|
|
Post by Den Carter on Oct 4, 2009 14:09:05 GMT -5
after hearing numerous complaints and i myself feel the exact same way, im putting this into effect starting with next weeks games, the whole "renting players" thing is a joke, bye weeks are known pretty early, everyone has time to get their team ready for the season, so starting now if you trade a player, that player can not be traded back to the original team for 5 WEEKS after the trade, that should take care of this renting players , so for example, you trade someone away in week 1, you couldnt reacquire that player until the next 5 weeks go by, so you could reacquire the player in a trade after the week 6 games
|
|
|
|
Post by bosox1007 on Oct 4, 2009 15:12:03 GMT -5
Lynx and I don't have a rental agreement in place. We have an agreement to trade future players to each other, but Orten, English and McNabb aren't being traded back to each other.
I have to say I think it's weak to go and change or add a rule 4 games into the season. Pretty much this league has allowed some of the most lopsided trades of any league I've ever been in. Based on the fact that nearly every trade made is allowed, I'm not sure why I should be limited in any trades I make. If I find that I need a player for a week and deem it so important that I'll ship off a player or a pick for that rental, that should be my choice to do so.
If this was a league that actually gave a crap about lopsided trades and league integrity, I would totally expect and understand this sudden outcry. But seeing as this league is incredibly top heavy in talented teams and as far as I've seen only 1 trade has ever been revoked by the commish/league, I fail to see the merit in people complaining and crying over a legal use of trades and bettering ones team.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by knittel29 on Oct 4, 2009 15:48:17 GMT -5
Usually, I am thorough with my posts, but this one is going to be short and sweet. NO RENTALS! It is horrible for the fantasy football world. I had to move players for my bye week players, so why should I sit here and let someone rent off other owners for minimal draft pick moves. They don't do it in the NFL, so we don't do it in here. Period. Why is there an issue with this new ruling?
Note: I still want to thank Lynx for not accepting the Flacco rent.
|
|
|
|
Post by bosox1007 on Oct 4, 2009 15:55:27 GMT -5
I'm fine w/ no rentals....I'm just curious why the outcry...why the INSANITY of it all...based on the short history of the league....
AND changing rules midseason....not cool at all. So while rentals aren't cool, neither is changing the rules midseason. So we are just allowing one dumb move to cover another dumb move.
You say teams don't rent players in the NFL, yet I don't recall the NFL ever changing rules mid season either...so bad analogy. AND I do recall the Patriots acquiring Doug Gabriel from the Raiders...only to cut him a few weeks later and he resigned w/ the Raiders....something like a "rental" of some sorts.
|
|
|
|
Post by knittel29 on Oct 4, 2009 19:04:45 GMT -5
In this case though, two wrongs do make a right. Doug who? Bad analogy? We both know you will never see the Ravens loan out Joe Flacco on their bye week. The key in the Doug Gabirel (whoever that is) analogy is that the Patriots cut him. If you want Flacco to go into the FA pool after Lynx cuts him, then loan the guy out... so bad analogy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bosox1007 on Oct 4, 2009 19:19:16 GMT -5
2 Wrongs don't make a right....you can't use the argument that the NFL doesn't allow it, yet be all for allowing rule changes mid season, because the NFL doesn't allow it.
To be clear....I really have no real opinion about allowing or not allowing the renting of players. I think it's an ok practice considering the gamble associated with doing so (who says Lynx will actually trade Flacco back...not saying he wouldn't, but you get what I'm saying).
As a commish of leagues and as a player in leagues....having rules changed mid season is unheard of. What makes it seem even more absurd is the fact that trades have never (save for 1 instance) been criticized at all. Via stupid trades, this league is dramatically top heavy...when people were stocking their teams with players via lopsided trades, no one really said anything.
Simply put...changing rules in the middle of a season...loop holes or not...is NOT a good precedent to set and is not right.
|
|
|
|
Post by knittel29 on Oct 4, 2009 19:41:35 GMT -5
Totally agree that rule changes mid-season are dirty, but I will defend the commish in this instance. I am sure that it was not a decision he wanted to make, but it betters the league for the future. I only agree with this one because I would hate to see a snowballing effect of this particular loophole. I would absolutely hate to see a great league turn into a joke.
Good argument Hoof!
Chad Knittel
|
|
|
|
Post by Den Carter on Oct 4, 2009 23:01:36 GMT -5
lets be honest, I hated to make a decision like i had to reguarding this situation ESPECIALLY in week 4 of the season but to be perfectly honest, in every league ive ever been in, i've never had a team lend another team a player, its absolutley unheard of in my book. When i hear people saying "well if they can do it, i can too and i will" its just making a mockery of a fine league, maybe some dont like this league but for the most part i know the majority does and I as commissioner absolutely refuse to let it become a joke, so i stepped in and made the rule so "renting players" cant destroy this league. I understand that a few owners dont feel the same way about this as I do and we can keep posting and arguing back and forth on this subject for years but personally i'd like to move on with the season, which is shaping up to be a great battle. I'm done with this message thread, I've made a ruling which i feel is best for the league and hopefully everyone can understand where I'm coming from and move on themselves and manage your teams to the best of your abilities, all the division titles and wild cards are still up for grabs, anyone can take them. So good luck to you guys the rest of the season.
Den Carter
The Mish
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthportCrabs on Oct 4, 2009 23:46:32 GMT -5
I agree with the rule.
It is best for the league.
NASCAR changes rules on a weekly basis when someone finds a loophole of some sort, so why cant we?
Sorry this has caused such an uproar. Just was trying to be nice to a league member who was in a tough spot, especially since he was playing me. Lets move on and enjoy the rest of the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by bosox1007 on Oct 5, 2009 8:05:55 GMT -5
No vote on instituting a new rule? No feedback from the league...(Which sounds like it would have been a slam dunk to allow you to make the rule change had it gone to a vote).
I actually commend you Jay for making sure your matchup was legit with Joel....high character on your part no doubt. The argument was posed that the NFL doesn't allow this, so why should we, but then it is acceptable to change a rule midseason even though the NFL doesn't allow that.
Again....I want to reiterate for the 4th or 5th time...no renting players...fine. I really don't care about that. Changing rules midseason is not something you want to set a precedence for doing. As an owner, how do I know the commish isn't going to change something else whenever he sees fit. If this is a dictatorship league, fine let me know in advance. I've seen votes about other issues, I fail to see why this issue here isn't a votable issue.
Rule changing midseason is just as bad IF NOT MORE SO than renting players.
Renting a player is something that was suggested by ESPN of all places. Now obviously our league has an issue with it, but it's not like this is a cheating or ethical issue. Changing rules at will during the season, a season in which we all started knowing the rules and planned (or didn't plan) accordingly...that is unethical. You put rule changes that are that important to a vote...pretty clear, plain and simple OR you push it off to the offseason...again with a vote
FROM ESPN:
Tip 6: Find a "bye-week" buddy
This one falls in a gray area, but if your league doesn't have a problem with it, bye weeks will be a lot more painless. Say you have Michael Turner out this week. Your opponent has Steve Smith out this week. The two of you agree to trade Hines Ward for Darren McFadden this week so that both of you will be able to replace those studs in your lineup with something far better than what is out there in free agency. When the week is over, you trade them back. Certainly, leagues with rules in place to prevent collusion might forbid such a deal, and if there's any veto vote, the return deal is absolutely going to be squashed, but if everybody signs on to this concept, it can work. Perhaps even randomly picking your buddy as part of the Draft Day festivities can become a tradition, limiting this kind of "backsies" to just one pairing.
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthportCrabs on Oct 5, 2009 8:47:39 GMT -5
I agree that any changes we make should be put up to a vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by knittel29 on Oct 5, 2009 9:37:24 GMT -5
Let's get a vote going ASAP! Need to vote on the "renting players rule" and a "no immediate rule changes." We all know the outcomes, but it is just going to make everything calm down and bring CLOSURE to this debate. In the future event of a situation like this one, I suggest that the owners should have 24 hours to respond to any poll that is posted, and from there, the issue can be settled by the outcome of the poll. Simple and effective. What does everyone think?
|
|
|
|
Post by vandals on Oct 5, 2009 18:25:56 GMT -5
I applaud the rule. I dont see this as a rule change, but rather a rule IMPLEMENT. You guys should know better than to do player rentals. Thats just dirty.
Good call Commish
|
|
