SKYWALKER WINS RR NBA Dynasty League - S3

[tucas]

My concern isn't over the ability of the commish tools but rather the ramifications. Games have been played, waiver claims been taken, etc etc etc

Its nothing that hasnt been done before. Soft Euro overturned 2 trades that I made back in season 1, weeks later. There's not much to do about the scores but I dont think any of the players have changed the outcome of a week yet. Waiver dollars can easily be reassigned to the respective managers. After my trades were overturned I worked out "fix trades" almost instantly. But as it stands I don't believe it will be voted against.

[tucas]

On going tally of results, remember February 1st deadline - if I've made mistake, let me know and I'll fix:

1) Dates and deadlines for draft, resigns, years assigned, roster set for auction.
August 1st - draft
September 1st - resigns declared
October 1st - years assigned
7 days prior to auction - final rosters
Sunday before opener - FA Auction

Yes: mcHAPPY, tucas, Axel, skywalker
No:


2) in season roster sizes
Can go under 15 - Cap hold (1 year) placed for any roster spot not filled - intent to fill a.s.a.p via Waiver Wire

Yes: mcHAPPY, tucas, Axel, skywalker
No:


3) off season roster sizes
No limit - have roster to 15 or less 7 days prior to FA auction

Yes: mcHAPPY, tucas, Axel, skywalker
No:


4) legality of trading a player for cap space/years
1 for 0 trades

Yes: mcHAPPY, tucas, Axel, skwalker
No:


5) number of adds per week in season/playoffs*

No restrictions in season
Yes: mcHAPPY, tucas
No: Axel, skywalker

No restrictions in playoffs
Yes:
No: mcHAPPY, Axel, skywalker

*Difference in regular season versus playoffs needs to be addressed, in my opinion


6) buying in/money

Yes:
No: mcHAPPY, tucas, Axel, skywalker


7) legality of moves that are not clearly stated/specified*
Allowed

Yes: mcHAPPY, tucas
No:

*I suggest seeing how the vote goes and then deciding if retroactive changes are made or if ban from future moves.


8) adding a player without an NBA contract (usually going to be foreign draft pick, i.e. owning rights)

Yes: skywalker
No: mcHAPPY, Axel

Count me as a no for the last one. In terms of playoff adds I think our current rule is fine. No resigning players you add in the playoffs.

[jbml]

There is wait list:

http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/forum...l=1#post359758

Mack11 and Mikenstein are active on forums.

This is fucking ridiculous

[Axel]

This is fucking ridiculous

It's comments like this that are causing this conversation to keep taking steps back.

Everyone needs to cut the attitude and just stick to the facts.

[Joey]

1) dates
I think for the most part the dates are down except within respect to issue #3. If I'm missing something else I'll address it.
2) roster sizes in season
I vote there should be no restrictions on trades forcing equal numbers of player to be exchanged so long as the team is filled back to 15 via the wire ASAP.
3) roster sizes out of season
I vote on no restrictions on roster sizes out of the season, but looking at how early free agency was discussed last offseason I don't think 2 days is enough. People need time to adjust their draft strategy. I'm willing to vote for a 15 man max roster a week before our draft.(gives a week of preseason to see your players play)
4) legality of player for cap year trades (or nothing as some call it)
I vote in favour of cap year trades.
5) number adds per week in season/playoffs
I don't see an issue in this anymore with the addition of our waiver wire this season. I vote no restrictions.
6)Money in future seasons.
I vote against it. Could get sticky if someones in charge of holding the money and tensions boil.


Also please refrain from arguing votes as thats clearly already been done. Minds have been made up so votes should be cast and left at that.

1) The only Date that was ever going to be voted on was when a Roster must be pared down to 15 guys. All other dates have been established and voted on in the past. For the paring of the roster specifically, I'm fine with 1 week Prior to draft. Nothing else should be changing with regards to Dates set though.

2) Was never a question of restricting Trades to equal number of players .. was more in reaction to mcHAPPY making 3 trades in a row that put him at 12 guys. I think Axels suggestion of all Empty Spots holding a 1-year Cap Hold is Money in the Bank. Sold. But claims to fill said spots must be placed immediately.

3) Once again, 1 week prior to FA Draft is fine for paring a roster back down to 15.

4) I think the inclusion of current-cash as a trade asset is a better way to approach this.

5) Think I missed when this specifically became an issue, but I'd be open to restricting Waiver movement in the Playoffs, and if we do explore restricting moves in season, I think what might be better is restricting not the weekly moves, but restricting how many waiver moves can be placed throughout the season as a whole.

6) I'm open to $20, but I could see where some would disagree at this stage in the game. (And I would obviously hold all the monies and decide when/if I want to give it away at the end of the season. )

7) Legality of moves not explicity stated as Legal - I think this sets a VERY dangerous precedent. I personally think its absolutely ridiculous to think that if anything is not explicitely stated, then it is to be considered Legal.

8) Players not in the League - I thought we voted on this already. If you want to use a roster spot to hold them, fine. But they must fit within your 15 men roster.

[Joey]

But as has been stated, we are also not in the business of encouraging our managers to jump ship. On the contrary, we would like to ensure all Managers feel welcome to share their opinion, and feel that they are sharing it in an environment that is "professional" and courteous, and respectful.

[Joey]

You are doing nothing to move this situation forward.

I feel like I am, actually, mcHAPPY.
As a Moderator with RR, and Commissioner of this League, it doesn't hurt to remind everyone to be courteous and respectful of one another.

[jbml]

I am sorry you feel that way.

Unfortunately we have an owner who wants out and has been adamant since stating it.

We had a wait list for these very reasons.

No one is irreplaceable - we've had new owners come in and league keeps moving along.

To sit in the commish chair and encourage people to leave on what certainly seems to be a disagreement with your approach tothe game is not acceptable

[Joey]

At what point do you stop Commissioner-ing and moderating based on your option, Joey?

Opinion**?
You always seem to try and call me on this, but I can't find anyone that supports this mcHAPPY. So I'll just ignore these accusations from you. Not worth addressing.

It is clear you don't like me. I get that. I can handle it. And I really don't care. But the constant pile on with every single "like" or comment supporting anything that is different that I put out there is getting to be a bit much. You are acting like a little instagator instead of resolving the issues at hand.

Once again mcHAPPY, this has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with the moves you have made revealing inconsistencies. I "like" comments that reflect my point of view, is there an issue with that? How is that instigating?

As tucas already stated, enough bickering and debate. The issues are on the table, have your say, and lets move onwards.

I've stated numerous times I'm willing to go with what majority wish to do. I suggest you sit back and let people have their say.

I wasn't bickering or debating .. you felt it was necessary to remind everyone how easy it is to replace Fully, and I felt it necessary to remind everyone that not all commissioners feel that way.

Now then, moving on.

[Axel]

Joey and Matt, you two need to hash out your shit in the PMs, cause it's far too distracting when it's on here.

Everyone else, just needs to vote and not add fuel to the fire.

[Joey]

On going tally of results, remember February 1st deadline - if I've made mistake, let me know and I'll fix:

1) Dates and deadlines for draft, resigns, years assigned, roster set for auction.
August 1st - draft
September 1st - resigns declared
October 1st - years assigned
7 days prior to auction - final rosters
Sunday before opener - FA Auction

Yes: mcHAPPY, tucas, Axel, skywalker
No: Joey

Why am I no here? As I stated, the only dates that should be voted on is the Date to have rosters pared down. None of the other Dates were ever being put up for vote. I agreed with the 7 days prior ...

[Axel]

I thank Axel for stepping up - as a non-commissioner and non-moderator - for addressing the situation.

I got you guys covered..

[Axel]

Why am I no here? As I stated, the only dates that should be voted on is the Date to have rosters pared down. None of the other Dates were ever being put up for vote. I agreed with the 7 days prior ...

Yeah, I was just going back to look at what you wrote cause I basically agreed with what you said but ended up on the other side of the vote. But like I said, I don't fully understand what yay or nay means for the first one.

[Joey]

As fun (read: not fun) as reading through this thread has been, I do feel the need to weigh in once more on something tucas said. The NBA CBA is by definition a document of the things you CAN do, not the things you CAN'T. So if something is unclear in the NBA CBA, it is illegal. This came up recently with Faried's contract extension - the wording was unclear about whether or not he could extend for the full 5 years as designated player if he did not get the max salary. As such, it was by default decided that he could not, and his deal was reworked (it had already been signed, but was deemed illegal by the NBA head office) to 4 years in length.

Now, this is not meant to be an argument one way or the other here, but in the interests of future discussions, I think we should have a clarification of this sort written into the CBA - if a situation is not explicitly covered by the Dynasty CBA, what is the default decision. If we have a clause like that in place, discussions like this need not be rushed. Whichever way it is written (all unwritten things are illegal, or all unwritten things are legal), we'd know how to treat the situation immediately, and a vote could be had at an appropriate time about possibly including/excluding that scenario for the next season. Perhaps, if this seems like a reasonable thing to have in place, we should add the intent of the clause (automatically illegal vs automatically legal) to the list of items to be voted on.

Thanks for this Dan. I think this needs to set the precedence for "Un-listed Rules". Like this is basically the Rule-of-Rules.

[Joey]

I also am of the belief that just because somethings not in the rules as "illegal", doesn't make it legal. It just mean it's something that hasn't been thought of before.

Sorry Tucas, not to re-quote you, but I saw you listed as "No" on the tally for this one, and remembered you saying this last night. Wondering if something got missed?