|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 21, 2022 22:59:04 GMT -5
Anthony has gone ahead and proposed a rule in which team switching would be made available to league GM's. I think this is a good start, what does everyone think, and what can we tweak. Now I know that not ever rule is perfect at first, especially when were coming out with a fresh rule that I have never seen, and potential changes may need to be made because of flaws.
Thoughts???
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jan 21, 2022 23:13:38 GMT -5
I think the rule looks good, one thing I’ll put out there is this:
Based on the rule above it seems like two gms approach each other and agree to swap teams.
This is different than the league posting “open teams” and teams expressing interest in changing teams. So does the rule cover both these scenarios? Sorry just trying to get everything into consideration here
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 21, 2022 23:16:31 GMT -5
I think the rule looks good, one thing I’ll put out there is this: Based on the rule above it seems like two gms approach each other and agree to swap teams. This is different than the league posting “open teams” and teams expressing interest in changing teams. So does the rule cover both these scenarios? Sorry just trying to get everything into consideration here This rule would just be for Organizational Switches between two GMs who are in charge of their Franchises. This would NOT be for Open Teams.
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jan 21, 2022 23:22:52 GMT -5
Ok so this would be different, understood Thanks for clarifying
|
|
|
Post by BuccaneersGM (Greg) on Jan 22, 2022 21:27:31 GMT -5
I would support this rule change 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 22, 2022 21:43:24 GMT -5
Just to clarify "Trading would NOT be allowed between the TWO TEAMS until the start of the current year’s Draft. They would be allowed to trade with others lol
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 22, 2022 21:53:13 GMT -5
Could we begin discussing putting up this rule and any other rules that people may have up for vote?
Polls would need to be voted on before we open the league. I just Don't want this to be the reason we need to delay the start of opening the league.
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Jan 24, 2022 15:35:50 GMT -5
Imo this rule is being proposed to favor the way the process was already done instead of doing what best for the league when presenting a new rule. Feels like whatever it takes right now to get the Giants and Texans switched is the mindset instead of proposing a rule that will benefit the league and it's GM's in the short and long run of the league. I seem to be the main one with the viewpoint. Which is fine don't mind being on an island myself on this. I've gave my plea on this rule in a previous thread ( legacynfl.boards.net/thread/11680/2022-organization-switching ) not going to get into it again here. Just want to share my thoughts on this thread so my previous engagement on the issue isn't buried in a new thread proposals.
|
|
|
Post by Panthers GM (Jesse) on Jan 24, 2022 17:06:16 GMT -5
Imo this rule is being proposed to favor the way the process was already done instead of doing what best for the league when presenting a new rule. Feels like whatever it takes right now to get the Giants and Texans switched is the mindset instead of proposing a rule that will benefit the league and it's GM's in the short and long run of the league. I seem to be the main one with the viewpoint. Which is fine don't mind being on an island myself on this. I've gave my plea on this rule in a previous thread ( legacynfl.boards.net/thread/11680/2022-organization-switching ) not going to get into it again here. Just want to share my thoughts on this thread so my previous engagement on the issue isn't buried in a new thread proposals. Just to summarize Ricky, please correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems like your 2020 proposal (Targeted at existing GMs wanting to take over vacant teams) was heavily reliant on the GM being able to build a case that the new roster is a better fit for them as a GM for whatever reason, be it their resume a fit to rebuild a team if they want that challenge, or having proved themself capable of addressing the issues the new roster faces. It was a proposal in support of the process of owners switching to a different roster if the move benefited the competitive balance of the league and to allow more attractive rosters to prospective new owners. It sounds to me like your main issue with the current proposal specific to the idea of GMs just switching teams altogether, is you're concerned the Giants roster wouldn't be awarded to the Texans GM if their application was simply to switch to a hypothetical open Giants team from their Texans. I believe you're concerned that the good will and intentions of half the trade are creating a situation where the Giants are being awarded to an existing GM before a solid case is built for why the Texans GM should be able to switch to being the Giants GM. Correct? I've been around you long enough to know you aren't a fan of rules being bent. I think the disagreement here is more against the specific situation we are facing as opposed to the proposal itself. This scenario is different from a team wanting to take on an open roster, and im not sure why the standard should be raised higher because the two GMs represented are existing owners. All of us with multiple 32-man fantasy teams are in leagues with Laura. If she applied to be the Giants GM on the GM wait list, she would probably be awarded the team by league management. So if she has to make a case for why she is ready to become the Giants GM, I dont see what the issue with the proposed rule is. We as GMs still have the responsibility to accept or deny the proposal, you know? It's probably fair to consider this trade almost in the context of a "conditional trade" during the rookie draft. "Hey i'll trade you the 10th and 15th pick for the 5th pick if my guy is available when you're on the clock. Deal?" Of course in this case the Texans are saying "Hey, I want to switch to the Giants" and the Giants are saying they want the Texans. The trade terms are conditional on both proposals being accepted by our league vote independently.
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Jan 24, 2022 17:22:44 GMT -5
Hey Jesse. I would say the majority of what you're saying is correct of how I view the situation. The way you outline my thoughts for the rule is the way I had a presented originally. In that case it would be beneficial for the league as a whole not just one or two GM's.
You are a correct and that this rule is presented differently than the one I originally presented. And this option does give us the choice to veto the switch if we do want to do so. So all in all yes that does still get GM's the power to decide on this situation.
To me I don't view it as a standard being higher. I view it as just reaching the standard. Because over the last two years the Texans have not reached standard of even following the basic rules of the league. So I guess I don't see it as achieving a higher I see as achieving normal standing like every other GM which over this recent history has not been done.
I understand that Laura is friends with everybody and she's been around for a while and a multiple leagues. But I would ask why is it that you would award her the Giants in any other league on a wait list? I'm assuming because everyone knows her and likes her? And if that's the case okay but that's what should be stated for the reason of the switch. Not try to be passed off like it's a rule to get it done.
I don't think you are around for this but we've had GM's removed just because people didn't like them. They weren't the best GMs in the league and they usually had losing teams but they were active and around but they were kicked out. Now I'm being told a GM in worse scenario will be given a better team it just doesn't line up for me.
|
|
|
Post by Panthers GM (Jesse) on Jan 24, 2022 17:36:51 GMT -5
Hey Jesse. I would say the majority of what you're saying is correct of how I view the situation. The way you outline my thoughts for the rule is the way I had a presented originally. In that case it would be beneficial for the league as a whole not just one or two GM's. You are a correct and that this rule is presented differently than the one I originally presented. And this option does give us the choice to veto the switch if we do want to do so. So all in all yes that does still get GM's the power to decide on this situation. To me I don't view it as a standard being higher. I view it as just reaching the standard. Because over the last two years the Texans have not reached standard of even following the basic rules of the league. So I guess I don't see it as achieving a higher I see as achieving normal standing like every other GM which over this recent history has not been done. I understand that Laura is friends with everybody and she's been around for a while and a multiple leagues. But I would ask why is it that you would award her the Giants in any other league on a wait list? I'm assuming because everyone knows her and likes her? And if that's the case okay but that's what should be stated for the reason of the switch. Not try to be passed off like it's a rule to get it done. Right. I agree with you. And I do like Laura so perhaps I am biased, I just think the language of the proposal is a good framework to confirm or deny the situation. Both halves of the equation still have to work for the trade to happen, and it would be on Laura to present her case under the proposal. if enough GMs agree that she shouldn't be awarded the hypothetical open Giants team, it is what it is. The fact is, this proposal wouldn't have been offered by Anthony for many (if any) other rosters in the league, so I think that's why Anthony might feel a bit punished by the argument. Full transparency, I would support the concept of a back room deal where Anthony and Laura agreed to the trade and Frank just pushes it through with no further discussion to be honest. I think Laura has spoken on the way her past two years have been impacted by the pandemic more on GroupMe than she has had the chance to present on the Proboards side, that knowledge of her reasoning for lacking activity is definitely playing a role in my opinion as well. I do trust that her activity will pick up to pre- March 2020 standards this season, but under the proposal she'll have to make a majority agree with me on this in order for the deal to go through. There are two or three other current (Though possibly soon not to be) GMs in the league I would vote against under the proposed rule.
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Jan 24, 2022 17:50:54 GMT -5
That makes a lot of sense and I can understand a lot that viewpoint. I think we just view some things differently.
It's not meant to punish Anthony. He would be a great fit for the Texans and it should happen from his side of things.
I'm sure most GM's will have the viewpoint you do that we like Laura so she gets more leeway to stay compared to other who don't or didn't. Which is why we have the voting process and that's cool with me.
I do want to say that if things are helped decided on a how much do we like you level to me isn't a great precedent to set for future removal of GM's.
|
|
|
Post by Panthers GM (Jesse) on Jan 24, 2022 17:57:48 GMT -5
That makes a lot of sense and I can understand a lot that viewpoint. I think we just view some things differently. It's not meant to punish Anthony. He would be a great fit for the Texans and it should happen from his side of things. I'm sure most GM's will have the viewpoint you do that we like Laura so she gets more leeway to stay compared to other who don't or didn't. Which is why we have the voting process and that's cool with me. I do want to say that if things are helped decided on a how much do we like you level to me isn't a great precedent to set for future removal of GM's. I dont think removing an owner should be up to a league vote, that's where a strong hand is needed to ensure what's best for the league is done for sure
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Jan 24, 2022 18:08:10 GMT -5
That makes a lot of sense and I can understand a lot that viewpoint. I think we just view some things differently. It's not meant to punish Anthony. He would be a great fit for the Texans and it should happen from his side of things. I'm sure most GM's will have the viewpoint you do that we like Laura so she gets more leeway to stay compared to other who don't or didn't. Which is why we have the voting process and that's cool with me. I do want to say that if things are helped decided on a how much do we like you level to me isn't a great precedent to set for future removal of GM's. I dont think removing an owner should be up to a league vote, that's where a strong hand is needed to ensure what's best for the league is done for sure Agreed. To me a tough sell when that hasn't happened the last couple years when it's been addressed by multiple owners with concerns. Think I'm viewing it more from a straight rules perspective than how friendly am I with the GM in the situation. Like you and Anthony have been saying that's why we would have the voting period. So that makes sense thats their opportunity to view it how they see in this scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 24, 2022 19:34:38 GMT -5
Just read the above, And all I am going to say is Let’s Vote.
We’ve all gone through this for days now
Ricky, the proposal above gives you, and everyone else the opportunity to reject this and to state your reasons why.
Let’s just vote.
|
|