff, though if people think it's necessary.   

Perhaps if a team exceeds 100 missed games, it can result in the forfeiting of their most valuable draft pick (or next year's 1st if they have none).

There is no reason for that. It only accomplishes forcing that team to stay horrible long term, and the GM likely leaving , with a team that no one would want to come in and take. If a GM is inactive or benching good players repeatedly, that is a different issue for a different rule. Taking away a teams best asset, likely their only asset , for sucking is absurd.


 What you have implied in the past, for teams to dump or trade their prospects for waiver wire level vets that play more often, is out of line in a number of ways. Some prospects don't play much in their first year or two. Forcing people to trade them for vets with no upside that average 16 fantasy points a game is offensive and dumb.It is telling other GMs how to run their teams, and it is forcing teams who are trying to improve to dump their potential assets for worthless players just to meet a games played minimum, which will result in them sucking forever.

Good natured early warning system: you can disagree without calling other GMs' ideas absurd, offensive and dumb. You make some salient points.

I called the proposed amendment absurd and offensive, and imo it is. I never called LB33 anything. Honestly, if this is the way the league is going to go , I am considering quitting. I've grown tired of it and of the lack of punishments or warnings to the primary offender in virtually every problem. I could expound on why LB33's proposal is offensive, with past evidence from past posts and messages, etc. like he does, but its not worth it.

[Eja117]

What if we just sorta put this in the commissioner's hands and at the end of the season he writes a recommendation based on the general rules and after minor discussion on possible tanking and punishments we vote on it.  Because there's no perfect way. Just make the league responsible for watching it and accepting the situation.

i assumed this was a thread for making suggestions for rules to vote on... Not for voting on rules.  I assume that if one seems worth voting on, they'll be included in a vote before the season starts.

because the thread was titled discussion I assumed it was more brainstorming

[LarBrd33]

Another rule suggestion...

Amend Veto System

Current language:  26. Trades may be vetoed by a 1/3 vote by the rest of the league (7 GMs). Vetoed trades are immediately voided, and GMs are free to rework any voided trade.

Suggested language: Vetoes will only be considered for trades considered intentionally harmful to the league.  If a GM suspects collusion, they should voice their concern directly to the commissioner.  If the commissioner determines that collusion or intentionally harmful trades took place, the offending GMs will be removed from the league.

Reason:  This is a league of 20 dedicated participants each with their own motivates and goals.   We're all adults and should be treated as such.   Nobody needs their hand held telling them what they can and can't trade.  Nobody is making trades to intentionally hurt their own team.   If two parties agree to a trade, it should be considered final.  The veto system has been improperly used in the past.   Trades should not be vetoed on account of jealousy or envy.  The fact that only 7 members of the league can band together to stifle the performance of a rival GM is troublesome and I suspect that "veto campaigning" has taken place in the past to kill trades for purely competitive reasons.

Alternative suggestion would be to remove the voting mechanism within yahoo, change it from 7 to 10 GM's and require that each GM publicly vote and define their reasons (I believe this was Pitts suggestion). 

[Eja117]

Veto

[yall hate]

Another rule suggestion...

Amend Veto System

Current language:  26. Trades may be vetoed by a 1/3 vote by the rest of the league (7 GMs). Vetoed trades are immediately voided, and GMs are free to rework any voided trade.

Suggested language: Vetoes will only be considered for trades considered intentionally harmful to the league.  If a GM suspects collusion, they should voice their concern directly to the commissioner.  If the commissioner determines that collusion or intentionally harmful trades took place, the offending GMs will be removed from the league.

Reason:  This is a league of 20 dedicated participants each with their own motivates and goals.   We're all adults and should be treated as such.   Nobody needs their hand held telling them what they can and can't trade.  Nobody is making trades to intentionally hurt their own team.   If two parties agree to a trade, it should be considered final.  The veto system has been improperly used in the past.   Trades should not be vetoed on account of jealousy or envy.  The fact that only 7 members of the league can band together to stifle the performance of a rival GM is troublesome and I suspect that "veto campaigning" has taken place in the past to kill trades for purely competitive reasons.

Alternative suggestion would be to remove the voting mechanism within yahoo, change it from 7 to 10 GM's and require that each GM publicly vote and define their reasons (I believe this was Pitts suggestion).

this has been discussed a lot of times.

when you take out the 2 members who are the trade, there are 18 members eligible to vote. given that some members invariably aren't checking day to day, 7 out of 18 is a pretty decent hurdle to climb.  if we made voting/trade pending time something longer, like a week, I'd be okay with making the veto bar 9 or 10.  (9 would be 50% of eligible members).

[LarBrd33]

Another rule suggestion...

Amend Veto System

Current language:  26. Trades may be vetoed by a 1/3 vote by the rest of the league (7 GMs). Vetoed trades are immediately voided, and GMs are free to rework any voided trade.

Suggested language: Vetoes will only be considered for trades considered intentionally harmful to the league.  If a GM suspects collusion, they should voice their concern directly to the commissioner.  If the commissioner determines that collusion or intentionally harmful trades took place, the offending GMs will be removed from the league.

Reason:  This is a league of 20 dedicated participants each with their own motivates and goals.   We're all adults and should be treated as such.   Nobody needs their hand held telling them what they can and can't trade.  Nobody is making trades to intentionally hurt their own team.   If two parties agree to a trade, it should be considered final.  The veto system has been improperly used in the past.   Trades should not be vetoed on account of jealousy or envy.  The fact that only 7 members of the league can band together to stifle the performance of a rival GM is troublesome and I suspect that "veto campaigning" has taken place in the past to kill trades for purely competitive reasons.

Alternative suggestion would be to remove the voting mechanism within yahoo, change it from 7 to 10 GM's and require that each GM publicly vote and define their reasons (I believe this was Pitts suggestion).

this has been discussed a lot of times.

when you take out the 2 members who are the trade, there are 18 members eligible to vote. given that some members invariably aren't checking day to day, 7 out of 18 is a pretty decent hurdle to climb.  if we made voting/trade pending time something longer, like a week, I'd be okay with making the veto bar 9 or 10.  (9 would be 50% of eligible members).

I don't understand why trades need to be voted on anyways.   I think vetoes should be abolished entirely and I think we should put it to a vote.   I don't need you guys voting on whether or not I lost a trade and whether it's unfair to me to give up certain assets.  If I make a mistake, so be it...   In the NBA, the rest of the league isn't polled on whether or not it's fair for the Lakers to trade middling assets for Pau Gasol.   It's weird that in a league like this where everyone is a committed and competitive GM trying to win that we'd need to disrespect our fellow GM's by telling them they didn't get enough in a trade.   If one of my trades was vetoed, because you thought I could "do better", I'd be pretty insulted by it.  If you really need to protect a GM from himself, perhaps that person shouldn't be a part of this league.   I can understand it for single-season leagues where people are less invested and sometimes just say "whatevs" and give away players, but if you suspect that someone is intentionally trying to hurt the league, you should bring it up to the commish and let him handle it appropriately.   

Vetoes are also a primary source of drama.  It's one thing to be unhappy because you believe Team A is intentionally trying to hurt the league and hurt his team.  It's another to be unhappy because Team B got a player from Team A that you wanted... so now you will try to kill the trade for selfish reasons.   

[Eja117]

I did bring it up. The trades with the 14 year old mostly went through.

[hpantazo]

Another rule suggestion...

Amend Veto System

Current language:  26. Trades may be vetoed by a 1/3 vote by the rest of the league (7 GMs). Vetoed trades are immediately voided, and GMs are free to rework any voided trade.

Suggested language: Vetoes will only be considered for trades considered intentionally harmful to the league.  If a GM suspects collusion, they should voice their concern directly to the commissioner.  If the commissioner determines that collusion or intentionally harmful trades took place, the offending GMs will be removed from the league.

Reason:  This is a league of 20 dedicated participants each with their own motivates and goals.   We're all adults and should be treated as such.   Nobody needs their hand held telling them what they can and can't trade.  Nobody is making trades to intentionally hurt their own team.   If two parties agree to a trade, it should be considered final.  The veto system has been improperly used in the past.   Trades should not be vetoed on account of jealousy or envy.  The fact that only 7 members of the league can band together to stifle the performance of a rival GM is troublesome and I suspect that "veto campaigning" has taken place in the past to kill trades for purely competitive reasons.

Alternative suggestion would be to remove the voting mechanism within yahoo, change it from 7 to 10 GM's and require that each GM publicly vote and define their reasons (I believe this was Pitts suggestion).

this has been discussed a lot of times.

when you take out the 2 members who are the trade, there are 18 members eligible to vote. given that some members invariably aren't checking day to day, 7 out of 18 is a pretty decent hurdle to climb.  if we made voting/trade pending time something longer, like a week, I'd be okay with making the veto bar 9 or 10.  (9 would be 50% of eligible members).

I don't understand why trades need to be voted on anyways.   I think vetoes should be abolished entirely and I think we should put it to a vote.   I don't need you guys voting on whether or not I lost a trade and whether it's unfair to me to give up certain assets.  If I make a mistake, so be it...   In the NBA, the rest of the league isn't polled on whether or not it's fair for the Lakers to trade middling assets for Pau Gasol.   It's weird that in a league like this where everyone is a committed and competitive GM trying to win that we'd need to disrespect our fellow GM's by telling them they didn't get enough in a trade.   If one of my trades was vetoed, because you thought I could "do better", I'd be pretty insulted by it.  If you really need to protect a GM from himself, perhaps that person shouldn't be a part of this league.   I can understand it for single-season leagues where people are less invested and sometimes just say "whatevs" and give away players, but if you suspect that someone is intentionally trying to hurt the league, you should bring it up to the commish and let him handle it appropriately.   

Vetoes are also a primary source of drama.  It's one thing to be unhappy because you believe Team A is intentionally trying to hurt the league and hurt his team.  It's another to be unhappy because Team B got a player from Team A that you wanted... so now you will try to kill the trade for selfish reasons.   

The problem is, that it is very clear from many of your past comments in the multiple discussions on this, that you understand perfectly why we need a veto system. You just don't want it in place so that you can prey on new and inneperienced GMs, which imo makes for a very boring, pathetic league in the long run when a small handful of GMs game the system in any way they can to collect all the valuable players from the constant turnover of new and lesser experienced GMs. Its not the type of competition I look for in my recreational time. There are many other leagues that don't have this problem, I can't see why we can't decide as a league to eliminate this problem here as well. In the end, what is the point of winning the league if you can't do it on your own merits of player evaluations and projections/calculated risks and instead have to dupe people to get there?

[LarBrd33]

I also want to point out that there's only a handful of people commenting in this thread and a lot of those folks share some of the same viewpoints.   Many of the suggestions should likely go to a larger vote as the vast majority of this league is not weighing in right now.   I'm certain that others want to end vetoes.  Let's not allow a vocal minority to kill suggestions before they are taken to a proper vote.   I'll continue to offer suggestions for rule tweaks as I think of them and presumably we can have a proper vote with all 20 GMs eventually.