New Proposal ( has nothing to do with the chris' thing)
by: The LaWn WrAnGleRs (lar1307)
May 15 10:50am
I would like to re-propose blakes vote that was denied a couple weeks ago about the dropping of FOF into the yearly draft, but with a change in the draft process that i think solves the problem of just dumping salary.
The point of the yearly draft is to give the last place teams the advantage in getting better players to try and equal out the rosters, and this is why it is important for it to be only one round of bidding. If it is like the original auction draft, it has nothing at all to do with what place you came in and everything to do with salary. So by keeping it one round at least the last place teams have the chance to bid after the upper teams, but the change i would like to make is where the person who is dropping the franchise player bids. In blakes proposal he was last bid, which as i explained before seemed unfair.
In the new system, i propose that the original owner of the player starts the bidding. This ensures that all the risk is placed on the original owner and that is where it should be. Then after the original owner "sets the bar" the rest of the league gets an opportunity to take the player. This ensures that the original owner both helps himself and sets the bar high enough that he will not get over bid. An example may help.
Say one player, lets call him alby, went in the original draft for 9 dollars. Under this new system, if the original manager decided to drop this player into the draft he would have the first bid on him. now it would not be smart to bid 5 or 6 dollars unless he was willing to risk losing him, but if he was to bit 7.50-8 dollars, the likelihood that anyone would out bid him would be small. In this case, the original manager gets his cap reduced and his player back, and all other managers had the opportunity to steal this player away after the original manager had put in the final bid, so everyone had their opportunity. This is the fairest way I see it, to use blakes long winded proposal with this change in the system.
ok thats it
An Additional Stipulation if that Vote is accepted
by: The@ssKickin' Friars (beddin08)
May 8 2:57am
Additionally, since this seems like a great, easy, fun way to solve this problem with FOF player's high salaries - and since it gives managers the necessary flexibility with their rosters from year to year, I propose also the following:
No longer can an auctioned player lose his FOF title or restrictions over a year. Therefore, basically, I'd like to prevent what Matt and Chris did in the future.
What this means is that, when a FOF player is traded from One team to another, he becomes that teams FOF player. He can not be dropped to Triple A or Free Agency, and therefore, must remain the same price throughout the duration of that season.
With the new rule, however, once the season is over, should the player's salary be too restrictive, that player can be dropped and sent through the auction.
Therefore, should the rule be accepted, I feel it is a must to add those Face of Franchise tags back to the players who have maintained their Auctioned prices (this only excludes Ryan Howard, who will forever be considered a regularly drafted player).
This final stipulation is not a seperate issue to be voted on but goes hand in hand with the actual Vote (which is the new Rule added to the Draft).
I really feel like this is perfect to appease everyone's wildest hopes and fears about this whole inexperience with the Auction. We can now have complete flexibility with our rosters.
STILL, this is a very testy issue, so, especially for this issue, I HIGHLY SUGGEST that we use the allotted first two days (May 8th and May 9th) NOT TO PLACE OUR VOTES, but rather just to give your own personal opinions regarding the issue at hand.
Remember, you only get one post - so be sure to consider possible counter arguments, etc. But use the time to consider everyones point of view.
AND THEN AFTER THOSE TWO DAYS HAVE PASSED and everyones viewpoint has been heard, THEN make your vote on the issue.
I really hope this solves the issue once and for all between those who feel restricted by the cap this year, and those who feel that they can not lose the advantage over the ones restricted by the cap. |
