Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 6:47:32 GMT -5
I thought the whole purpose of the GP thing was to stop teams from intentionally having fewer GP in order to get a higher pick? So if that team doesn't own their pick, why would the be fined for tanking?
Also, is this something that can really be changed on the fly like this? We're a month away from the end of the season. And for some reason that fine would go to the team owning the pick? That makes no sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 7:57:43 GMT -5
I don't think anyone wants to fine the teams owning another teams pick that doesn't make GP. I believe they are saying that just by sliding the pick back you are adjusting where their pick would have been if they had fielded a roster and not tanked. So are they really being punished for tanking if nothing else additional is done is the debate/question I believe?
|
|
|
Post by Koomzz (CHI) on Feb 4, 2016 9:53:37 GMT -5
What would be the point of "tanking" so badly that you guarantee a high draft choice but it's been traded? Say TOR didn't have his 1st rounder... if he finishes 30th, and his pick is docked 3 or 6 games, what would be the purpose of tanking?
My answer would be: Sabotage whoever he traded his pick to. The GM that traded for this pick, unless it happened preseason before TOR's team took its shape, should know better than to trade for a pick that used to be #1 and is now #4 or even #7. We are punishing the team that traded for the pick because they assumed that risk.
If TOR does miss GP, he only owns one of his picks, so he takes the pick slide on the 1st rounder and that's all?
Tim's right, we can't make any change to this right now, it's better served to change in a month or two whenever we come to an agreement on what should be done. But I think we all agree on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 11:56:17 GMT -5
So the Gm's that played by the rules, met games played and finished 27th and 28th overall should have to pick 3rd and 4th because the picks ahead of them, that wouldn't be 1 and 2 if those two gms met gp, were traded? What you are then doing is punishing a 3rd party, who is not only uninvolved with that pick entirely, but also tanKing the way we want in this league, tanking while dressing a roster.
No one is punishing the current pick holder, the movement in pick is designed to represent that the pick is falsely high due to that team being illegal all season long.
Every league I've been in this has been the case and it's a good thing. Gm's won't pay as much in September for a pick because they worry about gp. It keeps the gms who are in danger of missing gp honest as most would rather pay a fine while getting full value for a falsely high pick, than have that pick worth less. If the pick is traded a year or more in advance, there was no guarantee when you acquired that it'd still be a good pick by the time it came up anyway, that was a risk they took when trading for that pick.
Not saying it doesn't suck for the Gm who owns a pick a year in advance and see's it dropped a few spots, it does. Let's face it though, the bottom 4 teams this year were the only ones we were concerned with, you can predict that long in advance and refuse to pay for that pick as a top 4 pick in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 12:02:48 GMT -5
And koomz, if a Gm doesn't make gp this year the should be fined and that fine should not be based on a pick slide. That has to occur regardless to be fair to those who met gp, shouldn't be considered a penalty but fixing a falsehood. The fine should be a separate penalty based on how much they missed gp by and be the same regardless if said Gm owns their pick or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 12:41:27 GMT -5
Couple of things here from the last couple of posts, honestly need to have some patience and give the RC guys time to consider and discuss, it was talked about in preseason but I clearly did not translate the rough comments into the draft nor the formal doc that Josh posted for all; but no decision aside from the major dif from BBKL (Stats changes & UFA) have been or will be made without RC consensus, sometimes there are rules we 'know' but failed to write down, when asked that's something that can be corrected, but it's all based on logic and our core principals:
- the goal here for everyone is to enjoy crazy in-depth fantasy hockey - opinions will not always align and sometimes tempers may flare, try to be respectful at all times - we will mirror the NHL when possible, logical and of value; deviation where necessary - the RC is available at any time to answer questions, clarify something, or handle a situation if need be, acknowledging the CBA is a live document. - this is first and foremost a volunteer ran, for fun league, we require more commitment and expect greater hockey understanding than your typical fantasy hockey league - this is a keeper league and as a group we need to ensure the health of teams is maintained, while weighing that with allowing GMs to run their own teams/plans/builds
back to the thread:
1) In some of your explanation and views I think you're acting as if everything injury is obvious and seems bias towards contenders. Keeper league needs to have a spot for all types of building and managing a team, understanding that the market and league is most active and reflective when some teams full contenders winning lots, some are flirting with that status,in build or dev, and some are rebuilding with a focus of value on tomorrow.
2) We do need to ensure the pick adjustment matches the impact of the missed GP, and is not confused with the fine. The worst picks should reflect the teams.
3) The fine needs to be real and reflect the actions of the GM who missed GP -> this ensures planning, effort, outcome and consequence all line up.
4) Our regulations should mostly be naturally occurring (30 teams each, same cap, same players, similar waivers), as we follow the same rules as the real teams (within a simplified framework/ less control) they should not be defining our trade market -> good players are worth more, high picks are worth more, good contracts fetch better return, crowd pleasers are fun to have on the roster, future stars are worth more than current mid-6ers and role-players, stars go for multiple assets when traded + futures, etc. Piling regulations will not increase activity or league health, this is why the rule needs to make sense especially in year one so we can move forward.
5) the CBA, as stated time and time again, is not a finished document, and if you have a question or problem with how a rule is used or absent, raise it so the RC can discuss and find a solution. Keeper league is based on repeatable circumstances and consistent value trends and not something that should be true one year and not the next. We have a really really cool scoring system that makes trades way more interesting to work through and I believer only nipping at potential builds so far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 12:54:49 GMT -5
And Nick you know me well enough to know one of my best and worst qualities is my desire to have everything fair for everyone haha. Translates across my entire life, gets me promotions one day and in trouble the next day haha. I assure you, all I want is a fair outcome and unbiased system that won't leave room for arguments in this area on a yearly basis.
We are all just voicing our opinions because we care. We aren't trying to take away from the RC or decision making process, we just want a positive outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Koomzz (CHI) on Feb 4, 2016 13:06:01 GMT -5
Guess i'm missing the point of this discussion. i'll go back into the CBA and re-read
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 13:24:03 GMT -5
So are we talking about the < 1k gp penalties, or the reparations for traded picks. I'm a little confused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 13:42:54 GMT -5
So are we talking about the < 1k gp penalties, or the reparations for traded picks. I'm a little confused. I asked about traded picks. Seems like GP penalties are pretty cut and dry, for this year at least
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 13:50:10 GMT -5
fines won't be changed after they've been used once, that doesn't match keeper league intentions. getting it right and repeating it is how a league keeper league is prioritized; if it doesn't do as intended or make sense adjustments are made -> that's been repeated since day one this forum switched over to that there will be corrections and clarifications made as a year 1 keeper league.
|
|
|
Post by TampaBayBolts (Josh) on Feb 4, 2016 13:59:24 GMT -5
So are we talking about the < 1k gp penalties, or the reparations for traded picks. I'm a little confused. I asked about traded picks. Seems like GP penalties are pretty cut and dry, for this year at least It's both. If a team misses GP their pick is slid down to mimic where it would've landed had the team in question dressed proper lineups each week and met GP, but then what punishment does that team get if they traded their penalized pick? They shouldn't get off with nothing. So all of the above is part of this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Koomzz (CHI) on Feb 4, 2016 14:07:40 GMT -5
can someone point me in the direction of this "fine" that everyone refers to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 14:46:33 GMT -5
it's missing, a failed to write it down situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 20:22:08 GMT -5
seems like clerical errors are becoming somewhat of a theme in our rule making process
lol jk jk before someone tries to crucify me. I think RC has done an A+ job
|
|