by jpgavin » Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:56 pm
[quote:14a42d327f="buster j ratt"][quote:14a42d327f="rosenthm"][quote:14a42d327f]Just my opinion, but the league is call "Franchise League". No player should be on a team he didn't play for in real life. [/quote:14a42d327f]
Maybe I totally misunderstood all the explanations, etc., but I didn't think we could have someone on our team that has not played some time for our franchise. Has there been some other rule change I didn't know about?[/quote:14a42d327f]
At this point it has only been questioned?[/quote:14a42d327f]
To be honest, until yesterday I hadn't even considered the possibility. When we started this theme, the premise was that you could use any player that ever played for your franchise and then one of us would get to make a rule each season to help prevent things from becoming too redundant. I think we've been very successful in making an entertaining theme (too successful if you ask my wife :wink: ).
Apparently at least 2 managers interpreted the trade rule for this season to mean that once you claimed (drafted) a player eligible for your franchise, you could trade him to any franchise. From previous posts I think the idea was to try to encourage more trading.
Personally, I tend to be a purist about franchise leagues and I'd like to avoid having Ripken on the Cardinals etc... Unfortunately, it never occured to me that a rule might open up the possibility of players moving to a franchise for which they never played, so I never made a rule against it when I explained the ground rules for this theme :oops: .
It sounds like at least four other managers feel the same way I do. If two more weigh in on the same side of this issue, then I'd like to considered it put to rest.
Otherwise, if there's a strong feeling that trading is being too severely limited by the franchise rule then we'll do the following for all future seasons:
[b:14a42d327f]If a manager makes a rule that allows trading a player to a franchise for which that player has never played, that rule must be ratified by a majority vote (at least 7 managers, not just 3 of 5 weighing in on the issue) before the rule can go into effect. [/b:14a42d327f]