|
|
Post by Don Draper on Jul 15, 2013 11:06:49 GMT -4
The official rules state August 1st for protected lists, but an exception was created for this year only to make time for the expansion draft. It was announced in May in the first thread of this year's general discussion thread, and then re-stated with this thread with two week's notice. Disregard the second paragraph of my first post... glad to see we're all paying attention.  |
|
|
|
Post by Don Draper on Jul 15, 2013 11:07:04 GMT -4
The official rules state August 1st for protected lists, but an exception was created for this year only to make time for the expansion draft. It was announced in May in the first thread of this year's general discussion thread, and then re-stated with this thread with two week's notice. Disregard the second paragraph of my first post... glad to see we're all paying attention. |
|
|
|
Post by J4M13 on Jul 15, 2013 11:09:40 GMT -4
That's why I don't think it's unfair to give Reesor a shot at players not protected by ...now.
It doesn't help or hurt any of the rest of us, and losing one player is a lot better than losing all of them. The deadline was clearly stated, plenty of time was given, and the vast majority have complied. Also, I believe the new timeline was put in place after agreeing to an expansion team, to allow that expansion GM some time to pick a roster and make any deals he sees fit prior to the August 1st hard deadline. In this situation, I think it's more of a one-time amendment than a change in the official rule.
Also, I remember some discussion during and after the draft about rules to speed up teams who were causing delays. For the same reasons I agreed to that principle then, I agree with sanctions for "slow play" now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Y Ddraig Goch on Jul 15, 2013 11:13:06 GMT -4
Randy Gazzola has officially been released by the Digby Dragons.
On behalf of the management, players and staff of the entire Digby Dragons organisation, we thank Randy for his efforts during his time with the franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Banker on Jul 15, 2013 11:38:07 GMT -4
I'm inclined to agree with Tay Creek - three teams could lose top players, while only one is able to benefit (Arichat). I don't want to say that Arichat can't pick ANY players from the three stragglers, because they currently own players who would otherwise be available.
Consider this amendment: Arichat may pick ONE player from the combined pool between the three teams. That player is lost to his old team. His old team then has the opportunity to protect five other players. The other two teams who did not have a player taken can protect only four players.
All three late teams lose a player. Arichat gains only one.
|
|
|
|
Post by J4M13 on Jul 15, 2013 11:56:46 GMT -4
Interesting...the teams are all punished, but in different ways. Arichat benefits, but not enough to go from 0 to powerhouse with this one ruling alone.
If I was one of those GMs, I'd be offering Arichat a sweet deal to draft my 5th-6th best player. I'd rather have 5 players than 4, but maybe that's just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Draper on Jul 15, 2013 12:22:28 GMT -4
I'm inclined to agree with Tay Creek - three teams could lose top players, while only one is able to benefit (Arichat). I don't want to say that Arichat can't pick ANY players from the three stragglers, because they currently own players who would otherwise be available. Consider this amendment: Arichat may pick ONE player from the combined pool between the three teams. That player is lost to his old team. His old team then has the opportunity to protect five other players. The other two teams who did not have a player taken can protect only four players. All three late teams lose a player. Arichat gains only one. I'm a fan of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Jul 15, 2013 12:59:32 GMT -4
Seems like a good compromise to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by countryboy on Jul 15, 2013 13:33:12 GMT -4
Agree.
Sounds like the best way to address the issue.
cb
|
|
|
|
Post by L'il Boy on Jul 15, 2013 13:45:41 GMT -4
I'm inclined to agree with Tay Creek - three teams could lose top players, while only one is able to benefit (Arichat). I don't want to say that Arichat can't pick ANY players from the three stragglers, because they currently own players who would otherwise be available. Consider this amendment: Arichat may pick ONE player from the combined pool between the three teams. That player is lost to his old team. His old team then has the opportunity to protect five other players. The other two teams who did not have a player taken can protect only four players. All three late teams lose a player. Arichat gains only one. I wasn't aware that there was an exception to the rule, so I apologize. However. I shouldn't have to go rooting through threads to find this out....it should have been posted on the official rules page. My intentions were good!  I do like the compromise though..... |
|
|
|
Post by Beaver Banker on Jul 15, 2013 13:54:02 GMT -4
I'm inclined to agree with Tay Creek - three teams could lose top players, while only one is able to benefit (Arichat). I don't want to say that Arichat can't pick ANY players from the three stragglers, because they currently own players who would otherwise be available. Consider this amendment: Arichat may pick ONE player from the combined pool between the three teams. That player is lost to his old team. His old team then has the opportunity to protect five other players. The other two teams who did not have a player taken can protect only four players. All three late teams lose a player. Arichat gains only one. I wasn't aware that there was an exception to the rule, so I apologize. However. I shouldn't have to go rooting through threads to find this out....it should have been posted on the official rules page. My intentions were good! I do like the compromise though..... Hey - there's just one guy running this thing. If there are things that don't look quite right, then definitely speak up. The reason I didn't change the official rules was that I didn't consider it a permanent change. That said, I like now having two weeks to build a draft list, so once we're into next season, I'll be proposing a move to earlier - probably July 15 - for final protect list submissions. We'll go ahead with the "compromise". |
|
|
|
Post by MJNICK44 on Jul 15, 2013 15:12:02 GMT -4
I also like the comprise proposed above. It seems fair to all involved. There are deadlines for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penguins23® on Jul 15, 2013 15:19:58 GMT -4
I also like the comprise proposed above. It seems fair to all involved. There are deadlines for a reason. You're right. Apparently they're there so that can be reduced by 16 days  |
|
|
|
Post by Don Draper on Jul 15, 2013 15:42:50 GMT -4
I also like the comprise proposed above. It seems fair to all involved. There are deadlines for a reason. You're right. Apparently they're there so that can be reduced by 16 days You're just upset because this could adversely affect your "dream team" |
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Jul 20, 2013 21:57:42 GMT -4
I'm inclined to agree with Tay Creek - three teams could lose top players, while only one is able to benefit (Arichat). I don't want to say that Arichat can't pick ANY players from the three stragglers, because they currently own players who would otherwise be available. Consider this amendment: Arichat may pick ONE player from the combined pool between the three teams. That player is lost to his old team. His old team then has the opportunity to protect five other players. The other two teams who did not have a player taken can protect only four players. All three late teams lose a player. Arichat gains only one. why amend anything? I like all the GM's here, but it was clearly announced, and a deadline is a deadline. If you are going to change rules to protect teams for this one, it's going to be hard not to do the same in the future. |
|
