|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 25, 2015 8:16:48 GMT -5
Let's get this rule done. (I don't want it to be complicated)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 8:53:56 GMT -5
Can you have my option Dave which is the gm can void their deal without the other one permission but that gm will be penalize accordingly. The penalize would be a 4th waiver pick and take their ball out of the lottery draft and have the asset involve frozen for one year.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on May 25, 2015 8:58:14 GMT -5
Can you have my option Dave which is the gm can void their deal without the other one permission but that gm will be penalize accordingly. The penalize would be a 4th waiver pick and take their ball out of the lottery draft and have the asset involve frozen for one year. I agree with the pick but the lottery only affects the bottom half of the league maybe a permanent freeze on the assets involved they can only use them to draft or have to wait a year to trade a player ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 9:09:22 GMT -5
Can you have my option Dave which is the gm can void their deal without the other one permission but that gm will be penalize accordingly. The penalize would be a 4th waiver pick and take their ball out of the lottery draft and have the asset involve frozen for one year. I agree with the pick but the lottery only affects the bottom half of the league maybe a permanent freeze on the assets involved they can only use them to draft or have to wait a year to trade a player ? The freeze would only be on the asset involve in the deal. The rest you can trade them any which way you want. I won't vote until other chime on my idea . If no one want it as a option so be it and then I ll vote. |
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on May 25, 2015 9:27:46 GMT -5
I agree with the pick but the lottery only affects the bottom half of the league maybe a permanent freeze on the assets involved they can only use them to draft or have to wait a year to trade a player ? The freeze would only be on the asset involve in the deal. The rest you can trade then any which way you want. I won't vote until other chime on my idea . If no one want it as a option so be it and then I ll vote. That sounds fine to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 25, 2015 9:32:33 GMT -5
I want to keep it simple...not getting into penalties.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 10:56:32 GMT -5
I appreciate the opportunity to vote, but I really don't like the 3rd option - 1 hour is such a random and arbitrary time frame. Presumably, the entire concept of the trade panel is to ensure trades do not occur that severely harm an individual team or the integrity of the league as a whole. Obviously, this requires people making subjective decisions and there will be times where there is not a unanimous consensus.
Providing a 1 hour window means that, in some cases, a GM will benefit from hearing views of the Trade Panel, and in other instances, they will not. If the "grace period" was any time BEFORE the deal is approved, then everyone would benefit from the same "protection" / grace period. That seems more logical to me.
And a few comments on this, as I know this proposal is a bit "out there":
1. In the year I've been here, my guess is that such a rule - if it existed, would have been used twice. Once by Jon (with the Emerton trade) and the current Ott-Kel trade. So I'm not concerned about any uncertainty that this would create, given that I expect it will rarely be used and given that there is already uncertainty with all posted trades (i.e., any trade can be vetoed).
2. The implementation of such a rule may reduce some of the hostility towards the trading panel in general, IMO. Right now, an individual "veto" vote often appears to come across to affected GM's as a rebuke and a purely negative experience. Under a revised proposal, an individual "veto" vote could actually give an impacted GM the right to consider the feedback of a veto and decide whether or not a very serious error has been made. It gives a right to a GM, which may make the experience with the panel more positive. [And, as I said, it the overwhelming majority of cases, I believe the affected GM will dismiss the single veto; that's been the experience in the year I've been here - minus two instances.]
I also have no idea what point there is in penalizing a team for taking the advice of a trade panel member, and withdrawing from a trade that is severely harmful to their team or the league? And I also wonder happens under this scenario if the team in question does not own a 4th round waiver? Is another pick substituted, or do they lose their right completely? Frank's suggestion, as constructed, could lead to other questions down the road.
In short, I'm not voting as I believe this poll was created too quickly, without sufficient time to develop options beyond 1 and 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 25, 2015 11:09:47 GMT -5
As I have stated, a few times now, I don't want to get complicated with rules here.
For the most part, when people post a deal that means they accept the deal. If you aren't sure, ask BEFORE you POST!!!
I really didn't even want a third option.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 11:40:24 GMT -5
Fair enough. But if you are really only comfortable with option 1 or 2 as Commissioner, then I'd suggest dropping option 3 from the poll. I don't see the sense in putting option 3 forward, given that you don't like it, nobody else has suggested it, and it doesn't seem very much thought went into it. [This is intended as a respectful suggestion and constructive feedback; it's not always easy to control how the tone of a written response is intended.]
If my only options are 1 and 2, you can put me down for option 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 25, 2015 11:50:44 GMT -5
Fair enough. But if you are really only comfortable with option 1 or 2 as Commissioner, then I'd suggest dropping option 3 from the poll. I don't see the sense in putting option 3 forward, given that you don't like it, nobody else has suggested it, and it doesn't seem very much thought went into it. [This is intended as a respectful suggestion and constructive feedback; it's not always easy to control how the tone of a written response is intended.]
If my only options are 1 and 2, you can put me down for option 2.
so, vote for option 2 then. It seems to be the consensus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 12:05:19 GMT -5
I feel the option 3 should have been the following a individual can only void their deal before one of the trade panel vote. That mean if the trade Panel wait let's say a few hours before voting but a few gm posted their thought on the deal. If one of the individual that made the feel the deal is to harmful the are aloud to void the deal. But once a Trade Panel as voted you are not aloud to void your deal. I believe this option would be the best option out there. I would actually vote for this option and now the public could have a voice.
|
|
