| Brew Jon (2) |
| Chris (1) |
| Jim Larry Neal Brendan (4) |
| Blake Matt (2) |
 |
 |
 |
| Vote to institute an aspect of the Yearly Draft whereby Face of Franchise Players can be put back into an auction. (To See Additional Stipulations and Consequences see below to the "Initial Post"). |
| STATED ISSUE: |
| FINAL RULING: |
| The League DENIES the proposal to institute an Auction for Face of Franchise players into the Yearly Draft, |
| VOTING TALLY: |
| "Yes" = a vote in favor of the proposal |
| "No" = a vote not in favor of the proposal |
| "STRIKEN" = a violation of the rules for Calling a Vote whereby the managers vote can not count. |
| "No Vote" = an unvoiced indecision on the proposal (Uncounted towards final percentage of votes entered) |
| YES: |
| NO: |
| STRIKEN: |
| NO VOTE: |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Percentage to Institute = 33% (2/6) |
| ISSUE RAISED BY: |
| BLAKE |
| INITIAL POST: |
| Calling for THE BIGGEST VOTE IN LEAGUE HISTORY
by: The@ssKickin' Friars (beddin08) May 8 2:46am Alright folks, this is the big one, the issue regarding mismanagement of the Salary Cap, and the problem with Face of Franchise Players. As I was laying in bed last night trying to fall asleep, I suddenly began to ponder the problem - and finally the simplest solution hit me. After careful consideration I see zero negative aspects of the proposal, and several key improvements to the league as a whole. Here is my interpretation of the problem, and my proposed solution: PROBLEM: Because of many managers inexperience with the Auction style draft, many teams hancuffed their whole league by Signing Players for too high a salary. Furthermore, due to the roster restrictions imposed on Face of Franchise players, alleviating this problem seems near impossible. On the other hand, several managers did not mismanage their Salary Caps and took the liberty of ensuring Cap space such that trades/signings could be made during the season. Therefore, the main problem is balancing the two sides - creating a solution for the teams with Salary Cap issues, while still respecting the clear advantage and rewarding the foresight of a properly managed team. EXPLICITLY STATED RESTRICTIONS ON FACE OF FRANCHISE PLAYERS: Currently, no Face of Franchise Player can be removed from his MLB team (which means no dropping into Free Agency or Triple A). Furthermore, their excessive prices makes it rather difficult to trade from one team to another. SOLUTION: We add an Auction to the Yearly Draft for all players originally drafted via the Auction - but with a certain format. 1.) The Auction only has one round, in which all managers can make a bid. And furthermore, the order goes in the reverse order of last years standings except that the Team that dropped the player goes last. The reason for this is because a.) The Yearly draft is supposed to be used as a means to level the advantage between the best team and the worst - and having the ability to react to the previous managers bid is that very advantage. b.) This proposal is supposed to allow the manager who initially bid on that player the ability to (if at all possible) reduce his Salary. And so, say for Example the League were to end today - In the regular draft Jon would have 1st pick, then Matt, Brew, Jim, B, Lar, Chris, Neal, and Finally Me. Say Chris wanted to try and get Jose Reyes at a reduced price from his $5 - he would drop him into the pool of available players, and when it came time to draft, the following would happen. a.) I would open the draft at no lower than his actual price (same as FOF auction). So, say I opened at $2.00 b.) Then Neal would bid or pass, so he wants Reyes for $3.50. c.) It would skip Chris since it is his player, and Lar would get the option. He passes. d.) It gets all the way back to Chris for say $4.50. He could either take Reyes for the reduced price or allow him to go to the player with the highest bid. Therefore, just as intially with the Auctioned players, market value determines their price. And this gives the managers with the high cap some necessary room to work within the league. Finally, as a result of the Auction, the winner would use his first round pick in the actual draft on that Auctioned player. You could also think of this as the proper penalty to the player trying to get his Auctioned player at a lower value - he must sacrifice what would have been a first round pick to reacquire a player who was already on his team. Another aesthetic benefit of this proposal is that it just adds another fun, unique element to the yearly draft - adding also, the possibilty of big name talent being involved. So, for all you draft junkies out there (Matthew) this rule is a must. TO SUM: This new rule is very simple. We add an auction element. One round, reverse order of the standings with the Previous Owner at the end of the line. Winning manager uses his highest round pick on that player - creating a penalty for any manager signing his player at a cheaper value. 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. If that vote is accepted, I'd also like the liberty to make the proper, necessary adjustments to the league regarding the Rules and Regulations page, and changes to the Adjacent website, etc. Again, this is not an additional vote, it goes hand in hand with the primary vote. |
| Blake |
| POSTS ARGUING AGAINST THE OVERTURN: |
| Larry |
| My thoughts on the new auction proposal
by: The LaWn WrAnGleRs (lar1307) May 9 9:15am Although this is a step in the right direction, I still do not feel that this new auction format is accomplishing what it is supposed too, as I do not see it doing anything more than providing relief and leveling the advantage of having cap space now. First of all, in all likelihood this will only affect a few contracts in my opinion (Pujols, Gayrod, etc.). These contracts are big enough that people will be willing to risk losing these players, but in reality I see no way in which they lose the player in this current proposal. I think an example may be needed to fully explain my point. Pujols is at 9.60 right now. The vote starts with someone�s bid and say it rounds off around 5.50-6 dollars by the time it gets to Drew and Ball. I say this because no one is going to pay 9 dollars again, that�s what we are trying to fix with this new proposal. You are telling me that with the last bid and the chance to get pujols for 6.50, that Ball and Drew would not take that and that this is not just cap relief to those with big contracts? To counter this, you could say why doesn�t someone just push the bid to 7-8 dollars or so by the time it gets to the original owner? I don�t think anyone would take that kind of contract on the chin just to prevent someone from getting cap relief, and they shouldn�t have to. This is a good proposal in theory, all I am saying is that I see it playing out to where this strictly provides cap relief, and erodes the advantage to a team such as mine. I think the part that needs fixing is that the original owner gets last bid regardless. If we are truly going on willingness to pay, and we allow people to drop their big contracts ONE year after signing them, everyone should get free reign to bid for them, not just one round of bidding, so it follows the format of our original draft. That will help even out this proposal for everyone. I don�t see a problem with this� a.) because most likely the team dropping them will be willing to pay higher than everyone else since they have shown the desire for that player and will take any reduced cost b.) this will truly determine �market price� as stated earlier, which it isn�t if everyone is allowed only one bid c.) in all likelihood the contract will be reduced, so there is cap relief that is being given, whether the owner gets his player back at a reduced rate or not at all (in which he gets even more cap space). But that is the calculated risk needed to be taken. |