CBPL Offseason 2015 Rules Discussion

[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.   

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?

That's not accurate.  The only trade of mine to be vetoed was between me and a member of the league who had been here longer than me.   If I remember correctly the last vetoed trade was between TB and Kevin, but it was because it included a stipulation (future draft pick) that  broke a clearly defined rule.    Obviously if a trade is breaking a rule, it should be brought to the commissioner's attention so he can overrule it.   But if you don't like a trade, because you are unhappy that one team is getting more in your subjective opinion, that's not really a proper use of a veto. 

That's just my opinion though.  It's worth voting on. 

[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?

That's not accurate.  The only trade of mine to be vetoed was between me and a member of the league who had been here longer than me.   If I remember correctly the last vetoed trade was between TB and Kevin, but it was because it included a stipulation (future draft pick) that  broke a clearly defined rule.    Obviously if a trade is breaking a rule, it should be brought to the commissioner's attention so he can overrule it.   But if you don't like a trade, because you are unhappy that one team is getting more in your subjective opinion, that's not really a proper use of a veto.

That is an example of why vetos are needed. There are many other examples. People don't always follow the rules, and sometimes the rules are not even clear or understood by all.

[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.   

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?

That's not accurate.  The only trade of mine to be vetoed was between me and a member of the league who had been here longer than me.   If I remember correctly the last vetoed trade was between TB and Kevin, but it was because it included a stipulation (future draft pick) that  broke a clearly defined rule.    Obviously if a trade is breaking a rule, it should be brought to the commissioner's attention so he can overrule it.   But if you don't like a trade, because you are unhappy that one team is getting more in your subjective opinion, that's not really a proper use of a veto.

That is an example of why vetos are needed. There are many other examples. People don't always follow the rules, and sometimes the rules are not even clear or understood by all.

I'm pretty sure in this instance, someone notified the commissioner of the broken rule and he cancelled the trade.  It was a black and white issue.  The two teams were attempting to circumvent a rule and it was easily resolved without a "vote".     I believe that authority should continue.  If you believe someone is intentionally hurting the league with trades, bring it up to the commissioner so he can deal with it.   This does not necessitate the use of a "vote" from a bias minority  (7 out of 20)  who might be trying to kill a trade for selfish reasons.    If Pitts or Utah pulls off a great trade, I don't believe 7 of us should decide on whether or not it's "fair".  It's fair if both teams agreed to it.

Question: Do you believe that 10 out of 30 NBA teams should have had the authority to kill the recent Kings/76ers trade where an incompetent organization run by a new GM gave up the 2014 top 8 pick, two 1st round pick swaps and a future lottery pick for nothing?   Should a minority vote have killed that trade to protect Vlade/The Kings from themselves?

[Rondo2287]

I will not be part of the league if vetos are abolished.

[hpantazo]

I will not be part of the league if vetos are abolished.

Same here. There are plenty of other leagues that run on normal rules. The 1/3 veto rule is perfectly fine. If you get what amounts to 7 out of 10-12 GMs who are around in the short trade review period to veto a deal, then there is something wrong with it and you shouldn't complain.

[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?

That's not accurate.  The only trade of mine to be vetoed was between me and a member of the league who had been here longer than me.   If I remember correctly the last vetoed trade was between TB and Kevin, but it was because it included a stipulation (future draft pick) that  broke a clearly defined rule.    Obviously if a trade is breaking a rule, it should be brought to the commissioner's attention so he can overrule it.   But if you don't like a trade, because you are unhappy that one team is getting more in your subjective opinion, that's not really a proper use of a veto.

That is an example of why vetos are needed. There are many other examples. People don't always follow the rules, and sometimes the rules are not even clear or understood by all.

I'm pretty sure in this instance, someone notified the commissioner of the broken rule and he cancelled the trade.  It was a black and white issue.  The two teams were attempting to circumvent a rule and it was easily resolved without a "vote".     I believe that authority should continue.  If you believe someone is intentionally hurting the league with trades, bring it up to the commissioner so he can deal with it.   This does not necessitate the use of a "vote" from a bias minority  (7 out of 20)  who might be trying to kill a trade for selfish reasons.    If Pitts or Utah pulls off a great trade, I don't believe 7 of us should decide on whether or not it's "fair".  It's fair if both teams agreed to it.

Question: Do you believe that 10 out of 30 NBA teams should have had the authority to kill the recent Kings/76ers trade where an incompetent organization run by a new GM gave up the 2014 top 8 pick, two 1st round pick swaps and a future lottery pick for nothing?   Should a minority vote have killed that trade to protect Vlade/The Kings from themselves?

This is not the NBA. If we were bringing in that type of profit, most of us would be replaced, and the veto-level deals that happen here would not happen anymore.

[LarBrd33]

Here's another one to put to vote

Rule suggestion: Public comments about completed trades are not permitted unless made by a team involved in the trade

Reason: Other teams have no business publically analyzing completed trades they weren't involved in.  You don't see Danny Ainge throwing press conferences about a trade between Sacramento and Philly.  Such comments are generally condescending and have instigated drama in the past. It needs to end.

[hpantazo]

Here's another one to put to vote

Rule suggestion: Public comments about completed trades is no longer permitted unless made by a team involved in the trade

Reason: Other teams have no business publically analyzing completed trades they weren't involved in.  You don't see Danny Ainge throwing press conferences about a trade between Sacramento and Philly.  Such comments are generally condescending and have instigated drama in the past. It needs to end.

Again, this is not the NBA. Discussing trades was , for a long time, a great part of this league and was very educational to newer GMs like myself. It can, and should continue without devolving into flame wars if GMs show respect for each other.

I learned, and continue to learn, a lot from comments by people like Mk, Pitt, TWW, GC, Lucky, BFM, Y'all Hate, Roy , etc. Stopping that dialogue, well, then we may as well join any random yahoo league online.

[LarBrd33]

If the abolishing of vetoes fails during the ballot, here's a follow up suggestion:

Rule suggestion: Public and private "veto campaigning" is not permitted. If a user has been found guilty of trying to sway public opinion against completed trades, that user will be removed from the league.

Reason: Its a major source of drama within the league and a clear violation of fair competition practices.

[Eja117]

Here's another one to put to vote

Rule suggestion: Public comments about completed trades are not permitted unless made by a team involved in the trade

Reason: Other teams have no business publically analyzing completed trades they weren't involved in.  You don't see Danny Ainge throwing press conferences about a trade between Sacramento and Philly.  Such comments are generally condescending and have instigated drama in the past. It needs to end.

veto. I believe in freedom of thought and speech

[Eja117]

If the abolishing of vetoes fails during the ballot, here's a follow up suggestion:

Rule suggestion: Public and private "veto campaigning" is not permitted. If a user has been found guilty of trying to sway public opinion against completed trades, that user will be removed from the league.

Reason: Its a major source of drama within the league and a clear violation of fair competition practices.

veto for same reason, and also because other evidence comes to light later

[Rondo2287]

Seems to be a pattern of rules promoting "trade rape"

[hpantazo]

If the abolishing of vetoes fails during the ballot, here's a follow up suggestion:

Rule suggestion: Public and private "veto campaigning" is not permitted. If a user has been found guilty of trying to sway public opinion against completed trades, that user will be removed from the league.

Reason: Its a major source of drama within the league and a clear violation of fair competition practices.

I disagree. People should have the right to express disagreement with trades, and to justify why they feel so. If they persist into disrespectful comments, then that is covered under the proposed behavior rule, but we should not, as a league, repress opinions and communication, that is what makes the league what it is, otherwise we can just join random Yahoo public leagues where no one knows anyone else and people rarely express any opinions of any sort. If that is what you are looking for , there are plenty of leagues like that out there.

[LarBrd33]

Similar, but different suggestion here that we can add to the growing list of rule suggestions for the ballot:

Rule suggestion: Making disparaging comments about another team's player is not permitted. 

Reason: This is a major source of drama for the league.  You might see Danny Ainge comment that LeBron James is a "heck of a basketball player", but Ainge would absolutely be fined if he said, "That Ty Lawson is a knucklehead and his trade value is worthless".   No team should be permitted to make negative comments about a player they don't own.  This includes comments about a player's "worth", injury history or character.  Nothing good comes from it. 

[hpantazo]

Similar, but different suggestion here that we can add to the growing list of rule suggestions for the ballot:

Rule suggestion: Disparaging comments about another team's player is not permitted. 

Reason: This is a major source of drama for the league.  You might see Danny Ainge comment that LeBron James is a "heck of a basketball player", but Ainge would absolutely be fined if he said, "That Ty Lawson is a knucklehead and his trade value is worthless".   No team should be permitted to make negative comments about a player they don't own.  Nothing good comes from it.

Disagree on this as well for the same reasons. I learned, and learn a lot from comments by other GMs regarding players. I enjoy the league for this aspect, seeing what some of the excellent GMs have to say during the season about players. Stopping this for insecurities is not a great idea, and takes away the personality and identity of the league. GMs can say negative things about players all they want without being offensive, and younger/less experienced GMs learn from it. These proposals to kill this flow of information exchange result in keeping less say/experienced GMs ignorant and allow others to take advantage of them for much longer periods. Overall very bad for the league.

If you want a league where GMs don't talk to each other and don't know each other, there are many public leagues like that in Yahoo, CBS, ESPN, and other places.