Re: Socially Distant Keeper League (SDKL)
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:30 pm
Unctarheel drops:
Caleb Smith
Rafael Montero
Raimel Tapia
Caleb Smith
Rafael Montero
Raimel Tapia
Community forum
http://forum-365.strat-o-matic.com/community/
http://forum-365.strat-o-matic.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=650293
bigmahon wrote:unctarheel wrote:This rule basically gives you prospect rights in-perpetuity for one player. Each team is permitted one such designation at a time and it remains in effect until (a) you activate the prospect in question, (b) release this prospect, or (c) trade the prospect to another team, as this status is non-transferable. By rule, this declaration is supposed to be announced at the time the prospect is selected in the annual prospect draft. I suggested the rule and it was adopted just before the last free-agent draft, so it may have slipped under the radar of some of the managers in the league. Depending on the opinion of the commissioner, I would personally have no objection to allowing a retroactive application of the rule for those who were unaware of the provision.
Thanks bro. I remember now. Normal prospects = 2 years rights; Franchise prospect = forever if that's what the owner wants.
We will leave as is, and some may choose to franchise next time around. I'm not big on going backwards, so let's pass on retroactivity.
bigmahon wrote:Grant, I agree with you. There is nothing in the rule that states the franchise designation must be made during the prospect draft. So all managers that haven’t designated should feel free to do so at their discretion. Only one franchise allowed at a time; rules for changing the designation are pretty clear.
Rant wrote:bigmahon wrote:Grant, I agree with you. There is nothing in the rule that states the franchise designation must be made during the prospect draft. So all managers that haven’t designated should feel free to do so at their discretion. Only one franchise allowed at a time; rules for changing the designation are pretty clear.
Thanks -- and for the record, I'm not stomping my feet here. I would also be totally fine with the rule changing to read as it was intended, or for that interpretation to be adopted immediately.