Quote:
TT I respectfully disagree 100%
Resimming impacts way too many things to be used in a trade situation.
If it is ok to have players resigned after week 1 because a GM forgot then an extension to the trade deadline should be ok too.
Same laid back approach imo
You can’t have hard rules where you want them and soft ones where it suits you.
Most leagues process trades after games are played, so since a midweek was run on Monday to process that last trade, the players were available week 9...just like any other trades that were processed all season.
The fact that it has been stated that this will also be possible in the future removes any unfair advantage for any team.
I’m not sure FA signings where one team makes an offer can be compared to a trade where 2 teams are agreeing to a deal... but I wasn’t here when that happened so I don’t know the whole story.
At the end of the day... smitty made the decision ... which is the commissioners job
I’m sure if he wanted a vote he would have asked for one
RZ,
I wasn't voting, I was merely expressing my opinion and doing so after the fact. I was not trying to influence the decision that was already made and was just expressing my thoughts on the matter.
I am still on the fence on this one and could be swayed either way. It doesn't matter what my opinion is but I also know JJ welcomes the opinions of owners. I've played with him as a co-owner and with him as commish long enough to know that he is open to honest dialogue and knows I am not questioning or criticizing his decision.
Your statement, "You can’t have hard rules where you want them and soft ones where it suits you." is precisely the reason I am not 100% sold on the trade being allowed and means we are both in complete agreement.
The trade deadline is on the calendar, it's not new. it's a cut and dried rule. You miss the deadline, you miss the deadline. It's no different then missing a Franchise Tag export. It sucks, but many owners have learned the hard way. The good part is we are a bunch of easy going guys and our commish let's us post who we intend to tag so if we miss it or have technical issues, we still get our tags in. but if you do neither and miss the deadline, you don't get to tag them the next stage.
My example relates to this issue only in that I missed a post in a forum the day before an export. I did not get the benefit of the doubt or get a pass because I did not read a post about a temporary, non-standard change to our SOP. I was sentenced to 2+ seasons of cap-jail for that mistake. To be fair, in my case there weren't a lot of easy outs to fix the situation but not a lot of effort was made to find a different way to handle it either.
If you don't see how my example illustrates your statement about consistent rule enforcement, I don't know how to break it down any clearer. I was not aware of a temporary, posted-in-a-single-thread-prior-to-a-stage rule but my ignorance of that rule was no defense. In this case, we had two owners who made a simple mistake of not knowing what week it was even though the trade deadline is a known, in-game, multi-thread reminder"ed", standing rule. Per your statement that I 100% agree with the rule is the rule; ignorance of what week it is does not excuse missing the deadline. If the trade deadline is Week 8, it's Week 8, period.
The problem is this is a trade that's been on the blocks for weeks, there's clearly no hanky-panky going on, and there's a complete absence of any threat to league integrity. This is why I have conflict - I don't see any reason we should care about the trade occurring during a midweek. Oh, except all the shit that spewed from my keyboard above. lol
As far as re-sims go, they are almost never the right answer. If a re-sim is needed, that means whatever was trying to be fixed got even more broke.
Whenever I bring up a re-sim I am doing that to be an extremist. However, I was also trying to make a point. If a QB throws for 4 TD's to win a Week 8 contest and is then allowed to be traded between weeks 8 & 9 without re-simming Week 8, can't you see how that is a major breach of league integrity? The only way to allow a trade like that would to say it occurred before the Week 8 trade deadline and therefore would require a re-sim of Week 8. Of the 30 teams not involved in the trade, 15 of those teams would possibly welcome it and 15 would most definitely be opposed. That would be the losers and winners of those games respectively of course. If we get to a point where a re-sim is required (outside of major technical issues) that means something got fucked up more by trying to fix it.
Like I said, I am on the fence and have mixed feelings on this. I don't think it's a big deal because this trade was clearly in the works and likely finalized by the time the Week 8 sim went through. I respect JJ's call to allow it but I also acknowledge the stance of those pointing out the trade occurred after the trade deadline and that by itself is an issue.
I think it's healthy for us to have discussions about these issues. This is not to critique JJ's decision one way or the other or to cast stones at the trade. Open dialogue only helps JJ understand where we are at as owners and may help us as owners if we ever have a difficult situation that requires JJ to seek our input. We all have an opinion on this, I just happen to care enough to share mine. Regardless of the sarcasm I sometimes fail at filtering out, I do appreciate discussion and debate as long as it is on topic. I actually wish more owners cared enough to share their opinion.
_________________
ROF Division Champions: 2039 - 2043, 2045, 2047, 2054, 2056 - 2060, 2063, 2066-2067
WFC Conference Champions: 2018, 2041, 2042, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062-2063
CFL Champions: 2018, 2041, 2057-2058, 2060, 2062