|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Oct 24, 2012 12:59:12 GMT -5
Lastly, we need to have something in place in cases of tanking, cheating, willful misconduct, and repeated failure to follow rules- basically, what is the process if we're fining someone and they don't care and just keep doing (or not doing) whatever it is they're doing.
Since these would involve some gray area, we need to have specific penalties in place, and/or designate procedures by which we handle these.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoink! on Oct 25, 2012 20:27:22 GMT -5
Wasn't the lottery a response to tanking for a better pick?
Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2012 10:45:51 GMT -5
The lottery should handle tanking to a degree, but pure luck can still strike. Beyond that, repeated failure to maintain the MiLB roster or MLB roster (including DL management) should result in a lock-out from any transactions with that team until these situations are fixed. There should also be an adjustment to the salary cap for those who are repeat offenders. Instead of $135MM or whatever it is now, reduce it by $10MM with each major infraction. If someone's a total fuckface, just kick him out of the league at the end of the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Ayala - Matt on Nov 19, 2012 15:53:34 GMT -5
repeated failure to maintain the MiLB roster or MLB roster (including DL management) should result in a lock-out from any transactions with that team until these situations are fixed. Agreed, but what should constitute "repeated" offenses, at what point should they be locked out, who ultimately gets to make that call, etc. I don't want any more situations where someone feels a situation is unfair because clear guidelines weren't set in place. We can either have one person make these decisions, or a group, or we can vote as a league everytime (but then one person, or a group would have to initiate that vote.) This goes for kicking people out as well- in a worst-case scenario we may have to step in and stop someone from dropping their team, giving away their best players, etc. We need to know how we're going to handle those. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2012 18:34:16 GMT -5
No one should make the call on when we get locked out. We all discuss and hash out a multiple-offense process now and vote on the process for 2013.
ILLEGAL ROSTER MOVES - not filling out entire starting lineup, not having maximum # of players:
1st offense - 48-hour warning to fix the issue & report full transaction/salary information.
2nd offense - 48-hour warning to fix the issue, report transaction/salary info, $2MM deduction from team's maximum salary.
3rd offense - 48-hour warning, a second $2MM deduction, no roster moves allowed until issue is fixed (lock-out).
INELIGIBLE PLAYER ON DL:
1st offense - 48-hour window to remove player from DL and adjust roster accordingly.
2nd offense - final notice! 24 hours to fix the DL issue or the player listed on the DL is thereby released and placed in free agent pool. The player is then susceptible to the waiver process 48 hours after removal from the squad.
TREND OF SUSPICIOUS/OBVIOUS LOPSIDED TRADES:
If there is sufficient evidence present in a deal that others suspect two or more owners of cheating/tanking, maybe three owners submit a "call to protest," which then prompts the commissioner to chime in and request that each owner defends the deal.
If these accounts are unconvincing, the commissioner might call for an emergency vote on a veto to the deal. If the veto goes through on the deal. But this is only to be used in extreme circumstances. Maybe we can thwart abuse of this rule by only allowing a LOW number of these per season... maybe two? I don't know. It's weird/convoluted but it's a start.
ILLEGAL ADDITION TO ROSTER (MLB/MiLB addition that violates the waiver process or does not satisfy the ROY eligibility rules + the seven-day waiting period before MiLB guy is available on waivers):
1st offense - player is released back into free agency and susceptible to the waiver process.
2nd offense - player is released back into free agency and the owner drops to dead-last in the waiver order while others move up one spot.
This is all a start based on some rambling from the finger tips... Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by C4 on Nov 27, 2012 19:06:41 GMT -5
I'd say that the 2nd offense should also include half of the player's salary being charged to the owner when moving to waivers (no free drop).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tecuala Juggernauts on Nov 27, 2012 21:03:37 GMT -5
I agree with everything Ruck posted except:
1) I think the financial penalties for the second and third violations of the Illegal Roster Moves rule should be higher. $2M isn't a serious penalty or a real deterrent.
2) I don't think we need rules governing "Suspicious/Obvious Lopsided" trades. This league has good owners, and we're all adults.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoink! on Nov 27, 2012 21:39:24 GMT -5
I have no problem with any if these. I just have a difficult time seeing how realistic this is for the league to monitor. I see a lot of offenses not being noticed.
Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2012 13:36:17 GMT -5
I would bump the $2MM up to $5MM and $8MM for each offense; losing 10% of your team's max salary is a huge loss, discouraging folks from bending the rules, intentional or not.
I also think the half-salary obligation penalty after the player is released is a good addition. So... it would read:
INELIGIBLE PLAYER ON DL:
1st offense - 48-hour window to remove player from DL and adjust roster accordingly.
2nd offense - owner is now responsible for one-half of the ineligible player's salary if said player is released to free agency. The owner now has 24 hours to fix the DL issue or the player in question is thereby released to free agent pool. The player is then susceptible to the waiver process 48 hours after removal from the squad.
I have a hard time seeing how much of this will be enforced, also. With a league that is this in-depth and rule-driven, we often have a hard time ensuring that everything is followed to a tee. Trying the honor system doesn't work all the time if people's lives change or if some people just don't care about rules. It happens. But we should not focus on the enforcement of the rules.
The point is this: we need the language in place that clearly defines that no, you cannot stash guys on the DL for a prolonged period of time and then claim that you didn't know he was activated or whatever. Yes, you must wait a week after a guy has surpassed the ROY eligibility standard and passed his 48-hour exclusivity period (I think it's 48 hours?).
We need the language in place first and foremost. The debate on how best to enforce these rules can be a separate issue. Let's chip away at the iceberg one shard at a time.
|
|
