The FOFC Keeper League 2012 - Page 4

spleen1015 · 07-16-2012, 07:25 AM

Also, I am confused by the numbers in SI's post #111.

Roy Helu has a 2 next to him. I believe that indicates this season 2012, would be his second season on my team. Why doesn't all of the other players have them? Graham and Gates are in the same boat for example, so I don't understand what the numbers in () represent.

JAG · 07-16-2012, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Also, I am confused by the numbers in SI's post #111.

Roy Helu has a 2 next to him. I believe that indicates this season 2012, would be his second season on my team. Why doesn't all of the other players have them? Graham and Gates are in the same boat for example, so I don't understand what the numbers in () represent.

Helu was a rookie last year, so I'm pretty sure it was an error for him to be listed as (2), he should be a (1) along with every other rookie. I did a check of the list and I think that's the only error though owners should check their own players to be sure.

spleen1015 · 07-16-2012, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Helu was a rookie last year, so I'm pretty sure it was an error for him to be listed as (2), he should be a (1) along with every other rookie. I did a check of the list and I think that's the only error though owners should check their own players to be sure.

Okay, but what about Jones-Drew? I traded for him last year. So, he's in the same boat as Helu, right?

Maybe I am confused?

JAG · 07-16-2012, 09:42 AM

Players you trade for post-keeper declaration deadline get a year accrued to them, so you could keep Jones-Drew for two more full seasons.

spleen1015 · 07-16-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Players you trade for post-keeper declaration deadline get a year accrued to them, so you could keep Jones-Drew for two more full seasons.

Okay, this may be hard to convey, so bare with me.

You're saying that Helu shouldn't have a 2 because he was drafted last year. So, I have him for draft year + 3.

Jones-Drew doesn't get the draft year because I acquired him in a trade, so I have him for last year + 2.

Just to that I am clear, the rule is a keeper is for 4 years, draft year + 3, right?

I'm asking because I always thought it was 3 years total, draft year + 2.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 11:01 AM

We were always able to keep 3 times - meaning we would technically have them 4 years.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

I would like to let everyone who hasn't chimed in about amnestying the 3rd year keeper on new teams before passing it but I think it is the way to go. MollyMurphy has no issues with it and I texted Saldana. I know Me, Jag, and SI are on board. Just need to hear from PF and Sami I believe.

I am okay with amnesty for new owners - especially with the amount that we have this year. No point in punishing them for inheriting a team.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Two questions:
Q: If a new team is inherited, will it's season 4 players revert back to season 3 status?
Q: After this season, should we remove the "free" season so that players can only be on the team for a maximum of 3 seasons (or 2.5 if traded in-season) as opposed to 4(3.5)?
[b]

To put in my two cents here...

1) Yes, I think that should be the case, as I said in my previous post. New owners should get the opportunity to keep anyone on their inherited team, even if said player would have been due to be a FA.

2) I personally like the "3 keeps, then done" rule - so we basically get them for 4 years. But I would be okay with 2 keeps as well, if that was the consensus. It would just be something that might not be able to be fully enforced this season - since there is a good mix of keeper years out there, you can't punish those that have kept for longer than that time already.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 11:08 AM

So if you trade for Player A midway through a season, they end the season with one year of service (no matter how long they were kept on the previous team) - is that correct? So you would still get 3.5 years out of them if you kept them the full 3 times. If you just plain draft player A and keep him the full 3 times - then you're getting him 4 years. Which is fine by me (and how I always thought it worked anyway).

Just talking through all the posts, making sure I get it all

JAG · 07-16-2012, 11:19 AM

Ever since we went to a three year keeper system, the rule had been you cannot keep a player more than three times before they become a free agent. So that rule meant you could draft a player, using them that year, and then could keep them three more times for the following three seasons, for a total of four seasons. That's one rule up for change this year, removing the free draft year so no player remains on a team for more than three total seasons.

Also, I am rethinking my stance on no amnesty for new players. I'm sort of thinking it penalizes returning players who don't get to make use of that rule and removing potential players from the pool that could help them upgrade. It does make things more challenging for incoming players if they're inheriting a team that has a number of players in that state though. So I'm not sure anymore.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Ever since we went to a three year keeper system, the rule had been you cannot keep a player more than three times before they become a free agent. So that rule meant you could draft a player, using them that year, and then could keep them three more times for the following three seasons, for a total of four seasons. That's one rule up for change this year, removing the free draft year so no player remains on a team for more than three total seasons.

So basically we only keep them twice. It's not really a "free" year we're talking about - it's the number of times we can keep the player. Currently, we keep them 3 times (which means we have them up to 4 years). The suggestion is to allow us to only keep them twice - which would be a total of up to 3 years. I think that might be where some people are getting confused.

Quote:

Also, I am rethinking my stance on no amnesty for new players. I'm sort of thinking it penalizes returning players who don't get to make use of that rule and removing potential players from the pool that could help them upgrade. It does make things more challenging for incoming players if they're inheriting a team that has a number of players in that state though. So I'm not sure anymore.

I would hope that this is a rule we don't use that often, to be honest. I think the benefit to the incoming players outweighs the "penalty" to current players. If a new guy is coming in and inheriting a team, and that team just so happens to have a guy that is due to be a FA, he should have the option to keep him one last time. Our keeper rules are designed toward owners, not necessarily the teams.

JAG · 07-16-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

So if you trade for Player A midway through a season, they end the season with one year of service (no matter how long they were kept on the previous team) - is that correct? So you would still get 3.5 years out of them if you kept them the full 3 times. If you just plain draft player A and keep him the full 3 times - then you're getting him 4 years. Which is fine by me (and how I always thought it worked anyway).

Just talking through all the posts, making sure I get it all

The trade rule, since last year, has been if you trade for a player, they get a keeper season accrued, so you would get a traded player between 2.5-3 seasons total depending on when you traded for them, not 3.5-4 years.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 11:49 AM

Oh I see what you mean - so they, technically, get tacked with 2 years of service - 1 for the one they actually played and 1 for the trade. That makes sense because everyone else already ends the season with 1 year of service.

Lathum · 07-16-2012, 12:11 PM

Just as an FYI, TLK passed commish on to me because I got things started for this season, but I am going to pass it to JAG as long as there are no objections. I just don't have the time right now to organize the rules, votes, et...

JAG · 07-16-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

So basically we only keep them twice. It's not really a "free" year we're talking about - it's the number of times we can keep the player. Currently, we keep them 3 times (which means we have them up to 4 years). The suggestion is to allow us to only keep them twice - which would be a total of up to 3 years. I think that might be where some people are getting confused.

That's true with the only exception being if you trade for someone prior to keepers being declared (sorry, I should have said the trade rule was only for in-season trades). In that case those players could be kept three times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

I would hope that this is a rule we don't use that often, to be honest. I think the benefit to the incoming players outweighs the "penalty" to current players. If a new guy is coming in and inheriting a team, and that team just so happens to have a guy that is due to be a FA, he should have the option to keep him one last time. Our keeper rules are designed toward owners, not necessarily the teams.

That point of view makes sense to me.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 03:45 PM

That makes sense, JAG.

And FYI - if you need any assistance running things, I'm more than happy to help

spleen1015 · 07-16-2012, 03:46 PM

If the keeper rule is draft year + 3, then the amnesty rule doesn't really come into play until after this year.

I am still against it. Why should I not have the opportunity to pick up a guy that would be FA just because someone quit the league? I don't care that the owner has changed. That team is still that team, regardless of ownership.

I don't know what type of scenarios we would face in the future, but let's say that someone has Rodgers, Foster, and Megatron as keepers for draft year + 3. They've had top players every year for 4 years, dominating the league. They're going to lose them and they decide to quit. A new owner comes in and gets to keep them for a 5th year just because their new? I don't like the sound of that at all. The new owner gets to deal with losing them all. If the new owner doesn't like it, let them go find another league to play in. I don't like the idea of punishing the rest of the ownership just because someone decided to quit the league.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 03:58 PM

Like I said above, I think it's hurting the new owner more so than the other owners though. And honestly - I would really hope we do enough to keep owners around so that it never has to come to this

Lathum · 07-16-2012, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

If the keeper rule is draft year + 3, then the amnesty rule doesn't really come into play until after this year.

I am still against it. Why should I not have the opportunity to pick up a guy that would be FA just because someone quit the league? I don't care that the owner has changed. That team is still that team, regardless of ownership.

I don't know what type of scenarios we would face in the future, but let's say that someone has Rodgers, Foster, and Megatron as keepers for draft year + 3. They've had top players every year for 4 years, dominating the league. They're going to lose them and they decide to quit. A new owner comes in and gets to keep them for a 5th year just because their new? I don't like the sound of that at all. The new owner gets to deal with losing them all. If the new owner doesn't like it, let them go find another league to play in. I don't like the idea of punishing the rest of the ownership just because someone decided to quit the league.

I think that is a fair point and something we should vote on, however, I think given the large number of new owners this year it may be easier to do a one year exception then vote how we want to proceed.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 03:59 PM

And actually, spleen, there are a few players that would fall under that category (just from a quick check at the post on the previous page) - I don't know if any of those players fall on teams that now have new owners, but there are a few players that were kept 3 times.

spleen1015 · 07-16-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

And actually, spleen, there are a few players that would fall under that category (just from a quick check at the post on the previous page) - I don't know if any of those players fall on teams that now have new owners, but there are a few players that were kept 3 times.

You are right. I was thinking the league started in 2009, but it started in 2010.

Lathum · 07-16-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

You are right. I was thinking the league started in 2009, but it started in 2010.

The league has actually been around since 2004, but the keeper years rule was voted on in 09

spleen1015 · 07-16-2012, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

The league has actually been around since 2004, but the keeper years rule was voted on in 09

I'm all over the fucking place. I typed 2010 in that posted when I meant 2008.

Whatever.

Lathum · 07-16-2012, 04:27 PM

JAG · 07-16-2012, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think that is a fair point and something we should vote on, however, I think given the large number of new owners this year it may be easier to do a one year exception then vote how we want to proceed.

We're going to need to sort this out before any transactions can be done with those players. I keep going back and forth on it, as I do think spleen has a reasonable point.

What I'd like to say is, if anyone else has any rules proposals, lets get them out there within the next 2-3 days, so we can get started on officially voting for all this stuff and moving on with the offseason stuff.

samifan24 · 07-16-2012, 07:27 PM

Sorry for not chiming in earlier but I'm on board with amnesty for new owners.

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 07:47 PM

Alright, I think our two main proposals at this point:

One-year amnesty rule for new owners: If a new owner inherits a team, that owner is allowed to a player who was previously kept for 3 years under the previous owner. This player will basically have one year knocked off his tenure and will be allowed to be kept for an additional year.

Drop keeper years from 3 to 2: Owners can keep any player a maximum of 2 times, giving that owner a maximum of 3 years of service for a single player (the year they were drafted + the two years they are kept)

PackerFanatic · 07-16-2012, 07:48 PM

There might be more, but that seems to be the main gist at this point (mainly the amnesty one, so we can make sure the new owners can get in the swing of things and start making moves if they wish)

sterlingice · 07-16-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Alright, I think our two main proposals at this point:

One-year amnesty rule for new owners: If a new owner inherits a team, that owner is allowed to a player who was previously kept for 3 years under the previous owner. This player will basically have one year knocked off his tenure and will be allowed to be kept for an additional year.

Drop keeper years from 3 to 2: Owners can keep any player a maximum of 2 times, giving that owner a maximum of 3 years of service for a single player (the year they were drafted + the two years they are kept)

Another proposal would be to get rid of the traded penalty year. If a player is traded in season, they do not suffer a keeper penalty.

SI

Lathum · 07-16-2012, 09:00 PM

so if I had Hakeem Nicks as a rookie in 2009, I can either keep him this year and lose him after or trade him and he will go against someone for a year, correct?

JAG · 07-16-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

One-year amnesty rule for new owners: If a new owner inherits a team, that owner is allowed to keep a player who was previously kept for 3 years under the previous owner. This player will basically have one year knocked off his tenure and will be allowed to be kept for one final year.

Ok with this as proposal #1 to be voted on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Drop keeper years from 3 to 2: Owners can keep any player a maximum of 2 times, giving that owner a maximum of 3 years of service for a single player (the year they were drafted + the two years they are kept)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Another proposal would be to get rid of the traded penalty year. If a player is traded in season, they do not suffer a keeper penalty.

I would prefer to word proposal #2 like this:

No player may play on the same team for more than 3 consecutive years (includes partial seasons as a full season) --- What this essentially means with all the different ways of acquiring a player is:

a. You draft a player: You can play them the season you draft them and then keep them two additional seasons.
b. You trade for a player after keepers are declared: You can play them the remainder of the season and keep them two additional seasons.
c. You trade for a player before keepers are declared (off-season trade): This is the only situation you can keep a player three times so they are able to play for your team the full three consecutive seasons.

EDIT: It also needs to be decided if proposal #2 would be applied retroactively (count up seasons a player has played for a team and make that the new amount of years they have accrued with a team) or if it would be applied for all player acquisition after the proposal is approved.

Julio Riddols · 07-16-2012, 11:01 PM

I think a player should be able to be kept for 3 seasons any time they become a member of your team. Meaning, if I trade for or draft a guy and keep him for his 3 years, then I let him go but claim him back in the draft, I can then keep him for another 3 years. acquiring a guy at any time should reset his years of service to 1 again.

Don't make it retroactive, but just starting next season, 3 years in a row means they go back in the pool. You can try and get em again at that point if you wish, but it must be through means other than designating him a keeper.

Danny · 07-17-2012, 02:19 AM

1. No
2. Yes

Danny · 07-17-2012, 02:29 AM

I believe both my answers encourage trading which is why I went for them. I do believe trading a player should reset their timer.

JAG · 07-17-2012, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I think a player should be able to be kept for 3 seasons any time they become a member of your team. Meaning, if I trade for or draft a guy and keep him for his 3 years, then I let him go but claim him back in the draft, I can then keep him for another 3 years. acquiring a guy at any time should reset his years of service to 1 again.

I agree. If you've relinquished a player's rights but then reacquired them, you can keep them again as if it were their first year on your team because you've had to spend resources to get them again. I've tried for about 5-10 minutes to figure out how to reword the proposal to make that clear but couldn't determine a concise way to do it, so if someone could wordsmith it, that would be nice.

sterlingice · 07-17-2012, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I think a player should be able to be kept for 3 seasons any time they become a member of your team. Meaning, if I trade for or draft a guy and keep him for his 3 years, then I let him go but claim him back in the draft, I can then keep him for another 3 years. acquiring a guy at any time should reset his years of service to 1 again.

If we need to put this in writing, we should. I agree with these sentiments: everything resets on a player when they go back into a draft pool. If I somehow managed to draft Fitzgerald again this season, I could keep him for 3 more seasons.

SI

sterlingice · 07-17-2012, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

I would prefer to word proposal #2 like this:

No player may play on the same team for more than 3 consecutive years (includes partial seasons as a full season) --- What this essentially means with all the different ways of acquiring a player is:

a. You draft a player: You can play them the season you draft them and then keep them two additional seasons.
b. You trade for a player after keepers are declared: You can play them the remainder of the season and keep them two additional seasons.
c. You trade for a player before keepers are declared (off-season trade): This is the only situation you can keep a player three times so they are able to play for your team the full three consecutive seasons.

EDIT: It also needs to be decided if proposal #2 would be applied retroactively (count up seasons a player has played for a team and make that the new amount of years they have accrued with a team) or if it would be applied for all player acquisition after the proposal is approved.

I also think we need to include wording from the old trade rules: if a player is kept after the trade deadline of the third year, they are going back into the pool. You can't hold onto them the full three seasons and then trade them in the offseason. You have to make that decision in season 3: trade them before the deadline or lose them.

SI

Lathum · 07-17-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If we need to put this in writing, we should. I agree with these sentiments: everything resets on a player when they go back into a draft pool. If I somehow managed to draft Fitzgerald again this season, I could keep him for 3 more seasons.

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I also think we need to include wording from the old trade rules: if a player is kept after the trade deadline of the third year, they are going back into the pool. You can't hold onto them the full three seasons and then trade them in the offseason. You have to make that decision in season 3: trade them before the deadline or lose them.

SI

I agree with both these

PackerFanatic · 07-17-2012, 09:08 AM

I do as well - as soon as they hit the draft pool again, they are reset. No reason a team shouldn't able to get them again.

spleen1015 · 07-17-2012, 09:11 AM

My votes

1. No
2. Yes

PackerFanatic · 07-17-2012, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

EDIT: It also needs to be decided if proposal #2 would be applied retroactively (count up seasons a player has played for a team and make that the new amount of years they have accrued with a team) or if it would be applied for all player acquisition after the proposal is approved.

I think it should be for players acquired after the rule - make it fair for everyone.

My votes..

1. Yes
2. Yes

Lathum · 07-17-2012, 09:54 AM

1. Yes
2. Yes

ntndeacon · 07-17-2012, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAG

Ok with this as proposal #1 to be voted on.

I would prefer to word proposal #2 like this:

No player may play on the same team for more than 3 consecutive years (includes partial seasons as a full season) --- What this essentially means with all the different ways of acquiring a player is:

a. You draft a player: You can play them the season you draft them and then keep them two additional seasons.
b. You trade for a player after keepers are declared: You can play them the remainder of the season and keep them two additional seasons.
c. You trade for a player before keepers are declared (off-season trade): This is the only situation you can keep a player three times so they are able to play for your team the full three consecutive seasons.

EDIT: It also needs to be decided if proposal #2 would be applied retroactively (count up seasons a player has played for a team and make that the new amount of years they have accrued with a team) or if it would be applied for all player acquisition after the proposal is approved.

I think we need to be careful about this. this wording sounds like I may not draft the same person 4years in a row two. I know that isn't the intent of this wording but that would be an unintended consequence. There needs to be something about years kept instead.

ntndeacon · 07-17-2012, 12:09 PM

with the wording PF said...

1. abstain (as a new owner not sure I should vote on policies for new owners.)
2. yes

if with JAG's wording
1. abstain
2. NO!!!!

Julio Riddols · 07-17-2012, 08:24 PM

I'm good with whatever rule gets made. Just excited to be part of a keeper league for a change.

Grover · 07-17-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I'm good with whatever rule gets made. Just excited to be part of a keeper league for a change.

+1

samifan24 · 07-17-2012, 08:40 PM

1. Yes
2. No

sterlingice · 07-17-2012, 09:08 PM

1. Yes
2. Yes, in principle (see below)

However, if we approve #2, there's going to be a clarification voting process where we talk about all of these various outs. Do we grandfather in players, do we remove the penalty for trades, etc- the various parts we have discussed? I'm not entirely sure what I voted yes on except that I do think we should have a 3 year keeper period max but I'm not sure what shape that takes.

SI

Lathum · 07-17-2012, 09:15 PM

I think is we vote for the 3 year max anyone who would be released this year under that rule the owner gets to keep another season. Such as Sal with Peyton

JAG · 07-18-2012, 06:43 AM

EDIT: Moving this to the next page so it's at the top of a new page instead of getting lost at the end of page 4.

07-16-2012, 07:25 AM	#151
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	Also, I am confused by the numbers in SI's post #111. Roy Helu has a 2 next to him. I believe that indicates this season 2012, would be his second season on my team. Why doesn't all of the other players have them? Graham and Gates are in the same boat for example, so I don't understand what the numbers in () represent. __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option? Last edited by spleen1015 : 07-16-2012 at 07:25 AM.

07-16-2012, 03:46 PM	#167
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	If the keeper rule is draft year + 3, then the amnesty rule doesn't really come into play until after this year. I am still against it. Why should I not have the opportunity to pick up a guy that would be FA just because someone quit the league? I don't care that the owner has changed. That team is still that team, regardless of ownership. I don't know what type of scenarios we would face in the future, but let's say that someone has Rodgers, Foster, and Megatron as keepers for draft year + 3. They've had top players every year for 4 years, dominating the league. They're going to lose them and they decide to quit. A new owner comes in and gets to keep them for a 5th year just because their new? I don't like the sound of that at all. The new owner gets to deal with losing them all. If the new owner doesn't like it, let them go find another league to play in. I don't like the idea of punishing the rest of the ownership just because someone decided to quit the league. __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option? Last edited by spleen1015 : 07-16-2012 at 03:48 PM.

07-16-2012, 04:27 PM	#174
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	haha

07-16-2012, 07:27 PM	#176
samifan24 Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NC	Sorry for not chiming in earlier but I'm on board with amnesty for new owners. __________________ "You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball...and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -Jim Bouton

07-16-2012, 11:01 PM	#182
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	I think a player should be able to be kept for 3 seasons any time they become a member of your team. Meaning, if I trade for or draft a guy and keep him for his 3 years, then I let him go but claim him back in the draft, I can then keep him for another 3 years. acquiring a guy at any time should reset his years of service to 1 again. Don't make it retroactive, but just starting next season, 3 years in a row means they go back in the pool. You can try and get em again at that point if you wish, but it must be through means other than designating him a keeper. __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA Last edited by Julio Riddols : 07-16-2012 at 11:05 PM.

07-16-2012, 09:42 AM	#154
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	Players you trade for post-keeper declaration deadline get a year accrued to them, so you could keep Jones-Drew for two more full seasons.

07-16-2012, 11:01 AM	#156
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	We were always able to keep 3 times - meaning we would technically have them 4 years.

07-16-2012, 11:08 AM	#159
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	So if you trade for Player A midway through a season, they end the season with one year of service (no matter how long they were kept on the previous team) - is that correct? So you would still get 3.5 years out of them if you kept them the full 3 times. If you just plain draft player A and keep him the full 3 times - then you're getting him 4 years. Which is fine by me (and how I always thought it worked anyway). Just talking through all the posts, making sure I get it all

07-16-2012, 11:19 AM	#160
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	Ever since we went to a three year keeper system, the rule had been you cannot keep a player more than three times before they become a free agent. So that rule meant you could draft a player, using them that year, and then could keep them three more times for the following three seasons, for a total of four seasons. That's one rule up for change this year, removing the free draft year so no player remains on a team for more than three total seasons. Also, I am rethinking my stance on no amnesty for new players. I'm sort of thinking it penalizes returning players who don't get to make use of that rule and removing potential players from the pool that could help them upgrade. It does make things more challenging for incoming players if they're inheriting a team that has a number of players in that state though. So I'm not sure anymore.

07-16-2012, 11:49 AM	#163
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	Oh I see what you mean - so they, technically, get tacked with 2 years of service - 1 for the one they actually played and 1 for the trade. That makes sense because everyone else already ends the season with 1 year of service.

07-16-2012, 12:11 PM	#164
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	Just as an FYI, TLK passed commish on to me because I got things started for this season, but I am going to pass it to JAG as long as there are no objections. I just don't have the time right now to organize the rules, votes, et...

07-16-2012, 03:45 PM	#166
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	That makes sense, JAG. And FYI - if you need any assistance running things, I'm more than happy to help

07-16-2012, 03:58 PM	#168
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	Like I said above, I think it's hurting the new owner more so than the other owners though. And honestly - I would really hope we do enough to keep owners around so that it never has to come to this

07-16-2012, 03:59 PM	#170
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	And actually, spleen, there are a few players that would fall under that category (just from a quick check at the post on the previous page) - I don't know if any of those players fall on teams that now have new owners, but there are a few players that were kept 3 times.

07-16-2012, 07:47 PM	#177
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	Alright, I think our two main proposals at this point: One-year amnesty rule for new owners: If a new owner inherits a team, that owner is allowed to a player who was previously kept for 3 years under the previous owner. This player will basically have one year knocked off his tenure and will be allowed to be kept for an additional year. Drop keeper years from 3 to 2: Owners can keep any player a maximum of 2 times, giving that owner a maximum of 3 years of service for a single player (the year they were drafted + the two years they are kept)

07-16-2012, 07:48 PM	#178
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	There might be more, but that seems to be the main gist at this point (mainly the amnesty one, so we can make sure the new owners can get in the swing of things and start making moves if they wish)

07-16-2012, 09:00 PM	#180
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	so if I had Hakeem Nicks as a rookie in 2009, I can either keep him this year and lose him after or trade him and he will go against someone for a year, correct?

07-17-2012, 02:19 AM	#183
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	1. No 2. Yes

07-17-2012, 02:29 AM	#184
Danny Head Coach Join Date: Jul 2001	I believe both my answers encourage trading which is why I went for them. I do believe trading a player should reset their timer.

07-17-2012, 09:08 AM	#189
PackerFanatic Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Appleton, WI	I do as well - as soon as they hit the draft pool again, they are reset. No reason a team shouldn't able to get them again.

07-17-2012, 09:11 AM	#190
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	My votes 1. No 2. Yes __________________ Why choose failure when success is an option?

07-17-2012, 09:54 AM	#192
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	1. Yes 2. Yes

07-17-2012, 12:09 PM	#194
ntndeacon Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Alabama	with the wording PF said... 1. abstain (as a new owner not sure I should vote on policies for new owners.) 2. yes if with JAG's wording 1. abstain 2. NO!!!!

07-17-2012, 08:24 PM	#195
Julio Riddols College Prospect Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bryson Shitty, NC	I'm good with whatever rule gets made. Just excited to be part of a keeper league for a change. __________________ Recklessly enthused, stubbornly amused. FUCK EA

07-17-2012, 08:40 PM	#197
samifan24 Pro Starter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: NC	1. Yes 2. No __________________ "You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball...and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time." -Jim Bouton

07-17-2012, 09:08 PM	#198
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	1. Yes 2. Yes, in principle (see below) However, if we approve #2, there's going to be a clarification voting process where we talk about all of these various outs. Do we grandfather in players, do we remove the penalty for trades, etc- the various parts we have discussed? I'm not entirely sure what I voted yes on except that I do think we should have a 3 year keeper period max but I'm not sure what shape that takes. SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

07-17-2012, 09:15 PM	#199
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	I think is we vote for the 3 year max anyone who would be released this year under that rule the owner gets to keep another season. Such as Sal with Peyton

07-18-2012, 06:43 AM	#200
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	EDIT: Moving this to the next page so it's at the top of a new page instead of getting lost at the end of page 4. Last edited by JAG : 07-18-2012 at 07:02 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)