FA replacement for DL player clarification discussion

[TuringComplete]

Yuck, what a lousy title. Andy posted this to the clarification thread. I've deleted it from there and posted it here:

Originally posted by andyr13:
That quote belongs to me [img]mad.gif[/img] j/k.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">In the case where cutting Player A is the only way to abide by the rules, we simply email Scott to cut him. If you have both Player A and Player C with 0 year contracts and you want to cut Player A, but can't bring him off the DL, you may still just email Scott asking him to remove him from your team.

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">There is a release button on the DL screen. Which is where I thought just letting the DL stashing rule do its job.

From the rules thread
DL STASH: NO
The ability to stash a player that is healthy within the disabled list will always be part of the game due to the code of the game not being able to be changed at the present time. However our league has agreed that this area of the game will be with held on an honor system between all league GM?s.

When a player is injured the GM can place that player on the DL but when the player has become un-injured that GM must also take that player off the DL within a grace period of 2 days. This grace period has become established for a few reasons which are GM?s not noticing their players have become healthy, a GM being out of town or not logging in or giving the GM the ability to work through a trade or drop of a player to make room for the now un-injured player on the DL.

On day zero, one, two or after the grace period of a player becoming un-injured that GM may receive private or public PM?s through the games message system alerting them to the fact that their player is now healthy from other GM?s around the league. This is really the only way we as a group can monitor this part of the game.

<font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica"><font color="#000002"><font size="1">[ March 26, 2005 12:36 PM: Message edited by: andyr13 ]</font></font></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="3" face="Sylfaen, Verdana, Helvetica">Fixed the attribution and the part about cutting players directly from the DL.

The only problem with allowing this to be covered completely by the DL stashing rule is that it still means you're violating the guaranteed contracts rule. It needs to be fixed when that rule is broken, rather than waiting until the player on the DL is healthy.

Suppose all my players have guaranteed contracts. Player A gets injured. There's a new young FA (Player B) that I'd really like to have that other people are bidding on. I could bid a multi-year contract on him and win where I wouldn't have if I'd offered a 0 year. If we go by the just the DL stashing rule, I wouldn't have to cut him until Player A was healthy.

Now it's entirely possible that Player A's injuries extend past the FA signing deadline. If I don't have to cut Player B until Player A is healthy, I've just screwed the other owners with space out of the opportunity sign Player B. I cut him after the deadline and no one can bid on him until the next season when I can cut a player to make a legal bid for him.

Does that clear why it needs to be this way? Does this further explanation need to be added to the clarification thread?

[andyr13]

Makes sense...

[hornetjohn]

You just shouldn't bid more than a 0 year deal on an injury replacement - obviously a player will sign with another team if he thinks he will be more than an injury replacement there.

[diluted]

personally ... i think cutting the player on the Dl is a better solution ... it would certainly mean that people wouldnt "accidently" sign a player to a 1 year contract if they know they will lose their star ...

[andyr13]

That is what I thought as well, but I can see both sides where it can be abused as well. But I think any rule can be abused if someone really wants to.

[hornetjohn]

nice suggestion 4H!

[kidpreacher]

but what if the player on the DL stinks and the player that they signed is a stud? Then they lose the horrible DL player, but keep the stud because they circumvented the rules. I say a monetary fine should also be set so as to discourage this type of behaviour. 5 million plus the loss of the DL player and the new player. That would scare anyone.

[hornetjohn]

No, fines only scare you if you don't get that much money.