Rule Changes #1, #2, and #3 PASSED
current voting: 6 yes (Bryan, Joe, Kiah, Justin, Jerod, Tony)
Under IF/THEN RULE
“Any changes to a lineup require an If-Then list sent to the league prior to the start of a game where a player in that game will either be removed from or added to the lineup: no retroactive changes are possible without the If-Then list ahead of time. It is the responsibility of the manager to send the If-Then list if there is any possible need for a lineup change.”
Rule Change #2: One Preseason FA Pick: PASSED
“The manager must reserve money to pay a minimum of $1 for each of the 16 required positions. This means that the most money a manager can bid on one player at any time is X minus remaining roster spots plus one, which is here called ‘Maximum Bid.’ Otherwise,”
(replace):
“minimum bid of $1”
(with):
“minimum bid of $0”
(cut):
“There are no “cents:”
Under IF/THEN RULE
(insert as final paragraph):
“Any changes to a lineup require an If-Then list sent to the league prior to the start of a game where a player in that game will either be removed from or added to the lineup: no retroactive changes are possible without the If-Then list ahead of time. It is the responsibility of the manager to send the If-Then list if there is any possible need for a lineup change.”
Rule Change #2: One Preseason FA Pick: PASSED
current voting: 6 yes (Bryan, Joe, Kiah, Justin, Jerod, Tony)
Under PRESEASON FREE AGENCY:
(replace entire rule with):
“Each manager is granted ONE preseason free agency pickup, where he may drop a player on his roster in order to pick up a free agent player. This pick may be used at any point from the immediate completion of the draft until the beginning of the final game of week one (subject to the rule excluding from the free agent pool any player whose team's game for that week has begun). The manager may use this pick at any point for any reason, but once it is used, that manager has no more preseason free agency pickups. Preseason Free Agency picks are tradeable commodities.”
Rule Change #3: Zero Dollar Bids: PASSED
Under PRESEASON FREE AGENCY:
(replace entire rule with):
“Each manager is granted ONE preseason free agency pickup, where he may drop a player on his roster in order to pick up a free agent player. This pick may be used at any point from the immediate completion of the draft until the beginning of the final game of week one (subject to the rule excluding from the free agent pool any player whose team's game for that week has begun). The manager may use this pick at any point for any reason, but once it is used, that manager has no more preseason free agency pickups. Preseason Free Agency picks are tradeable commodities.”
Rule Change #3: Zero Dollar Bids: PASSED
current voting: 6 yes (Kiah, Bryan, Justin, Joe, Tony, Nathan), 1 no (Jerod), 1 abstain (Jon)
Under Auction Draft:
(replace):
Under Auction Draft:
(replace):
“The manager must reserve money to pay a minimum of $1 for each of the 16 required positions. This means that the most money a manager can bid on one player at any time is X minus remaining roster spots plus one, which is here called ‘Maximum Bid.’ Otherwise,”
(with):
"A manager has $300 with which to fill his 16-man roster. Bids in whole number dollar increments may not exceed the remaining dollars in a manager's account; the minimum bid for any player is $0. Any player acquired for $0 is automatically added to the winning manager's roster with no subtraction to the manager's account. If the bidding for a player exceeds (or, if another manager in the bidding reaches) a manager's remaining money, that manager is automatically out of the bidding."
(replace):
“minimum bid of $1”
(with):
“minimum bid of $0”
(cut):
“There are no “cents:”
Proposal 1- Yes
ReplyDeleteProposal 2 - Yes
Proposal 3 - Yes, rewritten for clarity : A manager had $300 with which to fill his 16-man roster. Bids in whole number dollar increments may not exceed the remaining dollars in a managers account; the minimum bid for any player is $0. Any player acquired for $0 is automatically added to the winning managers roster with no subtraction to the manager's account. If the bidding for a player exceeds (or, if another manager in the bidding reaches) a manager's remaining money, that manager is automatically out of the bidding.
another flip after talking to Kiah again...I vote yes on proposal #3....values are relative and it does make it easier to just look up at money left and know that is the max anyone can go
ReplyDeleteI moved the voting into the post, to leave this open for discussion.
ReplyDeleteI will also be starting a post for discussion of the skills competition, and during the season, I will post an open thread for any discussion.
If we post discussion here, we can give all members more control over how much discussion they want to involve themselves in and when.
I mean to say I put the vote totals into the post: voting can/should still take place in the comments section here, along with discussion.
ReplyDeleteI am a yes for the first 2 changes also
ReplyDeleteJerod made a point that the rulebook needs to be explicit that (if this rule goes through) while a starting bid of $0 would be acceptable, in the bidding you must actually increase the bid (that's obvious, of course, but when somebody says "AP, 20 dollars" and then another joker says "AP, 20 dollars. What, we can do zero dollar bids!" we'll be annoyed). So if the rule goes through I would leave in this sentence (previously listed to be cut):
ReplyDelete"all bidding must be made in whole numbers, an increase of at least $1.”
I apologize for yesterday's emails about minutiae of wording of the Constitution (I was having an OCD day where little perceived flaws in a sentence would nag and nag at me; I need to remember that nobody else could possibly care) and from now on when discussing wording of constitution, I'll try to keep the focus on SUBSTANCE (as I think this is) rather than STYLE.
BTW, I do see the flaw of my theoretical argument yesterday that zero dollar bids would lead to a discrepancy in spending. If we allow zero dollar bids, all it does is push the baseline for bidding down to zero for every player: Manager A may have a bunch of zero dollar players and Manager B none, but all of Manager B's players started at a baseline of zero, and whatever he paid for each player is what he paid over that baseline. The only thing "theoretically" done, then, is to raise the salary cap, since by lowering the baseline of 16 players by one dollar, we would actually be allowing for $16 more in spending.
ReplyDeleteI'm still voting no (I think the $1 baseline better acknowledges the value/cost of each player), but I recognize that pushing the baseline cost of each player down a dollar doesn't lead to discrepancies.
Here's my argument for $0 players. As the current system stands there are two numbers to keep track of: Account Balance and Maximum Allowable Bid. I realize that this has never been a problem as Justin is always on top of both, but allowing $0 bids rolls AB and MAB into one number. It's a straight accounting conversion.
ReplyDeleteIs there anyway to devalue a kicker more than refusing to even spend one dollar one him? I say no.
After battling through my internal questions and talking it out with Kiah...he is totally on.
ReplyDeleteHere is the reason why I am for it: When we look up at the boards everyone could easily see what the other managers "max bid" could be. Currently we have to know this or keep track of it on our own papers.
The advantages outweigh the "tradition" or "$1 value" aesthetic in my opinion.
I could be swayed back to Kiah's view too. I'll stick with a no vote, but we'll see how the votes go.
ReplyDeleteThough that's because I've been swinging back and forth: it was amusing to watch Justin swear angrily, make shit up, threaten to quit running the yahoo page, pray for us to make the right decision, then change his mind.
I vote no out of spite for Justin's flip-flopping. Joe nailed it in his last post.
ReplyDeleteIf this passes are you still going to input the draft results, Justin? This could influence my vote.
While I find a zero dollar bid incredibly ugly, I do see the benefit to the Maximum Bid being blatantly obvious (I also find "remaining money minus remaining roster spots plus one" incredibly ugly), without causing a fundamental change to our draft system.
ReplyDeleteI change my vote to yes.
I vote yes to #1 and #2
ReplyDeleteTony says....
ReplyDeleteI vote yes to #1, #2, and #3. They all make sense and are improvements that make sense.
I will still input the draft....in the end I had an irrational reaction to this proposal....and I have no idea why.
ReplyDeleteI vote no to #3. I find it the idea that I "payed" $0 for a human football player is outrageous. That's my only defense.
ReplyDeleteActually you are paying nonexistent, made up money in order to get points out of the numbers produced by the human football player. But I understand the ickiness of a $0 bid.
ReplyDeleteTo enact a rule change are we requiring 6 yes votes or just 50%+1 of total votes placed?
ReplyDeleteFrom the constitution:
ReplyDelete"If the majority of the league agrees to a rule change, the rule is changed. It is not merely a majority of people who actually vote, but a majority of the entire league required to change a rule. A person who abstains from voting on Rule Change A essentially casts a vote of “no” on Rule Change A; not voting is a vote against change.
Jon says:
ReplyDeleteI realize that this doesnt matter now, but
I vote yes on rules #1 and #2.
I am abstaining on rule change #3. I realize this means my vote essentially stays a no, but I simply feel that its a change for the sake of change and its unnecessary but it isnt a horrible change if it does happen.
I've thought through the zero dollar bid rule again and have decided it is a rule change that makes for a better draft system.
ReplyDeleteI change my vote to a yes.
Michael Jenkins $0?
Oh it's on! Viva la Cero Revolucion!
ReplyDeleteWe decided to separate the discussion of $0 opening bid from the cap. Is the cap going to stay at $300 or shift down to $285 to balance the reduced starting bid? I say we stay with $300 if it comes to a vote.
ReplyDelete