rule discussion

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

 

u can pay your dues for free of charge in leaguesafe.

Only if the commish sets it up that way. Ive had leagues where thy set it to take credit card payments and it charges 3%. Had to ask commish to change settings to echeck. It was weird. Dont think it allowed for both at the time

[dehaven123 31]

Only if the commish sets it up that way. Ive had leagues where thy set it to take credit card payments and it charges 3%. Had to ask commish to change settings to echeck. It was weird. Dont think it allowed for both at the time

 

yep, your right. as a fellow commish, you must set it up to allow that option. its just a click. it takes a couple days to process, too, but that's not a big deal.

i dont see why we dont just go ahead and set it up.

[jocstrap 8]

My thoughts on Monies and New Rules

 

#1 Call me old fashion, but I like the check method. This is the first year there's ever been a problem on payments. To Moz's credit, he did privately email the recipients about what was going on, more than once. It wasn't like we were left in the dark. Yes payment has been slow, but checks are in hand...I'm not a big fan of a computer entity storing my money.

 

#2 Keeper - I like the way we've done it in the past. You get to keep 1 player as your first round pick. This makes the draft pool large with several studs being out there. It's just not as fun if up to 24 players are kept IMO. That's me keeping Jamaal Charles, and having to throw back Peyton Manning, or visa versa this year. As much as I would love to keep both, my vote is to keep it the same with NO new keeper rule added this year.

 

Just my $.02

[dehaven123 31]

My thoughts on Monies and New Rules

 

#1 Call me old fashion, but I like the check method. This is the first year there's ever been a problem on payments. To Moz's credit, he did privately email the recipients about what was going on, more than once. It wasn't like we were left in the dark. Yes payment has been slow, but checks are in hand...I'm not a big fan of a computer entity storing my money.

 

#2 Keeper - I like the way we've done it in the past. You get to keep 1 player as your first round pick. This makes the draft pool large with several studs being out there. It's just not as fun if up to 24 players are kept IMO. That's me keeping Jamaal Charles, and having to throw back Peyton Manning, or visa versa this year. As much as I would love to keep both, my vote is to keep it the same with NO new keeper rule added this year.

 

Just my $.02

 

im a little surprised, joc, esp since you were one of the ones who didn't get payment until the last wk. ur entitled to your own opinion tho. imo, u cant jus attriibute any comfort you take in that to being jus 'old fashioned'. this isn't a 'im a creature of habit' kind of thing here, joc.

fact is, in our current config, we're giving permission and authority to the commish to act as the steward of all of our money. that's it. not 'borrow it', not serve as an investment bank, or put it at risk at any other way. absolutely nothing else. nothing. it's not unreasonable for us to be able to expect to make our withdrawl of funds at yr's end, they should be there safely. that's exactly what leaguesafe ensures.

frankly, that wasn't a reality for us tho. this kind of thing can jeodardizes the tenure of the leaguemates, as well as the integrity, which takes away from all of our 'fun' in what is a great league.

consequently, any scenerio where we'd expose ourselves to this possibility again is silly. let's not be naive about this.

this has nothing to do with moz's situation leading to this offseason's delay, but should more of a learned experience now for us.

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

It seems to me that if a majority of people are voicing a preference for the usual keeper rules, we need to start some sort of petition to have Moz reverse his decision. Go back to the optional keeper for a 1st round pick.

 

and i agree from now on we need to have votes for rule changes. just makes more sense.

[dehaven123 31]

It seems to me that if a majority of people are voicing a preference for the usual keeper rules, we need to start some sort of petition to have Moz reverse his decision. Go back to the optional keeper for a 1st round pick.

 

and i agree from now on we need to have votes for rule changes. just makes more sense.

 

that would be ideal, no doubt. we shouldn't have these things done in a vacuum.

[Gepetto 1,374]

The announcement to change keeper rules, wasn't really a change, but how Moz originally set this league up. Also, the rule was in effect before last year's draft and cannot be changed for this year.

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

The announcement to change keeper rules, wasn't really a change, but how Moz originally set this league up. Also, the rule was in effect before last year's draft and cannot be changed for this year.

 

i would disagree on both points. while i can understand the argument of it being in effect before last years draft, the precedent in this league is to make rule changes on the fly.

 

also, the way the league was originally set up doesn't really matter. being that the last few (at least) years were a different set of keeper rules, this would be considered a change.

[Gepetto 1,374]

 

i would disagree on both points. while i can understand the argument of it being in effect before last years draft, the precedent in this league is to make rule changes on the fly.

 

also, the way the league was originally set up doesn't really matter. being that the last few (at least) years were a different set of keeper rules, this would be considered a change.

 

Everyone drafted knowing the rule change so I think your out of line trying to change it now and would argue it's not possible or acceptable to try and take away the transitional keeper.

[dehaven123 31]

 

i would disagree on both points. while i can understand the argument of it being in effect before last years draft, the precedent in this league is to make rule changes on the fly.

 

also, the way the league was originally set up doesn't really matter. being that the last few (at least) years were a different set of keeper rules, this would be considered a change.

 

this. put it to a vote, moz. no ill effects either way. let the masses decide.

[Little Big Head 6]

 

Everyone drafted knowing the rule change so I think your out of line trying to change it now and would argue it's not possible or acceptable to try and take away the transitional keeper.

I absolutely did not know the rule change. I know it was being discussed but since a number of owners didn't even comment on it or say one way or the other. Owners were also changing the rule all through that thread as if nothing had been decided. I'd assumed it would go to an official vote in the offseason

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

even if we are to assume the new keeper rules are set, the very nature of this thread seems to be a forum to bring up proposed rule changes and things to be looked at.

 

so even if the 'Franchise Player' and Transition Player' stay, at the very least im proposing we look at the following to vote on. (i think i already put this out there)

 

1. Franchise player still costs a 1st round pick and is optional just as it has been in the past.

 

2. If owners / Moz are dead set on having a transitional player with minimum 4th round cost, it needs to be opened up to use on players that were traded for as well as players acquired off waivers. Yes this directly impacts me (Stacy) but I think its reasonable that if you're allowing owners to keep late round fliers, you should also allow them to keep waiver finds. Hell, its still going to cost a 4th.

[famousb 11]

even if we are to assume the new keeper rules are set, the very nature of this thread seems to be a forum to bring up proposed rule changes and things to be looked at.

 

so even if the 'Franchise Player' and Transition Player' stay, at the very least im proposing we look at the following to vote on. (i think i already put this out there)

 

1. Franchise player still costs a 1st round pick and is optional just as it has been in the past.

 

2. If owners / Moz are dead set on having a transitional player with minimum 4th round cost, it needs to be opened up to use on players that were traded for as well as players acquired off waivers. Yes this directly impacts me (Stacy) but I think its reasonable that if you're allowing owners to keep late round fliers, you should also allow them to keep waiver finds. Hell, its still going to cost a 4th.

The reason I said a minimum of a 4th rounder was because a couple years ago I drafted Cam as a rookie in the 15th round. So with this rule in place, I could have kept him as my starting QB for a 14th round pick. I'm all for rewarding owners who DRAFT well, but not for ruining any year to year parity of the league...

[dehaven123 31]

there's no reason we cant come to a consensus at this point in time, even if its a shift change. the whole 'we decided it last offseason beofre the draft thing' hold zero water. everything in this league is fly by the seat of your pants, no reason why cant talk the second keeper thing through b4 the draft.

[dehaven123 31]

joc, why dont you creat a poll for leaguesafe and for the second keeper options? lets get it out there.

[Big Blue 06 195]

The announcement to change keeper rules, wasn't really a change, but how Moz originally set this league up. Also, the rule was in effect before last year's draft and cannot be changed for this year.

 

This was my thinking as well. Actually, I think there was a thread previously discussing changing it back to something else and this seemed to be the prevailing thought. I could be wrong, of course, but I thought I remembered that.

[Gepetto 1,374]

I absolutely did not know the rule change. I know it was being discussed but since a number of owners didn't even comment on it or say one way or the other. Owners were also changing the rule all through that thread as if nothing had been decided. I'd assumed it would go to an official vote in the offseason

That's on you. Everyone is responsible for reading every thread, especially a thread started by the Commissioner before last year's draft. And it's pinned.

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

The reason I said a minimum of a 4th rounder was because a couple years ago I drafted Cam as a rookie in the 15th round. So with this rule in place, I could have kept him as my starting QB for a 14th round pick. I'm all for rewarding owners who DRAFT well, but not for ruining any year to year parity of the league...

 

oh, i totally agree on not letting people keep studs for 14th or 15th round picks. i think its a good rule. I think lowering it to a 7th or 8th is better but a 4th is fine. it does help with parity.

 

my biggest sticking point, which i just found out, is that transitional player cant be a undrafted player... makes NO sense. Rewarding someone for drafting well in the 15th round should really be no different than rewarding them for snagging a waiver gem a few weeks before they blow up.

 

so those are the two issues i want to put to a vote and maybe someone else can second it.

 

1. franchise player is still optional at cost of a 1st

2. transitional player (which is every other year) costs the round they were drafted in (minimum 4th round) and can be used on any player.

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

That's on you. Everyone is responsible for reading every thread, especially a thread started by the Commissioner before last year's draft. And it's pinned.

 

i understand your views on the situation but FYI if you go read that thread, there is a lot of discussion regarding the costs for transitional that Moz never clearly defines other than to say he agrees with various owners. doesnt look like he ever even edited the original post to reflect the hard rules. that might be nit picking considering the cavalier nature of this league but i stand by my offerings to vote on, at the very least, the specifics of the rule

[Gepetto 1,374]

There can be no legal vote except for the 2015 season.

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

There can be no legal vote except for the 2015 season.

Why

[Little Big Head 6]

 

i understand your views on the situation but FYI if you go read that thread, there is a lot of discussion regarding the costs for transitional that Moz never clearly defines other than to say he agrees with various owners. doesnt look like he ever even edited the original post to reflect the hard rules. that might be nit picking considering the cavalier nature of this league but i stand by my offerings to vote on, at the very least, the specifics of the rule

Exactly

[Little Big Head 6]

That's on you. Everyone is responsible for reading every thread, especially a thread started by the Commissioner before last year's draft. And it's pinned.

Right and by reading that thread I still don't know what the rule is. Again, through the whole thread people are suggesting different things for that rule and moz is saying they are good ideas. There is nothing there that would make me think there was anything decided

[Big Blue 06 195]

if its put to a vote, if, my vote is not n favor of the new rule. ive expressed the same sentment since it was imposed, i dont like it. no reason to change a good thing. but if you do, at least put it to a vote.

 

Not trying to be a d1ck here (the thing that people always say before acting like a total d1ck). Having said that, you were the first one to respond in the rules thread where Moz brought this up and you're exact quote was "ok by me". That is you being against the new rule since it was imposed? That isn't what I got from your response.

[Little Big Head 6]

There can be no legal vote except for the 2015 season.

Isn't what the majority of the league wants the most important thing? How about this? All rule changes need to be voted on since there was no vote the new rule is voided and should be officially voted on by all 12 owners to go into effect. Also can there be a new vote in 2015? As I understand what moz is saying owners can choose 2014 or 2015 to select a transitional player. If owners decide they want to choose one for 2015 only to have the rule thrown out I think that would be really screwing those owners and completely unfair

[WhiteWonder 2,767]

hey its fine and dandy if you want to claim that the rule was set before the 2013 draft and it needs to stay. But where that argument goes out the window is on the details of the rule. At the MOST, Moz has decided there will be a Franchise Keeper and Transitional Keeper.

 

From there, nothing has been set. Ideas were tossed about and Moz responded favorably to some of them but never set anything in stone.

 

I would need to hear a compelling argument for why we can't vote on points such as the minimum cost for a transitional as well as the other two I keep mentioning. ability to transition a non drafted player and making franchise player still cost a 1st. These issues seem pretty akin to voting on something like tie breaker rules

[famousb 11]

fock it, why don't we just can the 2014 league year and you can all just send me your money - cause that's what you'll be doing anyway...

it'll save a lot of this bickering and arguing from your Grumpy Old Men... Which is Jack and which is Walter, i'm not certain...

[Gepetto 1,374]

You guys should have complained about this before last year's draft. We drafted based on the rules in 2013 that affect 2014 and 2015, etc. Title of relevent thread is NEW RULE... in capital letters.

[Little Big Head 6]

The draft really had no impact at all on this rule IMO so stop telling us that is some kind of big deal. People are going to change their draft strategy based on this rule? Come on what a load of crap.

As for pointing out that the thread is in capital letters...so what. The point is still that nothing definite ever came of that thread. It ends with 3 owners not happy with moz's original proposal and making suggestions and moz agreeing with them.

[famousb 11]

The draft really had no impact at all on this rule IMO so stop telling us that is some kind of big deal. People are going to change their draft strategy based on this rule? Come on what a load of crap.

As for pointing out that the thread is in capital letters...so what. The point is still that nothing definite ever came of that thread. It ends with 3 owners not happy with moz's original proposal and making suggestions and moz agreeing with them.

and then all but disappearing for the year...

[Gepetto 1,374]

The draft really had no impact at all on this rule IMO so stop telling us that is some kind of big deal. People are going to change their draft strategy based on this rule? Come on what a load of crap.

As for pointing out that the thread is in capital letters...so what. The point is still that nothing definite ever came of that thread. It ends with 3 owners not happy with moz's original proposal and making suggestions and moz agreeing with them.

 

I specifically drafted Josh Gordon and Justin Blackmon knowing that their value was lower last year because they were suspended for 2 and 4 games. But, I knew I had the option to keep a transitional player for 2014 which was part of my overall draft plan in 2013. It's against the rules to change now, only change can be done for 2015 (or maybe even 2016 since it's an every other year rule, but would need a convincing argument to actually agree with that one.)

[Little Big Head 6]

It's against what rule to change now? Do we even know what the rule is? That thread didn't end with any clarity as far as I'm concerned. Where is Moz to help us understand what is going on with it.

[dehaven123 31]

so i the waiver wire master dont get to keep say k allen because i pickd him up off waivers unless its my free keeper? sorry, not cool. makes zero sense, too.

[dehaven123 31]

 

Not trying to be a d1ck here (the thing that people always say before acting like a total d1ck). Having said that, you were the first one to respond in the rules thread where Moz brought this up and you're exact quote was "ok by me". That is you being against the new rule since it was imposed? That isn't what I got from your response.

 

i didn't know i couldn't keep a waver wire guy.

in retrospect, i hate the rule, too.

im entitled to that.

[dehaven123 31]

and then all but disappearing for the year...

 

where the fook is moz anyway? :leagueisgointohellinnahandbasket:

#Mia

[Gepetto 1,374]

 

i didn't know i couldn't keep a waver wire guy.

in retrospect, i hate the rule, too.

im entitled to that.

 

It's stated clearly by Moz in the main post of the New Rule thread that the transitional keeper can only be a player you drafted, that you replied: "ok by me" to.

[dehaven123 31]

 

It's stated clearly by Moz in the main post of the New Rule thread that the transitional keeper can only be a player you drafted, that you replied: "ok by me" to.

 

its stoopid. i said in retrospect. i retract me previous 'ok by me' and replace it with a 'i hate it'.

still think it should be put to a vote.

[Gepetto 1,374]

 

its stoopid. i said in retrospect. i retract me previous 'ok by me' and replace it with a 'i hate it'.

still think it should be put to a vote.

 

Why do you hate it?

[dehaven123 31]

 

Why do you hate it?

 

twofold i guess.

first, i hate changing a good thing.

two, i dont like the unilateral switch in format.

 

why do you like it?

[Gepetto 1,374]

 

twofold i guess.

first, i hate changing a good thing.

two, i dont like the unilateral switch in format.

 

why do you like it?

 

Before I answer "why do I like it", what does "unilateral switch in format" mean? What don't you like about a required one keeper and a every other year optional 2nd keeper specifically?