[quote:127118a27b]Look at it like this- every owner gets 15 picks, no matter what.[/quote:127118a27b]
I agree with Sandy here. This is not a true statement. Each owner picks in rounds equal to the number players they drop + vacancies they: have UP TO 15 picks. If you drop only five players and have no vacancies you do not have Draft Picks #6-15... those draft picks are equal to players on your roster (#26-35). Another way of thinking of it is that each manager enters the draft with 40 roster spots: current players + picks. If you were to consider picks 6-15 as part of your roster in the case that you mention, you would have 50 roster spots (35 active + 15 picks) which is unfair to teams making a larger number of drops (They drop 15 leaving 25 active + 15 picks = 40).
Sandy's post seems to be the most logical thing to do here. If you drop below you make up the roster space in the Supp or FA Draft within the set # of Rounds. [b:127118a27b]I would add to that that if you trade a pick above the 5th round you should have to drop enough players to make that trade possible (so that you actually would own the pick).[/b:127118a27b]
The Original USKL -- TSN Version 2011 (Chat Room)
by cirills » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:03 pm
[quote:5aa7268ecc]I would add to that that if you trade a pick above the 5th round you should have to drop enough players to make that trade possible (so that you actually would own the pick).
[/quote:5aa7268ecc]
That's actually an interesting take too FD. Previously, I had felt that in leiu of that you had to give up the closest pick but your plan puts more onus on the person to think thru his trading that draft pick.
I kind of like that idea.
[/quote:5aa7268ecc]
That's actually an interesting take too FD. Previously, I had felt that in leiu of that you had to give up the closest pick but your plan puts more onus on the person to think thru his trading that draft pick.
I kind of like that idea.
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by kaviksdad » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:05 am
It bothers me some to think that we are essentially being penalized for making unbalanced trades. I do see the your point Sandy, but forcing a manager to play with only 39 (or 38, 37 - how low can it go?) doesn't seem fair.
How about allowing the manager to bring his roster back up to 40 players at the end of the free agent draft, after everyone else has had their picks and restocked their rosters? Its not like any other manager would have missed a chance to select any player subsequently taken in the "roster restocking" end of the draft. Letting a manager bring his roster up to 40 by picking players everyone else has already passed on seems a nice compromise.
How about allowing the manager to bring his roster back up to 40 players at the end of the free agent draft, after everyone else has had their picks and restocked their rosters? Its not like any other manager would have missed a chance to select any player subsequently taken in the "roster restocking" end of the draft. Letting a manager bring his roster up to 40 by picking players everyone else has already passed on seems a nice compromise.
- kaviksdad
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:41 am
The only problem I see with that KD is that one still might use that as an option to get past the alotted maximums, whether it be at the end or now. I know that in this last FA draft that I dropped 15 and STILL would have loved to have had a couple more picks. It simply wouldn't be fair to those type teams. They would almost be "encouraged" to make a dump trade before the draft to cover that.
I also think you are overstating the "[i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]unfairness[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5]" of it all, because it is [b:5430ebc0f5]ONLY[/b:5430ebc0f5] going to apply to people who are under 40 players [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]AND [/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5]want to drop the maximum 15 players. The lowest amount we have on a roster is 39 right now, so if they drop 14 or less they will be able to get back to 40 no prob.
[i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]As long as the maximums are in place[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] then I don't think we should allow more picks than it, and esp. during a Supp. Draft. [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]If we did away with the FA Draft maximum[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] (fyi -- the HCKL has NO FA Draft maximum), [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]then there would be no problems at all [/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5]with people doing EXACTLY as you prescribed. I think [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]THAT[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] is the only solution to what you perceive as a dillemma. Personally, I think that may be the best solution to this affair and [i:5430ebc0f5]I actually smell another proposal coming on. [/i:5430ebc0f5]
And like FD just pointed out, I don't think people should be trading FA picks that they don't even intend to have so I really believe they MUST drop at least as many to a traded pick.
I DO know that this whole issue has frustrated me some (a lot) and I have tried to come up with the most fair and logical way of handling it that I can see, based on our [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]current[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] parameters. (As soon as I get a few minutes, [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]I will put together The Proposal to change our FA Draft into one with no maximum rounds so that we can eliminate this problem once and for all[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] -- the Supp. Draft will remain as it is since we have alreayd voted on that one).
I also think you are overstating the "[i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]unfairness[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5]" of it all, because it is [b:5430ebc0f5]ONLY[/b:5430ebc0f5] going to apply to people who are under 40 players [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]AND [/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5]want to drop the maximum 15 players. The lowest amount we have on a roster is 39 right now, so if they drop 14 or less they will be able to get back to 40 no prob.
[i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]As long as the maximums are in place[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] then I don't think we should allow more picks than it, and esp. during a Supp. Draft. [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]If we did away with the FA Draft maximum[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] (fyi -- the HCKL has NO FA Draft maximum), [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]then there would be no problems at all [/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5]with people doing EXACTLY as you prescribed. I think [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]THAT[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] is the only solution to what you perceive as a dillemma. Personally, I think that may be the best solution to this affair and [i:5430ebc0f5]I actually smell another proposal coming on. [/i:5430ebc0f5]
And like FD just pointed out, I don't think people should be trading FA picks that they don't even intend to have so I really believe they MUST drop at least as many to a traded pick.
I DO know that this whole issue has frustrated me some (a lot) and I have tried to come up with the most fair and logical way of handling it that I can see, based on our [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]current[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] parameters. (As soon as I get a few minutes, [i:5430ebc0f5][b:5430ebc0f5]I will put together The Proposal to change our FA Draft into one with no maximum rounds so that we can eliminate this problem once and for all[/b:5430ebc0f5][/i:5430ebc0f5] -- the Supp. Draft will remain as it is since we have alreayd voted on that one).
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Another Proposal ....
by cirills » Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:13 pm
All right gang, it's time to nip these trade issues in the bud once and for all.
I assume most of you by now have been following the recent round of posts on this thread pertaining to unbalanced trades and how they affect roster size, and what can be done about building those under-sized rosters up to their 40 man capacity.
The biggest obstacle I see against simply allowing picks at the end of the FA Draft or Supp. Draft is that it potentially allows owners to go around the imposed maximums we currently have on said drafts.
Now, we have previously voted on the amound of rounds in the Supplemental Draft so that will remain unchanged at 3 round maximum. If an owner with less than 40 players going into a Supplemental Draft wishes to add players, he can simply drop less players. [b:cc409f44f0]No one will be allowed to add more players than the maximum amount of rounds (3) [i:cc409f44f0]unless you make a trade for another owner's supplemental draft picks[/i:cc409f44f0].[/b:cc409f44f0]
As far as the annual Free Agent Draft is concerned the current maximum is 15 rounds. We have already voted on the minimum number of drops that must be made (5) so that will remain unchanged as well. HOWEVER, [u:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]dissolving the maximum [/b:cc409f44f0][/u:cc409f44f0]will allow any teams with less than 40 man rosters heading into a FA Draft to simply add as many players as necessary (in addition to the picks they get for dropped players).
For those who voted against expanding the Supplemental Draft for fears of dillution, I really don't think this might a real concern in the FA Draft for several reasons.
Looking at the various rosters in our league, I really do not see many that will be dropping the current maximum number of players (15). Some of those that might, I believe will actually be simply swapping out players of one side (LH or RH) for park preferences and the like and others might easily fall under the category of "one man's junk is another man's pleasure". In any case, all the players that an owner will drop heading into a FA Draft will be available as FA IN THAT Draft so dillution really should not be an issue. I simply do not see someone dropping over half of their current teams. However, that is NOT to say that I do not understand the fears or concerns of those that may feel otherwise.
However, the dillution of the FA Draft maximum is the only real fool-proof solution I see to those wanting to use it to bring undersized rosters back up to 40 man capacities heading . [b:cc409f44f0]REMEMBER THOUGH, the lowest number of players a roster has at the present is 39, so under the current rules, [i:cc409f44f0]all that owner would have to do is drop one less than the maximum (14) and they could have one additional pick to get back to 40 [/i:cc409f44f0](unless they trade one of their Draft picks and then they would have that many less as well). [/b:cc409f44f0]
There is nothing that says an owner HAS to drop 15 players you know. :wink:
Another con might be that since the USKL does NOT currently have a Prospect Draft (like the HCKL) that an unlimited amount of rounds in the FA Draft could mean a dillution of the rookie talent. A counter to that would be that those players will be available to all (with no maximums) and it would present an interesting dillemma/decision for owners to play for the now or the future, making them drop perhaps a perfectly productive player for the upcoming season.
This is just some of the various Pros and Cons that I can think of, so without further delay or rambling by me it is time to put it to a vote:
[size=15:cc409f44f0][u:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]THE PROPOSAL:[/b:cc409f44f0][/u:cc409f44f0][/size:cc409f44f0] [i:cc409f44f0]To abolish the current maximum on the number of rounds each owner may participate in (barring trades) during the FA draft. [/i:cc409f44f0] This would mean that an owner could drop as many players as they would like and replace them with Free Agents. It also means that rosters that are undersized heading into a FA Draft will be allowed to draft as many players in addition to their drops as necessary to get their rosters back up to a 40 man capacity. (For what it's worth -- this is/will be the same way the HCKL will be run for those of you that play in that league as well).
[color=red:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]NOTE:[/b:cc409f44f0][/color:cc409f44f0] Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the [size=15:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]FOWLDAWG COROLLARY [/b:cc409f44f0][/size:cc409f44f0]will NOW go into effect. [i:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]This means that if you choose to trade say for example a 9th round pick in an upcoming FA Draft that you are then required to drop that many players so that you will actually HAVE a 9th round pick. This forces both owners in a trade of Draft picks to protect the integrity of the trade.[/b:cc409f44f0][/i:cc409f44f0]
Ayes:
Nays:
Still to vote: AF Dickie, Bubba Hotep, Cubit, Cummings2, Detroit-Tigers, Fowldawg, Ninersphan, Kaviksdad, Nythawk, Qksilver, Sandlotshrink, Stoney18
I assume most of you by now have been following the recent round of posts on this thread pertaining to unbalanced trades and how they affect roster size, and what can be done about building those under-sized rosters up to their 40 man capacity.
The biggest obstacle I see against simply allowing picks at the end of the FA Draft or Supp. Draft is that it potentially allows owners to go around the imposed maximums we currently have on said drafts.
Now, we have previously voted on the amound of rounds in the Supplemental Draft so that will remain unchanged at 3 round maximum. If an owner with less than 40 players going into a Supplemental Draft wishes to add players, he can simply drop less players. [b:cc409f44f0]No one will be allowed to add more players than the maximum amount of rounds (3) [i:cc409f44f0]unless you make a trade for another owner's supplemental draft picks[/i:cc409f44f0].[/b:cc409f44f0]
As far as the annual Free Agent Draft is concerned the current maximum is 15 rounds. We have already voted on the minimum number of drops that must be made (5) so that will remain unchanged as well. HOWEVER, [u:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]dissolving the maximum [/b:cc409f44f0][/u:cc409f44f0]will allow any teams with less than 40 man rosters heading into a FA Draft to simply add as many players as necessary (in addition to the picks they get for dropped players).
For those who voted against expanding the Supplemental Draft for fears of dillution, I really don't think this might a real concern in the FA Draft for several reasons.
Looking at the various rosters in our league, I really do not see many that will be dropping the current maximum number of players (15). Some of those that might, I believe will actually be simply swapping out players of one side (LH or RH) for park preferences and the like and others might easily fall under the category of "one man's junk is another man's pleasure". In any case, all the players that an owner will drop heading into a FA Draft will be available as FA IN THAT Draft so dillution really should not be an issue. I simply do not see someone dropping over half of their current teams. However, that is NOT to say that I do not understand the fears or concerns of those that may feel otherwise.
However, the dillution of the FA Draft maximum is the only real fool-proof solution I see to those wanting to use it to bring undersized rosters back up to 40 man capacities heading . [b:cc409f44f0]REMEMBER THOUGH, the lowest number of players a roster has at the present is 39, so under the current rules, [i:cc409f44f0]all that owner would have to do is drop one less than the maximum (14) and they could have one additional pick to get back to 40 [/i:cc409f44f0](unless they trade one of their Draft picks and then they would have that many less as well). [/b:cc409f44f0]
There is nothing that says an owner HAS to drop 15 players you know. :wink:
Another con might be that since the USKL does NOT currently have a Prospect Draft (like the HCKL) that an unlimited amount of rounds in the FA Draft could mean a dillution of the rookie talent. A counter to that would be that those players will be available to all (with no maximums) and it would present an interesting dillemma/decision for owners to play for the now or the future, making them drop perhaps a perfectly productive player for the upcoming season.
This is just some of the various Pros and Cons that I can think of, so without further delay or rambling by me it is time to put it to a vote:
[size=15:cc409f44f0][u:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]THE PROPOSAL:[/b:cc409f44f0][/u:cc409f44f0][/size:cc409f44f0] [i:cc409f44f0]To abolish the current maximum on the number of rounds each owner may participate in (barring trades) during the FA draft. [/i:cc409f44f0] This would mean that an owner could drop as many players as they would like and replace them with Free Agents. It also means that rosters that are undersized heading into a FA Draft will be allowed to draft as many players in addition to their drops as necessary to get their rosters back up to a 40 man capacity. (For what it's worth -- this is/will be the same way the HCKL will be run for those of you that play in that league as well).
[color=red:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]NOTE:[/b:cc409f44f0][/color:cc409f44f0] Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the [size=15:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]FOWLDAWG COROLLARY [/b:cc409f44f0][/size:cc409f44f0]will NOW go into effect. [i:cc409f44f0][b:cc409f44f0]This means that if you choose to trade say for example a 9th round pick in an upcoming FA Draft that you are then required to drop that many players so that you will actually HAVE a 9th round pick. This forces both owners in a trade of Draft picks to protect the integrity of the trade.[/b:cc409f44f0][/i:cc409f44f0]
Ayes:
Nays:
Still to vote: AF Dickie, Bubba Hotep, Cubit, Cummings2, Detroit-Tigers, Fowldawg, Ninersphan, Kaviksdad, Nythawk, Qksilver, Sandlotshrink, Stoney18
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cummings2 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:45 pm
[u:468f225bca][b:468f225bca]THE PROPOSAL[/b:468f225bca][/u:468f225bca]: [i:468f225bca]To abolish the current maximum on the number of rounds each owner may participate in (barring trades) during the FA draft[/i:468f225bca]. This would mean that an owner could drop as many players as they would like and replace them with Free Agents. It also means that rosters that are undersized heading into a FA Draft will be allowed to draft as many players in addition to their drops as necessary to get their rosters back up to a 40 man capacity. (For what it's worth -- this is/will be the same way the HCKL will be run for those of you that play in that league as well).
[color=red:468f225bca][b:468f225bca]NOTE[/b:468f225bca][/color:468f225bca]: Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the [size=18:468f225bca]FOWLDAWG COROLLARY [/size:468f225bca]will NOW go into effect. [i:468f225bca][b:468f225bca]This means that if you choose to trade say for example a 9th round pick in an upcoming FA Draft that you are then required to drop that many players so that you will actually HAVE a 9th round pick. This forces both owners in a trade of Draft picks to protect the integrity of the trade.[/b:468f225bca][/i:468f225bca]
Ayes: C2
Nays:
Still to vote: AF Dickie, Bubba Hotep, Cubit, Detroit-Tigers, Fowldawg, Ninersphan, Kaviksdad, Nythawk, Qksilver, Sandlotshrink, Stoney18
[color=red:468f225bca][b:468f225bca]NOTE[/b:468f225bca][/color:468f225bca]: Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the [size=18:468f225bca]FOWLDAWG COROLLARY [/size:468f225bca]will NOW go into effect. [i:468f225bca][b:468f225bca]This means that if you choose to trade say for example a 9th round pick in an upcoming FA Draft that you are then required to drop that many players so that you will actually HAVE a 9th round pick. This forces both owners in a trade of Draft picks to protect the integrity of the trade.[/b:468f225bca][/i:468f225bca]
Ayes: C2
Nays:
Still to vote: AF Dickie, Bubba Hotep, Cubit, Detroit-Tigers, Fowldawg, Ninersphan, Kaviksdad, Nythawk, Qksilver, Sandlotshrink, Stoney18
- cummings2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:50 pm
All right gang, it's time to nip these trade issues in the bud once and for all.
I assume most of you by now have been following the recent round of posts on this thread pertaining to unbalanced trades and how they affect roster size, and what can be done about building those under-sized rosters up to their 40 man capacity.
The biggest obstacle I see against simply allowing picks at the end of the FA Draft or Supp. Draft is that it potentially allows owners to go around the imposed maximums we currently have on said drafts.
Now, we have previously voted on the amound of rounds in the Supplemental Draft so that will remain unchanged at 3 round maximum. If an owner with less than 40 players going into a Supplemental Draft wishes to add players, he can simply drop less players. [b:ff456389a5]No one will be allowed to add more players than the maximum amount of rounds (3) [i:ff456389a5]unless you make a trade for another owner's supplemental draft picks[/i:ff456389a5].[/b:ff456389a5]
As far as the annual Free Agent Draft is concerned the current maximum is 15 rounds. We have already voted on the minimum number of drops that must be made (5) so that will remain unchanged as well. HOWEVER, [u:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]dissolving the maximum [/b:ff456389a5][/u:ff456389a5]will allow any teams with less than 40 man rosters heading into a FA Draft to simply add as many players as necessary (in addition to the picks they get for dropped players).
For those who voted against expanding the Supplemental Draft for fears of dillution, I really don't think this might a real concern in the FA Draft for several reasons.
Looking at the various rosters in our league, I really do not see many that will be dropping the current maximum number of players (15). Some of those that might, I believe will actually be simply swapping out players of one side (LH or RH) for park preferences and the like and others might easily fall under the category of "one man's junk is another man's pleasure". In any case, all the players that an owner will drop heading into a FA Draft will be available as FA IN THAT Draft so dillution really should not be an issue. I simply do not see someone dropping over half of their current teams. However, that is NOT to say that I do not understand the fears or concerns of those that may feel otherwise.
However, the dillution of the FA Draft maximum is the only real fool-proof solution I see to those wanting to use it to bring undersized rosters back up to 40 man capacities heading . [b:ff456389a5]REMEMBER THOUGH, the lowest number of players a roster has at the present is 39, so under the current rules, [i:ff456389a5]all that owner would have to do is drop one less than the maximum (14) and they could have one additional pick to get back to 40 [/i:ff456389a5](unless they trade one of their Draft picks and then they would have that many less as well). [/b:ff456389a5]
There is nothing that says an owner HAS to drop 15 players you know. :wink:
Another con might be that since the USKL does NOT currently have a Prospect Draft (like the HCKL) that an unlimited amount of rounds in the FA Draft could mean a dillution of the rookie talent. A counter to that would be that those players will be available to all (with no maximums) and it would present an interesting dillemma/decision for owners to play for the now or the future, making them drop perhaps a perfectly productive player for the upcoming season.
This is just some of the various Pros and Cons that I can think of, so without further delay or rambling by me it is time to put it to a vote:
[size=15:ff456389a5][u:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]THE PROPOSAL:[/b:ff456389a5][/u:ff456389a5][/size:ff456389a5] [i:ff456389a5]To abolish the current maximum on the number of rounds each owner may participate in (barring trades) during the FA draft. [/i:ff456389a5] This would mean that an owner could drop as many players as they would like and replace them with Free Agents. It also means that rosters that are undersized heading into a FA Draft will be allowed to draft as many players in addition to their drops as necessary to get their rosters back up to a 40 man capacity. (For what it's worth -- this is/will be the same way the HCKL will be run for those of you that play in that league as well).
[color=red:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]NOTE:[/b:ff456389a5][/color:ff456389a5] Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the [size=15:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]FOWLDAWG COROLLARY [/b:ff456389a5][/size:ff456389a5]will NOW go into effect. [i:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]This means that if you choose to trade say for example a 9th round pick in an upcoming FA Draft that you are then required to drop that many players so that you will actually HAVE a 9th round pick. This forces both owners in a trade of Draft picks to protect the integrity of the trade.[/b:ff456389a5][/i:ff456389a5]
Ayes: Cummings2
Nays:
Still to vote: AF Dickie, Bubba Hotep, Cubit, Detroit-Tigers, Fowldawg, Ninersphan, Kaviksdad, Nythawk, Qksilver, Sandlotshrink, Stoney18
(Sorry Chuck, but for those of those that hadn't been following I wanted to keep more of the post intact -- [b:ff456389a5]don't worry about copy/pasting y'all -- just post your aye or nay and I'll take care of the rest!!!)[/b:ff456389a5] :D
I assume most of you by now have been following the recent round of posts on this thread pertaining to unbalanced trades and how they affect roster size, and what can be done about building those under-sized rosters up to their 40 man capacity.
The biggest obstacle I see against simply allowing picks at the end of the FA Draft or Supp. Draft is that it potentially allows owners to go around the imposed maximums we currently have on said drafts.
Now, we have previously voted on the amound of rounds in the Supplemental Draft so that will remain unchanged at 3 round maximum. If an owner with less than 40 players going into a Supplemental Draft wishes to add players, he can simply drop less players. [b:ff456389a5]No one will be allowed to add more players than the maximum amount of rounds (3) [i:ff456389a5]unless you make a trade for another owner's supplemental draft picks[/i:ff456389a5].[/b:ff456389a5]
As far as the annual Free Agent Draft is concerned the current maximum is 15 rounds. We have already voted on the minimum number of drops that must be made (5) so that will remain unchanged as well. HOWEVER, [u:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]dissolving the maximum [/b:ff456389a5][/u:ff456389a5]will allow any teams with less than 40 man rosters heading into a FA Draft to simply add as many players as necessary (in addition to the picks they get for dropped players).
For those who voted against expanding the Supplemental Draft for fears of dillution, I really don't think this might a real concern in the FA Draft for several reasons.
Looking at the various rosters in our league, I really do not see many that will be dropping the current maximum number of players (15). Some of those that might, I believe will actually be simply swapping out players of one side (LH or RH) for park preferences and the like and others might easily fall under the category of "one man's junk is another man's pleasure". In any case, all the players that an owner will drop heading into a FA Draft will be available as FA IN THAT Draft so dillution really should not be an issue. I simply do not see someone dropping over half of their current teams. However, that is NOT to say that I do not understand the fears or concerns of those that may feel otherwise.
However, the dillution of the FA Draft maximum is the only real fool-proof solution I see to those wanting to use it to bring undersized rosters back up to 40 man capacities heading . [b:ff456389a5]REMEMBER THOUGH, the lowest number of players a roster has at the present is 39, so under the current rules, [i:ff456389a5]all that owner would have to do is drop one less than the maximum (14) and they could have one additional pick to get back to 40 [/i:ff456389a5](unless they trade one of their Draft picks and then they would have that many less as well). [/b:ff456389a5]
There is nothing that says an owner HAS to drop 15 players you know. :wink:
Another con might be that since the USKL does NOT currently have a Prospect Draft (like the HCKL) that an unlimited amount of rounds in the FA Draft could mean a dillution of the rookie talent. A counter to that would be that those players will be available to all (with no maximums) and it would present an interesting dillemma/decision for owners to play for the now or the future, making them drop perhaps a perfectly productive player for the upcoming season.
This is just some of the various Pros and Cons that I can think of, so without further delay or rambling by me it is time to put it to a vote:
[size=15:ff456389a5][u:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]THE PROPOSAL:[/b:ff456389a5][/u:ff456389a5][/size:ff456389a5] [i:ff456389a5]To abolish the current maximum on the number of rounds each owner may participate in (barring trades) during the FA draft. [/i:ff456389a5] This would mean that an owner could drop as many players as they would like and replace them with Free Agents. It also means that rosters that are undersized heading into a FA Draft will be allowed to draft as many players in addition to their drops as necessary to get their rosters back up to a 40 man capacity. (For what it's worth -- this is/will be the same way the HCKL will be run for those of you that play in that league as well).
[color=red:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]NOTE:[/b:ff456389a5][/color:ff456389a5] Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the [size=15:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]FOWLDAWG COROLLARY [/b:ff456389a5][/size:ff456389a5]will NOW go into effect. [i:ff456389a5][b:ff456389a5]This means that if you choose to trade say for example a 9th round pick in an upcoming FA Draft that you are then required to drop that many players so that you will actually HAVE a 9th round pick. This forces both owners in a trade of Draft picks to protect the integrity of the trade.[/b:ff456389a5][/i:ff456389a5]
Ayes: Cummings2
Nays:
Still to vote: AF Dickie, Bubba Hotep, Cubit, Detroit-Tigers, Fowldawg, Ninersphan, Kaviksdad, Nythawk, Qksilver, Sandlotshrink, Stoney18
(Sorry Chuck, but for those of those that hadn't been following I wanted to keep more of the post intact -- [b:ff456389a5]don't worry about copy/pasting y'all -- just post your aye or nay and I'll take care of the rest!!!)[/b:ff456389a5] :D
Last edited by cirills on Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by nythawk129921 » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:24 pm
damn I will have to converse with my people and the legal department before I make a vote one way or the other :roll: :wink:
Either that or I am going to have to figure out when the hell this all got complicated :shock:
I will however say that I do not believe that a player should get a "supplemental pick or 2 or 3 after the draft is complete because I too feel that it is an advantage to the team that trades several players for less.In my opinion this team might be able to acquire players that might be helpful in the coming years when they might not need them this season.And some of us are so damn bad that we cant afford anyone getting an(maybe in my mind only)advantage by getting to select more players for next season than I might get
Either that or I am going to have to figure out when the hell this all got complicated :shock:
I will however say that I do not believe that a player should get a "supplemental pick or 2 or 3 after the draft is complete because I too feel that it is an advantage to the team that trades several players for less.In my opinion this team might be able to acquire players that might be helpful in the coming years when they might not need them this season.And some of us are so damn bad that we cant afford anyone getting an(maybe in my mind only)advantage by getting to select more players for next season than I might get
- nythawk129921
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:52 pm
[quote:bf29b2a9d1]I will however say that I do not believe that a player should get a "supplemental pick or 2 or 3 after the draft is complete [/quote:bf29b2a9d1]
That's not happening. Let's just stick to the proposal for now, if we can. :wink:
That's not happening. Let's just stick to the proposal for now, if we can. :wink:
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Individual League Chat
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests