Looking for Replacement GMs for $$ Yahoo Rotisserie 15-man Keeper League - Entering 6th Year

[OceanMon]

Hello there,

We are looking for three dedicated and passionate GMs for our keeper league.

It is $55 per year.

The beautiful details of the league can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

The team rosters can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...UE&usp=sharing

The teams that are up for adoption are: Dynamo Shopnikov, No Whining, and TBA. They finished 12th, 15th, and 11th, respectively this season...so they will have relatively good draft positions in the fall.

If interested, please email: lackofknowhau [at] yahoo [dot] ca.

Below is an example of one of the newsletters we send out during the off-season to keep managers engaged.

12-tickler-logo-01.jpg

[OceanMon]

Bump bump.

[mister_mcgoo]

No offense but those rules are just absolutely terrible...vague, unqualified, open to way too much interpretation and misinterpretation, all kinds of restrictions on who you're allowed to trade and how you have to do it, etc.

[OceanMon]

I am open to specific criticisms.

I would be interested in a link to what you think is a "good" set of rules, if you have one.

Thanks.

[mister_mcgoo]

I am open to specific criticisms.

I would be interested in a link to what you think is a "good" set of rules, if you have one.

Thanks.

OK well the rules regarding trading are really odd to me, so let me just focus on that for now.
For example you have this clause:

If is trade is made involving an injured or traded player, and the GM receiving said player was not aware of it, too bad.
This is a serious pool, and it is the responsibility of the GM to know everything about the trade that they are making.

Which I think is great and pretty close to what it says in our league actually...i.e. this league is for serious GMs, you're the only one responsible for your team, no 'dog ate my homework' excuses
but then you have subsequent clauses on how this simple rule might not apply, like:

MISLEADING GMs
1)In the event that one GM misleads another GM, for example they claim that a player is healthy when, in fact, they are not, then the victimized GM must appeal within 24 hours of the trade.
2)This is a very rare circumstance, and is only successful if the GM can convince the league that he was intentionally misled. In which case, compensation that is agreed upon by both GMs will be awarded.
3)If neither GM can agree, all the GMs in the pool will vote on whether to nullify the deal by a 66% of total votes cast.

Which completely nullifies the first clause because now any GM at any time can claim they were misled and wilfully deceived. The way I always look at this sort of thing is that each GM is 100% responsible for his team and every single move he makes with it. That includes doublechecking and triplechecking everything including injury status, linemates/ice time, any transactions the player might have been involved in, everything. In other words, it is not the responsibility of the league to manage your team for you, it's YOUR responsibility alone

Then you have this whole section on 'dump trades' which you define quite succinctly as "A dump trade is classified as one where present value is exchanged for future values." OK cool, got it, that's common in leagues and it's something I take advantage of every year in every single league I'm in (if I'm contending I try to acquire performers from losing teams, if I'm out of it I do the opposite) But not only do you cap dump trades at 1 per GM but this whole 'free market' section is bizarre:

FREE MARKET CLAUSE
1)After a trade has been accepted, other managers not involved in the trade have 4 days to negotiate with the manager dumping his players.
2)At the end of the 4 day period, if no counterbids have been submitted the trade goes through.
3)Any counterbids will be given at least 24 hours for any subsequent counterbids.
-This means that a counterbid on the fourth day will be given 24 hours for any other bids before the trade is finalized.
-Theoretically, this means that bidding can go on for an indeterminate amount of time.
4)Other GMs hoping to dump players may negotiate for the player by offering up keepers/picks
5)Any players involved in a dump trade must be designated as a keeper at the end of the year (unless their contracts expire at the end of the year).

WTF? The way this reads to me that if a GM (or group of GMs) don't want a dump trade to go thru then they csan just keep submitting counterbids to block it indefinitely in purgatory. Also why do you have to keep a player just because you traded for him in this scenario? Again that's the league managing the team instead of the GM. Couldn't the concerns here be more simply solved with an agressive trade deadline?

[OceanMon]

Hey, thanks for this!

I'll digest this later and get back to you.

[OceanMon]

Hi Mister McGoo,

Your point about misleading GMs is a valid one. We will have to get rid of it.

With regards to the free market clause:
- Yes, a GM could keep counterbidding if they don't want a trade to go through, but the penalty is that they are giving up more and more with each counterbid. At some point, the other GM(s) will not bid any more and the GM that was counterbidding for the sake of delaying, will be forced to give up assets and take the trade. So while it is indefinite, it is not in purgatory. You make a good point about an aggressive trade deadline.
- The reason that we made the rule that any player involved in a dump trade must be kept is because it essentially reduces the chances of collusion. So team A and B can't collude so that Team A gives team B a garbage player for team B's best player on the last year of his contract. Though, now that I think about it, the free market clause should take care of this possibility...we should look into removing this rule.

Fantastic feedback! I would love a thorough critique of the entire document, if you are at all inclined!

[mister_mcgoo]

Sure man, and just fyi, I think you have a lot of good features to your league and there's obviously a lot of thought and care gone into it. I just thought you should be aware of the problem areas, cheers:

-Trades involving picks MUST have the same number of picks going in either direction

Why in the world would that be a requirement?

OFF-SEASON TRADES
1. Can only be made once the list of keeper players have been submitted.
2. Only keeper players, picks and prospects can be traded.

Again, why? Lets say I have a very deep roster that I worked hard all year to acquire thru shrewd trades, smart FA pickups and a good draft. Now the season is over and I don't ven have the option to trade away non-keepers to improve my team. This eliminates a crucial dynamic in the trading process, the ability to deal borderline keepers to other teams that are able to take them on in exchange for other benefits.

I also really don't like how the veto is worded:

If anyone believes that a trade is FAR too lopsided, they may file a complaint with the commissioner within 48 hours

You do qualify it in the next section, but you really shouldn't be encouraging GMs to veto deals just because they are lopsided...again that's a scenario where you're allowing the league to manage the team and not the GM. If someone is cheating or making a 'buddy trade' as you call it then that's one thing, but just having a lopsided deal is not grounds for a vote.

Quitters in the Off-Season:
1. If the quitting GM won money in the previous season, the money deducted for the
following season’s entry fee will NOT be refunded.
1. The money will be added to the main pot of the following season, thereby
increasing the value of the pot.

Whoa! You can't do that. People need to leave leagues for all kinds of compeltely valid reasons. If they leave mid-season I fully agree with keeping their entry fee. But in the offseason they should be allowed to walk away with any winnings from the pool and not have to pay for an extra year they won't even be participating in.

HISTORY INVESTIGATION
1. If an GM quits the pool at the end of the season, their last two trades will be
investigated, even though the 48-hour deadline is long over.
1. By a 66% percent of total votes cast, if either of the trades are deemed
unfair, or that the players involved were "unloaded" at a price too cheap, the
team or teams involved will be penalized by losing their first 5 draft picks or a
punishment determined by the commissioner.
2. If a penalized team does not have any draft picks that year; picks for the
following year will be used.

Again, it's the same thing I've been harping on all along where you're letting your GMs veto any deals they don't like...I think that's a really bad feature to introduce into a league. Of course all GMs should carefully review all trades made in the league througout the year, and if they have suspicions that 2 or more GMs are colluding or otherwise cheating, AND they can prove it, those GMs should simply be ejected immediately from the league and their entry fees completely forfeited. You need to take a very hard line with cheaters and colluders, but unless you can prove that outright you can't be rewinding trades and penalizing teams...innocent until proven guilty y'know?

[OceanMon]

Hey, thanks again!!

All good points. I have submitted the changes for discussion in our league.

With regards to your question about trades with picks required to have the same number going in either direction, the league had voted on it and the majority of the managers wanted a simpler system. I didn't want this rule because I thought that there would be room for added creativity without it, as you probably agree.

[peatrc]

I think a lot of the rules that mr.mcgoo took issue with are rules that you can find in Dobber's keeper league rules that are posted here: http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index...eeper-league-1 . A lot of them are reasonable rules in my opinion, but Mr.Mcgoo is right to point out that there are too potential contradictions with other rules that you must have added over the years. I think it will be hard to get all your other GMs to engage enough to come to a consensus to rewrite so many rules.