Owner Threatens To Quit The League

[murf74 461]

Sounds like you weren't just changing a rule, but changing the format of the league. If he didn't like the new format, he is free to want to quit.

 

What you have to understand, half the league is gonna feel good about their keepers and the other half is gonna want what the better half has.

 

I think this sounds like a case of a bunch of owners getting together and trying to screw the guy who was obviously in the best shape to whip the crap out of the other teams in the league with LJ, Fitz and the #1 pick.

 

I would have threatened to quit too if I had keepers of LJ and Fitz + the #1 pick in the draft and everyone decided to start over with keepers. And don't try to buy me off with the #1 pick cause I already had the #1 and LJ and Fitz.

 

Good for that owner for sticking up for himself.

[Shakespeare 0]

With that in mind, I'd be interested in what was so drastic of a change in a keeper league that would warrant throwing back all of the players? Is there anything else you can figure out that would be fair?

 

I think that when we reached a 50/50 stalemate, we all started to look at alternatives. It was clear that we weren't going to get a break in the trade issue, so we tried our best to come up with a solution that was, again, **as fair as possible** to everyone. I won't disagree that this was a drastic measure, but aside from the commish (who isn't me, by the way) unilaterally saying 'yea' or 'nay' - what should we have done? We debated this issue for a week and no one was budging. If anyone has a legitimate solution, I'm open to hearing it...

 

Also, any owner that throws out an ultimatum shouldn't be let back in the league. It sets bad precedence. What happens next year if an owner doesn't like a rule change? THey could in turn do the same thing. As much as it might pain you...I think you've got to let your vote stand whichever way it goes and let the owner choose what he wants to do.

 

This is my point. So next season, when I disagree with a rule or a vote, I just say, "It's my way, or I'm leaving..."? This is the way we resolve all conflicts? I know many of you disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm not interested in being in a league with a bunch of robots. But doesn't threatening to leave and take your ball with you a little, well... childish?

[joefry 0]

What you did was totally irresponsible!!!! YOU CANNOT CHANGE KEEPER LEAGUES TO THE POINT OF THROWING ALL THE PLAYERS IN!!!!! The fact that you are pissed that he gave you an ultimatum is even more ridiculous..is this guy at an advantage?... sure, but that is the way the rules go.

 

I had Fitz at the 9th round and LJ at the 6th last year, we can keep one, but if our league was set up like yours I would be in the same situation...GUESS WHAT? TOUGH SH*t!!!!! I used the compiler for my draft and I guess it worked out pretty well. If I was in your league, I would not only quit on that rule cahnge, but you would no longer be considered a friend.

 

Besides, he is at an advantage now, but who knows what is going to happen...his team could be hit by injuries or he could make some ill advised trades to screw himself.

 

I'll tell you this. We voted to have a keeper league last year and we are only now instituting it, so we would not screw the people who drafted crappy last year when they did not know about keepers. Would the owners who had great keeper options have preferred to start the keepers last year, probably...but we actually play in a non-do*che b*g league so....................... THERE HAS TO BE A FULL YEAR PASSED FOR KEEPER DECISIONS. Plain and simple. Your league =

[ffdomino 0]

How does a redraft fix the trade rule descrepency though?

 

This does not make any sense at all. Tiki is good but I do not see how he can win a season for a player. I think most people voted for a redraft because this owner's team looks too good.

 

Majority rules sucks when half the teams are losers. They will always side with the rule that will make their team better...in this case a redraft, even though it makes no sense to me....

[TomServo 0]

There's nothing childish about not wanting to play in a league that decides to change the rules just when you're set up to take over. Sometimes in fanball, you need to suck it up and realize the other guy is just BETTER than you are. Last year, it was a guy in my division who spent crazy to get Shaun Alex, Holt, Moss, Fitz... he took the crown, and the rest of us are just hoping he doesn't keep the whole lot of them in '06. A few years ago we had a guy with Peyton, Edge, LT2, and Tony Gonzalez... we took our lumps and vowed to get him later.

 

This is competition. Nothing is childish about wanting to maintain a fair chance to compete. There is, however, something childish about continually arguing over a decision that's made. Your league doesn't agree- if you don't like it, well, you can take your ball and go home.

[Shakespeare 0]

What you did was totally irresponsible!!!! YOU CANNOT CHANGE KEEPER LEAGUES TO THE POINT OF THROWING ALL THE PLAYERS IN!!!!! The fact that you are pissed that he gave you an ultimatum is even more ridiculous..is this guy at an advantage?... sure, but that is the way the rules go.

 

I had Fitz at the 9th round and LJ at the 6th last year, we can keep one, but if our league was set up like yours I would be in the same situation...GUESS WHAT? TOUGH SH*t!!!!! I used the compiler for my draft and I guess it worked out pretty well. If I was in your league, I would not only quit on that rule cahnge, but you would no longer be considered a friend.

 

Besides, he is at an advantage now, but who knows what is going to happen...his team could be hit by injuries or he could make some ill advised trades to screw himself.

 

I'll tell you this. We voted to have a keeper league last year and we are only now instituting it, so we would not screw the people who drafted crappy last year when they did not know about keepers. Would the owners who had great keeper options have preferred to start the keepers last year, probably...but we actually play in a non-do*che b*g league so....................... THERE HAS TO BE A FULL YEAR PASSED FOR KEEPER DECISIONS. Plain and simple. Your league =

 

Joe, what I like best about your response is that it's so calm and reasonable. Glad to know that you're willing to throw away friendships over fantasy football. You sound like a great person...

 

So, give me some of your wisdom. How would you solve a 50/50 split league? What would you do that's fair to everyone when no one can agree on the current rules?

[Da_Bears 14]

You stated this league has been fine the last 6 years. What could possibly have happened that would require a complete dimantling of every team after all these years. The object of a keeper league is to keep your designated players. If some owners have weak teams this year, then they need to trade/draft/etc to build back up.

 

Unfortunately, I say, YES, he has a right to be pissed and quit.

[Shakespeare 0]

There's nothing childish about not wanting to play in a league that decides to change the rules just when you're set up to take over. Sometimes in fanball, you need to suck it up and realize the other guy is just BETTER than you are. Last year, it was a guy in my division who spent crazy to get Shaun Alex, Holt, Moss, Fitz... he took the crown, and the rest of us are just hoping he doesn't keep the whole lot of them in '06. A few years ago we had a guy with Peyton, Edge, LT2, and Tony Gonzalez... we took our lumps and vowed to get him later.

 

This is competition. Nothing is childish about wanting to maintain a fair chance to compete. There is, however, something childish about continually arguing over a decision that's made. Your league doesn't agree- if you don't like it, well, you can take your ball and go home.

 

Why do you assume that this is being done to spite the owner in question? What have I said that makes you think I'm acting selfishly? Honestly, I think it's because selfish people can't fathom others acting any other way.

[josephreese 0]

This is my point. So next season, when I disagree with a rule or a vote, I just say, "It's my way, or I'm leaving..."? This is the way we resolve all conflicts? I know many of you disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm not interested in being in a league with a bunch of robots. But doesn't threatening to leave and take your ball with you a little, well... childish?

 

My humbe opinion on this particular point...

It is childish to threaten everyone in that way, as if his mere presence in the league is such a pleasure. He should either sack up and play, or leave without threats. There's taking one for the good of the league, and then there's taking it up the arse because owners who have been beaten are upset about being beaten. Based on the scant details provided, were I in his shoes I'd leave that league as fast as I could.

[Shakespeare 0]

My humbe opinion on this particular point...

It is childish to threaten everyone in that way, as if his mere presence in the league is such a pleasure. He should either sack up and play, or leave without threats. There's taking one for the good of the league, and then there's taking it up the arse because owners who have been beaten are upset about being beaten. Based on the scant details provided, were I in his shoes I'd leave that league as fast as I could.

 

1) He's never won the league.

2) He's never even made the playoffs.

3) He's not even the best team in terms of keepers/draft picks.

 

P.S. Almost 100 posts in just a few hours. FFToday should send me a royalty check for all the ad views*

[Super Cubs 132]

I would like to see the written rule in question.

[shadow2k 0]

I think that when we reached a 50/50 stalemate, we all started to look at alternatives. It was clear that we weren't going to get a break in the trade issue, so we tried our best to come up with a solution that was, again, **as fair as possible** to everyone. I won't disagree that this was a drastic measure, but aside from the commish (who isn't me, by the way) unilaterally saying 'yea' or 'nay' - what should we have done? We debated this issue for a week and no one was budging. If anyone has a legitimate solution, I'm open to hearing it...

This is my point. So next season, when I disagree with a rule or a vote, I just say, "It's my way, or I'm leaving..."? This is the way we resolve all conflicts? I know many of you disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm not interested in being in a league with a bunch of robots. But doesn't threatening to leave and take your ball with you a little, well... childish?

 

First off, nobody can give you any real advice, because all they have are vague "rule disputes" to go off of. There's nothing tangible to go off of. We don't know if someone thought that FA's couldn't be kepts as keepers, or if there was a mixup in what draft picks would be given up, or anything. You have to be willing to lay the rules out, what's in dispute, and why it matters.

 

Honestly, you guys are completely trashing a keeper league to start from scratch. It defeats the entire purpose of the "keeper" league. If my keeper league was disbanded and then recreated, I'm not so sure I'd rejoin it either.

[Shakespeare 0]

There's nothing childish about not wanting to play in a league that decides to change the rules just when you're set up to take over. Sometimes in fanball, you need to suck it up and realize the other guy is just BETTER than you are. Last year, it was a guy in my division who spent crazy to get Shaun Alex, Holt, Moss, Fitz... he took the crown, and the rest of us are just hoping he doesn't keep the whole lot of them in '06. A few years ago we had a guy with Peyton, Edge, LT2, and Tony Gonzalez... we took our lumps and vowed to get him later.

 

This is competition. Nothing is childish about wanting to maintain a fair chance to compete. There is, however, something childish about continually arguing over a decision that's made. Your league doesn't agree- if you don't like it, well, you can take your ball and go home.

 

Tom, you keep assuming things you know nothing about. Read above post for clarification. I've won this league 2 times.

 

I've voted against my own interests because I felt it was better for the league. One season, we had this stupid 'drug rule' where you would get points for if your player had a drug suspension. KRob failed a piss test but I refused the 100 points even thought it would have put me on top. Why? Because I think it's a bush league rule and would've screwed the guy on top. Stupid? Probably. But don't question my intentions.

[joefry 0]

Joe, what I like best about your response is that it's so calm and reasonable. Glad to know that you're willing to throw away friendships over fantasy football. You sound like a great person...

 

So, give me some of your wisdom. How would you solve a 50/50 split league? What would you do that's fair to everyone when no one can agree on the current rules?

 

 

First of all....you still havn't spelled everything out for us. Secondly, this is a fu*k job, plain and simple. What is this good of league crap you are spouting off about?... it sounds like a full steaming load to me!!!!

 

If someone is trying to trade somebody before keepers are declared, there isn't even a need for a vote, just don't allow it!!!! If you are going to vote on every little thing including when you are allowed to take a piss during the draft, then why do you even have a commish, let alone a co-commish? Totally Preposterous!!!!!!

 

Common sense dictates that you cannot trade a player if you have not declared him a keeper!! That is something a fourth grade Pokemon player would easily understand. It is easy to see that you are just using it as an excuse to re-level the playing field, which is beyond weak.

 

As previous posters suggessted, if you switch back to redraft, then it should be done next year...that is what a logical thinking commish would do 'for the good of the league'.

[josephreese 0]

1) He's never won the league.

2) He's never even made the playoffs.

3) He's not even the best team in terms of keepers/draft picks.

 

Always dangerous to assume the reasons behind others' motives. Mea culpa.

The details of your league rules and what changed would be helpful in judging whether his response was appropriate. And part of your original post did ask folks to weigh in on the appropriatness of his action.

[Shakespeare 0]

First of all....you still havn't spelled everything out for us. Secondly, this is a fu*k job, plain and simple. What is this good of league crap you are spouting off about?... it sounds like a full steaming load to me!!!!

 

If someone is trying to trade somebody before keepers are declared, there isn't even a need for a vote, just don't allow it!!!! If you are going to vote on every little thing including when you are allowed to take a piss during the draft, then why do you even have a commish, let alone a co-commish? Totally Preposterous!!!!!!

 

Common sense dictates that you cannot trade a player if you have not declared him a keeper!! That is something a fourth grade Pokemon player would easily understand. It is easy to see that you are just using it as an excuse to re-level the playing field, which is beyond weak.

 

As previous posters suggessted, if you switch back to redraft, then it should be done next year...that is what a logical thinking commish would do 'for the good of the league'.

 

So basically, you have nothing. No solution except not to allow the trade. Which isn't a solution at all. Half the league disagrees with that option, as I've already pointed out over and over. But you have solved one question, which is weather or not you're a total d*ck.

[alwazefun 0]

First can a reasonable person read the rule and determine the intent .... even if there is a loophole that allows trades before declaring keepers, most people who have played fantasy football as long as you said your league has been in existence should know not only the intent of the rule, but also that its a standard keeper rule you can't trade players then declare keepers.

If they honestly were oblivious to the intent of the rule .... Then the solution that causes the least collateral damage to teams is to vote on whether to allow the proposed trade .... If there is a 50/50 stalemate then you as the Comissioner make the decision(thats your job) ... which ever way you decide is how the rule will be interpereted for the rest of this season ... then everyone votes on what the rule will be for next year.

 

Redrafting in this situation is way too extreme .. like demolishing a house because a small leak developed in the roof!

[Shakespeare 0]

First can a reasonable person read the rule and determine the intent .... even if there is a loophole that allows trades before declaring keepers, most people who have played fantasy football as long as you said your league has been in existence should know not only the intent of the rule, but also that its a standard keeper rule you can't trade players then declare keepers.

If they honestly were oblivious to the intent of the rule .... Then the solution that causes the least collateral damage to teams is to vote on whether to allow the proposed trade .... If there is a 50/50 stalemate then you as the Comissioner make the decision(thats your job) ... which ever way you decide is how the rule will be interpereted for the rest of this season ... then everyone votes on what the rule will be for next year.

 

Redrafting in this situation is way too extreme .. like demolishing a house because a small leak developed in the roof!

 

Thanks. I appreciate your input. I'm not the commish, though...

[Super Cubs 132]

I would like to see the written rule in question.

I would still like to see the written rule in question.

[cyeaser 3]

i would really like to know if he has to drop lj and fitz....what all the other owners are dropping?

im not saying either side is right or wrong, but if i had to drop lj/fitz and YOU or another OWNER has to drop say caddy and reggie wayne....HELL YEAH he has a right to feel hes getting beat over the head...im sure he as the other owners has done work/research to get the team he has and because of a trade 2 other owners made in the off-season SHOULD not effect him or his team...jmo

[joefry 0]

Why do you assume that this is being done to spite the owner in question? What have I said that makes you think I'm acting selfishly? Honestly, I think it's because selfish people can't fathom others acting any other way.

 

 

You guys are the ones being selfish!!!! You are trying screw someone who hit the jackpot...as for your refusing to take 'unwarented points', GIVE US ALL A BREAK!!!!

 

Also, you say that this will set a precedent of holding the league hostage, but that fact is that you have set a precedent of dou*hebaggary for all to follow...your nearsightedness is obscuring the fact that first salvo in this little battle was fired by you. We all know you do not see it that way, as you have repeatedly stated that this solution was what you decided would be best "for everyone"(cough... cough). He did what he had to do, and if you had a set, you would have just said 'hasta la vista'!!!

 

But deep down...you know what you did was dead wrong.

 

So basically, you have nothing. No solution except not to allow the trade. Which isn't a solution at all. Half the league disagrees with that option, as I've already pointed out over and over. But you have solved one question, which is weather or not you're a total d*ck.

 

I will not dispute the fact that I am being a di*k. However, in your case it is warrented. Any way you cut it, you are screwing a whole person's year because of a disagreement over a trade!!!!

 

Trades get vetoed all the time, who cares about that, if the morons in your league cannot come to a reasonable consensous how is that the LJ owners fault? Everyone here has pretty much stated that they would quit if they were him, so you are obviously in the wrong here...I know that some people tried to breakit to you softly, but that is not my style.

 

What you morons proposed as a 'soluition' is wrong on so many levels that it deserves a punch in the face (in front of wife and kids, of course).

[shadow2k 0]

Certainly, the owner in question stood to lose the most.

 

3) He's not even the best team in terms of keepers/draft picks.

 

Contradiction?

 

Did you post the rule yet? I mean, most people in here seem to disagree with you. But you insist on not listening to any of us, because you're doing what's "best for the league". But none of us can see that, because you've not given us all the facts.

 

So can we have the rules yet, and how it affected keeper status this year? Because without it, we'll just continue to tell you that trashing the league is about the worst solution you could have come up with.

[Da_Bears 14]

Some have mentioned that this invloved trading players before you declare who you are keeping... My question is this..If I had LJ, M Harrison, and Fitz, Why couldn't I trade for future or current draft positions before declaring? That is the purpose of keeper leagues, developing a quality team and trading your players to enhance future teams. I see no reason why a owner could not trade before declaring. Why just drop a potential keeper for another team and get nothing in return.

[Shakespeare 0]

Contradiction?

 

Did you post the rule yet? I mean, most people in here seem to disagree with you. But you insist on not listening to any of us, because you're doing what's "best for the league". But none of us can see that, because you've not given us all the facts.

 

So can we have the rules yet, and how it affected keeper status this year? Because without it, we'll just continue to tell you that trashing the league is about the worst solution you could have come up with.

 

Shadow, I've given the problem. Take a look at my previous posts. Most people think the trade should not go through because you have to declare keepers *before* you're allowed to trade them. That's fine. But half the league disagrees with this, which is why we have a 50/50 split.

 

SO... how can we move on? What is the solution when the league is divided on an issue? And don't say the commish decides. That may be how you run your leagues, but we don't do it that way. We vote on every issue.

[steelers2101 7]

All for a democracy when a rule change is small like how many points for an INT but for major changes like that you need 100% agreement. People with week teams will agree with the change, not because they feel it is a good rule change, but because they might no longer have a crappy team.

 

Just me though, but I am smarter than you...

 

I agree.

 

I also find it suspect that you didn't mention what the league members disagreed on with respect to the keeper rules. I haven't finished the thread, but if you haven't mentioned it yet, please do.

[DrJ 0]

I think that when we reached a 50/50 stalemate, we all started to look at alternatives. It was clear that we weren't going to get a break in the trade issue, so we tried our best to come up with a solution that was, again, **as fair as possible** to everyone. I won't disagree that this was a drastic measure, but aside from the commish (who isn't me, by the way) unilaterally saying 'yea' or 'nay' - what should we have done? We debated this issue for a week and no one was budging. If anyone has a legitimate solution, I'm open to hearing it...

This is the problem - no one here has a clear understanding on what happened to come up with a legitimate solution.

 

What were the rules last offseason, what changed and was supposed to go into effect this season?

 

If you had keepers in the past, this should be cut and dry. Whatever you did before is what you do now. If you didn't have keepers before....I'm starting to understand the issue a little better....

[lguero1 4]

6 out of 12 in the league were split over the interpretation of trading players before declaring keepers. from there, you get 11 out of 12 owners agreeing to drop all keepers and redraft. wow. a gaggle of idiots, who are smarter and obviously more manipulative that Shakespeare, saw this as the best solution. it is very difficult to see how you go from that split to that agreement.

 

the only solution is to do exactly what you did. this is a 100% democracy and this is what the owners wanted. it seems like a lynching to me. the problem between shakespeare and the other posters is shakespeare is convinced that this is what was best for the league, nobody else does. our feeble sinful selfish minds cannot fathom this, your league did what it had to do. lj/fitz boy did what he had to do. i wouldn't walk away either because this is the start of a championship team with these keepers and the 1st pick. i'd do whatever it took to sway you little bitches into not changing the rules also as i take your money at the end of the year and for years to come.

 

IMO, trades should be allowed before teams declare their keepers if the trade is equitable and the players are of keeper quality.

[joefry 0]

What is this crap about a 50/50 split? Your league is seriously a bunch of morons if you cannot resolve a 50/50 split!!!

 

Here is the solution...everything that is voted on must pass on majority...duh...5 out of 10 or 6 out of 12 does not cut it. It has to majority...newsflash, this is how 99.98% of all leagues do it.

 

We had a couple rules changes that got voted down because it was 5 out of 10, big deal...I know that you will retort with, "but some people's votes are comprimised because this dude will quit the leauge". Tough Sh*t. You are the stallions who came up with the great 'solution' that screws another guy royally, let him quit if you think you are so noble.

[alwazefun 0]

Thanks. I appreciate your input. I'm not the commish, though...

 

Then whoever is the commish needs to make the decision, because you need to avoid the redraft.

 

BUT, If you want the guy to stay and are DETERMINED to redraft then you are going have to give him something better then the #1 pick, because he had that already in addition to the players(and it doesnt sound like anyone else is giving up as much as he is). Maybe the #1 & #2 picks(IF he agrees he is still getting screwed).

[steelers2101 7]

Because these rules are new to this season. We voted on them at the 2005 draft. But, our faults for not being specific enough, because half the league sees them one way and half another.

 

You're right. He does have a beef. He also has a vote. If he wants to leave after the vote, then fine. But manipulating your buddies with a threat to leave is another story. Don't you see the difference?

 

Sorry buddy, but you're wrong. And you still haven't explained why the new rules force you to throw everyone back in the pool because of some trades.

 

It seems that throwing the players back into the pool is completely unnecessary considering trades that came after the fact are what have made the problem with the rules evident.

 

So either, those who relied on making the trades are screwed, or those with the better keepers are screwed.

 

Considering that keepers came before these trades came, the people making the trades should be screwed, you fix the rules, and they can easily mitigate how much they are screwed by making another trade.

 

Those with an advantage based on their keepers can't mitigate how much they are screwed because in a redraft everyone is technically on even ground.

 

My guess is some of you are thinking more about yourselves, and it's pretty low of you to make it seem otherwise ("so lucky to be in a league with guys thinking about the league instead of themselves...blah blah blah").

[shadow2k 0]

Shadow, I've given the problem. Take a look at my previous posts. Most people think the trade should not go through because you have to declare keepers *before* you're allowed to trade them. That's fine. But half the league disagrees with this, which is why we have a 50/50 split.

 

SO... how can we move on? What is the solution when the league is divided on an issue? And don't say the commish decides. That may be how you run your leagues, but we don't do it that way. We vote on every issue.

 

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. I see the thing about the trade with Tiki, but not the actual rule that's in dispute, as it is written.

 

If there is a rule, that rule stands until it is changed. It's that simple.

 

The problem is that this is a keeper league. You simply cannot trash that to change a rule. In a keeper league, as you should be well aware of, someone might sacrifice a chance to win one year, to get better the next year. If this is a money league, than that's written in stone man, you don't mess with that. If it's not, then it's not AS big of a deal...but it still is the principle of the thing.

 

Your league has a constitution for a reason. If the trade is being made within those rules, it MUST stand. Just because players don't like the outcome, or misunderstood the rule, is not a good enough reason to trash a keeper league.

 

You play by the rules, as written, it's that simple. And part of your rules no doubt state that players are allowed to be kept from year to year. So you can't just trash that.

 

But I'd STILL like to know what the exact wording of the rule was.

[joefry 0]

Then whoever is the commish needs to make the decision, because you need to avoid the redraft.

 

BUT, If you want the guy to stay and are DETERMINED to redraft then you are going have to give him something better then the #1 pick, because he had that already in addition to the players(and it doesnt sound like anyone else is giving up as much as he is). Maybe the #1 & #2 picks(IF he agrees he is still getting screwed).

 

 

He should get 1, 2 and 15 if you want to make it fair. The people who had crap for keppers should forfit their picks to accomodate, that would make it 'fair'. Why should someone who mismanaged their team in a keeper be rewaded with a mulligan? Sounds like a third grade Pokemon tournament is more competitive than this league.

[mobb_deep 917]

6 out of 12 in the league were split over the interpretation of trading players before declaring keepers. from there, you get 11 out of 12 owners agreeing to drop all keepers and redraft. wow. a gaggle of idiots, who are smarter and obviously more manipulative that Shakespeare, saw this as the best solution. it is very difficult to see how you go from that split to that agreement.

 

the only solution is to do exactly what you did. this is a 100% democracy and this is what the owners wanted. it seems like a lynching to me. the problem between shakespeare and the other posters is shakespeare is convinced that this is what was best for the league, nobody else does. our feeble sinful selfish minds cannot fathom this, your league did what it had to do. lj/fitz boy did what he had to do. i wouldn't walk away either because this is the start of a championship team with these keepers and the 1st pick. i'd do whatever it took to sway you little bitches into not changing the rules also as i take your money at the end of the year and for years to come.

 

IMO, trades should be allowed before teams declare their keepers if the trade is equitable and the players are of keeper quality.

 

I agree with the final part except it does present one problem. Owners often throw in draft picks to make trades that aren't initially equitable more balanced. The person receiving the draft picks often drops the player involved in the trade as he isn't "keeper quality" and is really just looking to obtain draft position. So I do agree with your statement but I'd probably add a stipulation that "any players involved in trades before keepers are declared must be included as that years keepers".

[steelers2101 7]

Ryan, I appreciate your interest and input. But, I'm not here to see what everyone thinks our rules mean. Our league is made up of relatively smart guys (myself not included) and there is a legitimate disagreement. My concern is more with how you resolve a split league and what kind of people you want in your group.

 

You're a fool that's just trying to hear what he wants to hear.

 

Let me spell it out for you:

 

PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW THE RULES SO THAT THEY CAN DETERMINE A FAIR SOLUTION.

 

MAYBE IF WE KNEW THE RULES WE WOULD KNOW WHETHER THROWING THE PLAYERS BACK IN THE DRAFT POOL IS NECESSARY.

 

I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT THOSE RULES SHOULD BE. THEY ONLY MATTER WITH REGARD TO WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR PEOPLE TO THROW THEIR PLAYERS BACK. GET IT, YOU MORON?

[mobb_deep 917]

You're a fool that's just trying to hear what he wants to hear.

 

Let me spell it out for you:

 

PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW THE RULES SO THAT THEY CAN DETERMINE A FAIR SOLUTION.

 

MAYBE IF WE KNEW THE RULES WE WOULD KNOW WHETHER THROWING THE PLAYERS BACK IN THE DRAFT POOL IS NECESSARY.

 

I KNOW I DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT THOSE RULES SHOULD BE. THEY ONLY MATTER WITH REGARD TO WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY FOR PEOPLE TO THROW THEIR PLAYERS BACK. GET IT, YOU MORON?

 

 

Hahaha, I know right. My boss would not be happy that i've invested this much of my day to this thread If I didn't atleast find out what the stupid rule was. Knowing that you're a friend to all of mankind, and your league is the greatest group of guys on the planet, is it really too much to ask for?

 

[Shakespeare 0]

First of all, I'm kind of proud that this has become such a hot topic. And, though I've spelled out the rules partially, it's clear that everyone wants the real-deal, word for word rules. But before that, I never insulted or attacked anyone (at least, not before being insulted or attacked myself). So, I'm not sure where all this hostility is coming from. Being a member here long enough, I guess it just comes with this site. Some people here are just dicks, I guess...

 

So... without further adeu:

 

 

Keeper Rules:

- Each team may keep up to 2 players from the previous draft.

- Free agents/waver-wire pickups may not be kept.

- In order to keep a player, a team must give up the draft position 3

places above where that player was drafted. The same will be true of

2nd year keepers and so on until that player can no longer be kept.

- If a player is traded, the new team inherits the draft position and

keeper status of that player.

- Teams are not required to declare their keepers until the Draft.

 

Trades:

- The trade deadline is the 11th Sunday of the season.

- Trades must be announced no later than 72 hours prior to the

respective player(s) next game for the roster change to apply for

that game.

- Off-season trading is permitted. This includes draft position

trading.

- Trades do not affect the player(s) original draft position. Keeper

status will remain unchanged.

 

Drug Rule:

- There is no drug rule.

[steelers2101 7]

I will say that the vote was over weather or not a GM could trade Tiki before the declaration of keepers, where we could only keep 2. Even though I would benefit from the owner *not* being able to trade (because Tiki would be available for *me*), I voted for his right to make the trade.

 

But I guess from now on I should just do what's best for me first, right? Because what I'm hearing is that's the way most people would do, so it must be the right way...

 

My league had the exact same issue. I'm the commish, and the person who stood to benefit from trading before keepers were announced was me.

 

We choose 3 keepers and last year I had:

 

LJ

LT

Chad Johnson

Lamont Jordan

Carson Palmer

 

 

I, as the Commish and the team that stood to benefit the most from trading players before keepers were announced, UNILATERALLY decided that it was in the best interest of the league that the teams with the most depth from last year not be able to stack their team up with picks by trading away players they couldn't keep anyway. I even had a trade lined up already (Lamont Jordan and my very last pick for the #7 overall pick). So basically I gave up the 7th pick of the draft for what I felt was best for the league.

 

How's that for thinking of the league before one's own interest. Also, the debate over this rule does not require people to throw their keepers back and start all over WHATSOEVER. You're retarded. That's my conclusion.

[lguero1 4]

in keeping with the tradition of the 100% democracy in this league, the redraft is your only option. it was voted upon. i would like to know your rule about putting everything up for a vote over the ambiguous rule concerning trades of potential keepers.

[joefry 0]

Now that you have posted the rules it is even more clear to me that you play in a league full of retards. Just tell the dipwads that they have to declare their keepers before they trade if it is that big a deal. Or maybe your commish should grow a set and make a decision that does not require screwing someone over BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!

 

P.S I may be a di*k, but your league is filled with a bunch of as*holes!!!!! Retarded As*holes.

[Ritchings 0]

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought it said "Owens threatens to quit the league"

 

Me Too!