|
|
Post by Macho Man on Feb 25, 2018 9:28:43 GMT
If anyone has any new league rules for the upcoming 2018 season that they would like to suggest please do so in response to this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steamboat on Apr 12, 2018 20:47:07 GMT
These suggestions are in regards to the Macho-Rock conflict during the Burkhead RFA bidding process. Rock violated Section O.1 by not specifying "exact compensation." Macho made a proper bid on Burkhead. Nobody else bid within the timeframe for bidding. Therefore, given the old rules, Macho should win Burkhead. At the same time, and while I recognize Section X provides Macho strong power to unilaterally make Constitutional changes as he did, I find it concerning Macho amended the rules to reflect another league's rules without vote when the updated rules were immediately used to benefit the individual who unilaterally updated the rules without any opportunity for comment and vote. We have conflict of interest provisions elsewhere in the Constitution (J.3, for instance). I further find it concerning we have an ongoing proofreading problem, as is evidenced by the existence of the "Black Market Forum" rather than the "Steelcage Forum." A minor example, but an example nonetheless (after all, proofreading could have resolved this issue). Accordingly, (1) someone with knowledge should proofread the entire Constitution; and (2) we should update the Constitution as follows: (a) update section X to include a Section J.3-type conflict of interest provision; and (b) update Section O to resolve Rock's concerns above (i.e. if a bidding player uses all his available current year draft picks to bid on Restricted Free Agents, the bidding player may use future draft picks to further bid on other Restricted Free Agents). For example, as Rock's point above illustrates, he bids on Matthews with 3.03 and Cole with 3.12. He may bid on Burkhead with his 2019 Third so long as both the Matthews and Cole bids remain the current leading bids. This change would resolve the "exact compensation" issue Macho mentions above, resolve Rock's fair and reasonable concerns, and benefit the league through competition in the bidding process. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Macho Man on Apr 12, 2018 21:15:51 GMT
If you would like to proof read the entire constitution, I welcome your review. I did proof read multiple times, but as a commissioner in multiple leagues things are likely to be missed, I apologize that the Auction House is not named properly, this has been fixed.
I updated the rules to amend an error early in the process, which had no effect, whatsoever, on the bidding of any player. The Rock's bid on Burkhead was invalid per the then current rules. The Rock could have still bid on Burkhead with his 3.03 as compensation or with 3.12 when he was outbid on Keelan Cole, but he opted not to. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the accusation that I made this change for my benefit. I do hardly anything for my benefit in these leagues. I do what I believe is in the best interest of the league. These rules were meant to have been implemented from the beginning, but since we didn't have a RFAA in this league last year, it was missed. Shit happens. Decisions like these (those which have no effect on the outcome or status and existed only in error) will never be brought to a vote, but rather rectified immediately. Lastly, no change will be coming to the rules regarding the use of future picks as compensation for reasons stated on the Burkhead thread unless you can provide a means to prevent the manipulation of compensation.
If you'd like to be able to bid on (4) 3rd round tagged players all at the same time, make sure you have (4) 3rd round draft picks in the current year available when the RFAA arrives. Amazingly, in 5 years using the same system there has never any issues regarding this until now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamania on Apr 12, 2018 21:23:56 GMT
Bahahahahahaha!!!! Are the Kolbecks also lawyers??
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rock on Apr 12, 2018 21:54:31 GMT
If you would like to proof read the entire constitution, I welcome your review. I did proof read multiple times, but as a commissioner in multiple leagues things are likely to be missed, I apologize that the Auction House is not named properly, this has been fixed.
I updated the rules to amend an error early in the process, which had no effect, whatsoever, on the bidding of any player. The Rock's bid on Burkhead was invalid per the then current rules. The Rock could have still bid on Burkhead with his 3.03 as compensation or with 3.12 when he was outbid on Keelan Cole, but he opted not to. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the accusation that I made this change for my benefit. I do hardly anything for my benefit in these leagues. I do what I believe is in the best interest of the league. These rules were meant to have been implemented from the beginning, but since we didn't have a RFAA in this league last year, it was missed. Shit happens. Decisions like these (those which have no effect on the outcome or status and existed only in error) will never be brought to a vote, but rather rectified immediately. Lastly, no change will be coming to the rules regarding the use of future picks as compensation for reasons stated on the Burkhead thread unless you can provide a means to prevent the manipulation of compensation. This is not completely accurate. This most definitely effected my decision not to bid more on Burkhead. I was basically being forced to offer my 3.3 as compensation and then if I offered that compensation would be forced to take the 3.3 out of play which I didn't want to do. I could have easily offered my 2019 3rd and been on level playing field with others who are offering their 2019 picks. The owner of Burkhead could have easily had the right to match, knowing he was getting my 2019 pick, which he may or may not have felt was better or worse. The point is, he would have the same opportunity to match or not and had all the information to do so. I go back to my original point, no other owner should have an advantage over me because he doesn't have picks available this year. It should be the opposite. I have more to offer and should be able to have all my picks in play and not have some wording in the rules open to interpretation. This was my 1st year in a contract league and this is my 1st year in RFAA, so I probably have more questions than most.
If you'd like to be able to bid on (4) 3rd round tagged players all at the same time, make sure you have (4) 3rd round draft picks in the current year available when the RFAA arrives. Amazingly, in 5 years using the same system there has never any issues regarding this until now.
So, no issues whatsoever means no problems and no discussion? There are always improvements in any league and language that can be cleaned up and discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by Steamboat on Apr 12, 2018 22:27:58 GMT
Hulk, guilty as charged.
Macho, don't take it personally. This is strictly business baby. As my comments outline, you won the bid fair and square per the original rules. My comments regarding the sudden rule change was not intended to attack you, but rather to improve the rules. There are conflicts provisions elsewhere. Why not include one in Section X? Further, because of the ambiguity in the old rules, I believe Rock could have bid on Matthews, Cole, and Burkhead using the 3.03 , 3.12, and 2019 third. If he had made those moves and argued the ambiguity, and then you changed the rules, that would have been a problem. I am not saying you would have done that, but we were close to that situation. Let's resolve it with a simple conflicts provision.
Regarding the proofreading issue, this is your responsibility because this is your brainchild. Yet, as you may recall, I proofread the Constitution and provided comments last year. Unfortunately, given my ignorance on certain nuances, I could not give an expert opinion on matters such as these.
Regarding the topic of the day, I understand your "manipulation" argument. Yet, if we permitted the practice I outlined in my previous message, the bidder (a) risks losing all the picks if none of the players are otherwise bid on, thus thwarting the manipulation efforts, which should be a pretty stiff deterrent if manipulation was the bidder's intent, (b) the bidder must give up future picks, which may or may not be better than the current year picks, which may be attractive to the tagging team, (c) the tagging team acquires additional PD compensation for the future pick, which is an added benefit, and (d) the tagging team still has the right to match if he is unhappy with the compensation or believes another team with an current year pick will bid. Also, just because an issue does not become an issue within five years does not mean an issue does not exist. As an attorney, you know as well as I do rigidity in the law results in unintended consequences. We should be receptive to change when we recognize potential improvements. Finally, Burkhead went for a 2019 third. Why should the rules prevent Rock from using another 2019 third, once he uses his 2018 thirds on other bids, to bid on Burkhead? As long as MDM knows the exact compensation for the pick, we should welcome competition in bidding. In effect, the decision may have chilled the bidding on Burkhead and prevented MDM from acquiring additional PD compensation, and possibly from MDM acquiring a better 2019 third rounder if you finish higher than Rock. Accordingly, the entire group should have the right to consider the benefits and detriments of amending the rookie compensation rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2018 22:30:32 GMT
Bahahahahahaha!!!! Are the Kolbecks also lawyers?? That's funny. Lawyers, different breed! |
|
|
|
Post by Steamboat on Apr 12, 2018 22:46:08 GMT
What about, in this situation, giving the tagging team from the auction to wrap up first the choice of eligible (this year and next from round 1, 2, or 3) draft picks.
This is the non-Attorney Kohlbeck, so take it easy on me if the proposition is flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamania on Apr 12, 2018 23:21:47 GMT
What about, in this situation, giving the tagging team from the auction to wrap up first the choice of eligible (this year and next from round 1, 2, or 3) draft picks. This is the non-Attorney Kohlbeck, so take it easy on me if the proposition is flawed. Well at least both of you guus aren't lawyers |
|
|
|
Post by Steamboat on Apr 12, 2018 23:47:29 GMT
What about, in this situation, giving the tagging team from the auction to wrap up first the choice of eligible (this year and next from round 1, 2, or 3) draft picks. This is the non-Attorney Kohlbeck, so take it easy on me if the proposition is flawed. This is actually more appealing the more I think about it. Two other factors I thought about: 1) It would give the team losing the player more options (some might prefer a later round pick this year where another prefers the PD bonus and chance at a higher pick in the round next year) and 2) it would stimulate more bidding. In the unlikely event someone puts more bids out there than they have the capacity to take on then a pick from one round higher would become available. I get that keeping up with all this and making these things happen probably wears on the commish- but fortunately we're blessed with a lead-dog who has uncanny energy and isn't believed to require sleep. Does this seem feasible or would it be too challenging to implement? |
|
|
|
Post by Steamboat on Apr 13, 2018 0:23:49 GMT
To break this down a little more, Josh's proposal is, to take the Rock fiasco as an example, to let Rock use the 3.03, 3.12, the 2019 third during the bidding process. He would need to use the two current year picks first. For instance, Rock bids on Matthews with the 3.12, Cole with the 3.03, and Burkhead with the 2019 third, in that order. We presume Todd's manipulation concern comes in when someone outbids Rock on Cole and the 2019 third remains tied to Burkhead. Then, Rock retains his current year pick and gives up the future pick. If, however, assuming Rock wins the bids on both Matthews and Burkhead, you allow the tagging player (here MDM) to select between the 2019 third plus PD comp and the 3.03, you resolve the manipulation issue.
I disagree with the idea of allowing a player to use more picks than he currently holds. We should limit bids to existing picks in current and future years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macho Man on Apr 13, 2018 4:09:49 GMT
For starters, there isn't much bidding going on because they're aren't many good players coming off contracts. This is a result of the leagues of maturity, or lack thereof, but will change over time. Second, you are assuming that The Rock in your scenario holds 3.03 until the bidding on Burkhead is over. We would need to oblige the tagging team with a reasonable period of time to make a compensation decision. During this period The Rock could choose to use 3.03 on another bid. What is to stop him? In order for your proposal to work, we would need to freeze all applicable assets until the bidding on Burkhead is over. I'm sure new bitching would commence as soon as this is actually implemented since it's almost the same scenario that led to this discussion. This leads me to my next point - what a pain in the ass. Please, feel free to dump more work on my plate because your unhappy with the fact that you can't bid on three or four players all at the same time. The following year's draft picks are only allowed to be used as compensation to allow owners who have traded their picks the ability to participate, not so that owners can have three or four picks to use. Everyone knows what players are available in the RFAA before the RFAA begins and if you know you want to bid on many of them all at once, it is your responsibility to acquire the necessary picks to do so. I would prefer to remove the option to use future picks altogether rather than allow owners the ability to use future picks the way it has been suggested.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Rock on Apr 13, 2018 4:45:22 GMT
For starters, there isn't much bidding going on because they're aren't many good players coming off contracts. This is a result of the leagues of maturity, or lack thereof, but will change over time. Second, you are assuming that The Rock in your scenario holds 3.03 until the bidding on Burkhead is over. We would need to oblige the tagging team with a reasonable period of time to make a compensation decision. During this period The Rock could choose to use 3.03 on another bid. What is to stop him? In order for your proposal to work, we would need to freeze all applicable assets until the bidding on Burkhead is over. I'm sure new bitching would commence as soon as this is actually implemented since it's almost the same scenario that led to this discussion. This leads me to my next point - what a pain in the ass. Please, feel free to dump more work on my plate because your unhappy with the fact that you can't bid on three or four players all at the same time. The following year's draft picks are only allowed to be used as compensation to allow owners who have traded their picks the ability to participate, not so that owners can have three or four picks to use. Everyone knows what players are available in the RFAA before the RFAA begins and if you know you want to bid on many of them all at once, it is your responsibility to acquire the necessary picks to do so. I would prefer to remove the option to use future picks altogether rather than allow owners the ability to use future picks the way it has been suggested. We’re just not going to agree on this. I made trades and acquired more 3rd round picks so I could bid on guys in RFFA. You traded away your 2018 3rd and were able to offer a worse pick and although I have 4 picks to choose from, I can only bid with 2 of them. All just In case I’m trying to manipulate the system, which I am not. I would rather be able to use both 2018 picks first and then not lose out on a player because I can’t use my 2019 picks. There is just no way I’m going to be convinced this is the only solution or fair. I’m sure with some thought we could achieve both. I don’t agree with the “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it” mentality. If it was a perfectly written rule with no loopholes we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. At a minimum the wording should be cleaned up so it’s easy to understand before the RFFA starts. Not trying to argue just to argue or add shit to your plate. Just having a discussion that I think warrants more thought and suggestions. |
|
|
|
Post by Macho Man on Apr 13, 2018 4:56:10 GMT
"I have 4 picks to choose from, I can only bid with 2 of them." This is untrue, you can use all of them, just not necessarily at the same time. You certainly cannot use the same pick to bid on multiple players at the same time just in case one of them falls through. No one is suggesting the rules are written perfectly, legislatures can't even draft laws that aren't open to different interpretations, but I'm not sure what loopholes you're referring to if you care to elaborate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamania on Apr 13, 2018 13:03:31 GMT
Jesus Christ guys all of this over Rex Burkhead!!
|
|
