New proposed rules.

[Halifax Hurricanes]

As far as basketball goes I have no objections to any of the proposed rule changes. The only additional change I could suggest would be to do away with the forced call up of players from the development team. One take away I got from the discussions was that the rookie scales do not appear to work well for hockey and maybe also baseball. However, as I only play basketball, I am not really qualified to speak to that. Otherwise great job.

[Dynasty Empire]

The reason there has to be some regulation on rookie call up is simply because we are trying to balance the salaries on the rookies so they are not super cheap and other players super expensive. I keep hearing that you should not be punished for drafting well and doing your research. 98% of contract GM's do research and draft well but if a player is say a 4th year rookie and is being drafted in the 1st or 2nd round of most standard drafts then why should you have that player for peanuts just because you drafted him.The fact is i play in all these leagues and the rules affect me the same as everyone and i feel if i drafted Lonzo Ball and in 4 years he is a top PG then i will have to pay him better than $4 to $7 the next 4 years. At the same time if i drafted Markell Fultz and in 4 yrs he is Kyle Korver then i say goodbye not paying you the X% it will cost.I know people want their cake and eat it too but the rules apply to all players not just a select few.This is a general statement about the subject and not directed at Halifax above.He just happened to bring up the subject...but to answer the question about forced call ups,not all rules are in place to benefit a gm (as most people seem to think all rules should be a positive advantage for themselves) but to create strategy and introduce a little more thought into the game. If we want to "keep it simple" then we can all play standard leagues. The forced call up makes gm's decide if they want to keep a player they drafted or release him. If that player has met the minimum requirement that we have set then they have more than likely had enough exposure to the Major league of their sport to make a reasonable decision about their future on your(and my) teams.

[Halifax Hurricanes]

Just to add, I am fine with the forced call ups, I simple brought it forward, as I heard it debated in chat quite a few times, and if changes had to be made to the rules proposed, this one would be one I could support.

[Halifax Hurricanes]

Just to repeat what I have posted on chat in case members of the board missed it:


"Let me once and for all capsulize the Hurricanes position on the proposed changes: 1) Trading of cap space: Although I ideally would like to see no trading of cap space - I certainly have no problem with the proposed compromise of +/- 25% of the $ 160 cap limit. 2) Streaming: I understand the board is working on this issue, I would think that the simplest solution would simple be not to allow a team placing a player on waivers to reclaim him until such a time that this player has been added and dropped by another team. I am however receptive to any other proposal that will eliminate or at least curtail this practice. 3) Rookie starting contracts and resign escalation: I have absolutely no issue with whatever the board comes up with in the long run. It simple means we have to adjust our strategies to fall in line with the rules no matter how we want to build a competitive team, be it through the draft, free agency or a combination of both. That is it for me, I am done."

[CFL Rejects]

First off I agree changes need to be made, with that in mind.

* The hard cap is a great idea, but it should be limited to say $200 otherwise trading cap will be pointless and much less valuable.
* The minor league roster/ draft picks should be raised, HOWEVER it should be one of the other. Either the first round pick is $4 or the resign is increased to say 200%. 300% is too much, and will make the draft as well as the picks relatively worthless. As well if a manager drafts well he should be rewarded.
* Streaming, no a problem with it, if a manager has cap space left and wants to use it then fine, again if he drafted well and wants to use the excess cap he has then so be it. Again why should one manager be punished because another manager wants to not be as active or not draft as well.

we need change lets take baby steps not long jumps.


For the most part I am speaking with regards to hockey and baseball.

[Stark Direwolves]

I also agree that changes need to be made. I also think, however, that the proposed changes are too much all at once.
-I would rather the cap be +/- $60
-I believe that the percentage bumps on re-signs for the rookies should be linked to performance. I realize that this is added work for you guys who are just volunteering, so I propose something simple, like the Yahoo rank for the contract year of the player (or an average of his 2 or 3 previous final rankings if injuries, etc affected performance in the contract year). My thinking here is that not all first rounders are Connor McDavid or Giannis Antetokounmpo or Trea Turner or Leonard Fournette. There are actually much more Patrik Stefans, Anthony Bennetts, Tim Beckhams and Ryan Leafs. While it's true we can simply just drop these guys instead of re-signing them, it is creating a lot of roster turnover and I generally don't enjoy lots of roster turnover. That's why I like this network. We're a dynasty network. Should the Fournettes and McDavids of the world be subject to a 300% raise after contract year 5? Yes. But should TJ Yeldon? No. There are metrics out there that we can use, second-hand, not a lot of extra work, to determine the jump from a list of say, 150%, 200%, 250% or 300%. If it's black and white and considers our stat categories (hence the yahoo ranking idea) it will be fair for all.
**If this is not considered as a possible solution, I do not support a 300% jump. It's too high for too many players. If you'd prefer not to consider performance (which is how salaries are determined in the real world, btw) then a 200% jump is high enough.
***ALSO - I am willing to help out with this. I can produce a 4-column list every year of which players fall into which categories. There won't be many players to worry about for the next couple of years.
-Streaming should not be eliminated. If a manager has managed his cap well enough to have this luxury, good for him. He does, however, incur the risk of losing any player he places on waivers. I agree, though, that excessive use of this needs to be addressed, so a weekly waiver transaction limit should be adopted. Perhaps, say, 3 per week?

I am in no way looking at this from a me-first/my-roster-first perspective. We are all here for fun. We aren't getting paid. So I'm thinking about what I find fun. If it's not fun, there are literally thousands of other things I could be doing with my time. That's it. The proposed rules as they stand wouldn't impact me any more than anyone else. I'm just speaking from what I think is going to be more fun, therefore, better for the network. Easier to retain GMs when it's fun.

At the end of the day we all want the same thing. In my experience though, a lot of major changes all at once are generally a bad thing. If we compromise and, say, lower the increments, and we find later that it wasn't enough we can make another adjustment down the road. That's a safer approach for something that, in my opinion, has been fun and working for the most part. Again, I recognize that our current structure isn't sustainable and needs to be adjusted. Let's just be calculated and careful.

Thanks guys. I appreciate the work you do as well as the opportunity to voice ideas.

[indyspeed]

I want to thank the board for all their work to keep this network going strong. I love playing on the network. As a contracts baseball only guy, I think that the cap was a right move and I really appreciated that. I think this has been stated before but I think the adjustment to rookie rosters should be either the increased bump or the changed contract values, but not both. I think that could still get more players into Free Agency, but also reward good drafting. I do think that something like this needed to be done and want to thank you guys again for your hard work.

[Stark Direwolves]

We really need to just make the player a RFA after the first real contract (either after year 2, 3, 4, or 5 depending on the decision made by the original GM in terms of contract length). Then the drafting GM has the opportunity to match what the market is willing to bear for the player in question. This addresses my worries for the network in a more efficient and specific-to-the-individual-player way than my previously posted idea.