|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 16:10:55 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that he shouldn't be a FA, whether the rules say so right now or not. He is a prospect, not a well affirmed part of the NHL at this point. So you do agree he's a free agent after all. Whether he should or shouldn't be a FA is completely irrelevant because it's the owners responsibility to handle such issues. The rules are there just to define who's a free agent and who's not. The whole issue is as clear as it gets. I picked up a player who was a free agent as defined by the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 16:12:26 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that he shouldn't be a FA, whether the rules say so right now or not. He is a prospect, not a well affirmed part of the NHL at this point. No, you shouldn't be allowed to say something so nonsensical. Franson has played over 200 games and like I said, by that point you should have known whether you wanted to keep him or not. He's well asserted within the NHL. Galchenyuk's case is with farm team movement, not 'eligibility', I feel like a broken record here. How is it about movement? Was he called up to the farm team? Does it say somewhere in the rules that at which point a player plays 10 games he will automatically be moved to the farm team?? No we have a development team in place for players that have played less than 10 games after that 10 game period he's no longer eligible for the team and at which point in the farm system he can't play for that team and is a FA. I don't see how this is not cut and dry. The same ruling was made last year with Nudge' how is this suddenly a vote. And why does it matter how many games they've played 200 or 10 200 games isn't always a solid indicator on a players success fulness in years to come some players could not show anything till after 300 games or even later the fact is that this was ruled upon last year at which point the very same manager was told no more of this ooops I forgot or didn't see it and yet here it is again the fact that this is going to a vote when the Commish has already at one point made a ruling is a joke. You aren't thinking about the bigger picture here, at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 16:13:45 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that he shouldn't be a FA, whether the rules say so right now or not. He is a prospect, not a well affirmed part of the NHL at this point. So you do agree he's a free agent after all. Whether he should or shouldn't be a FA is completely irrelevant because it's the owners responsibility to handle such issues. The rules are there just to define who's a free agent and who's not. The whole issue is as clear as it gets. I picked up a player who was a free agent as defined by the rules. The rules need to be amended, I'm not sure what you aren't getting here? |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 16:15:04 GMT -5
This should be handled like UFA/RFA is, with offer sheets, over 200 games played the player is a UFA, RFA equals your entire Farm System but if you allow a player to go over 10 games played on your Junior Roster that player can be signed by another manager but the original owner has the right to surrender the player (maybe even for pick compensation) or 'match' which would mean giving up a pick for the 'violation'. Maybe. But that's not what our rulebook says, is it? I went with our current rulebook and with the judgement that our commish gave last year on the very same issue. Everything I did was within the rules. Now if you want to change the rules of development teams that's fine with me, but you cannot track back to my player claim which was completely legal at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 17, 2013 16:17:30 GMT -5
What needs to be amended? And why?
This was stated last year
Automatic promotion won't work because nearly every team in the league operates at full capacity on both farm teams at all times. In which case it would just become a lot of busy work that would end up in the same result: players in violation becoming free agents and/or being tossed into the summer drafts.
Additionally, "automatic promotion" shifts responsibility from individual managers back to me, and that is something that we have been working to move away from over the past couple seasons.
At this point, I think it is only fair that the standard 2 DAY GRACE PERIOD (same as a waiver claim) be given. However, I understand that some managers may not log in to see this message until tomorrow, the next day, or even after the two-day grace period has ended. Therefore, this ALL TEAMS NEED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY TRANSACTIONS TO RESOLVE THIS SITUATION BEFORE THE END OF THIS STATISTICAL WEEK (SUNDAY 2/19).
No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft.
Why should we have a development team that states you can have a player there until 10 games played if were just going to amend that? after it was amended last year? Does that mean that when we amend it now and change it to say 50 games that when someone signs someone after 51 games played we'll amend that to? Fuck all this amending every time someone screws up show some responsibility and pay attention to when your players are no longer eligible for a team. The rules are in place they don't need to be constantly amended especially when it's something like this. I understand the need when it's something bigger than this but this is plain and simple Marks fuck up and he shouldn't be babied after being told the exact same thing last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 16:18:51 GMT -5
This should be handled like UFA/RFA is, with offer sheets, over 200 games played the player is a UFA, RFA equals your entire Farm System but if you allow a player to go over 10 games played on your Junior Roster that player can be signed by another manager but the original owner has the right to surrender the player (maybe even for pick compensation) or 'match' which would mean giving up a pick for the 'violation'. Maybe. But that's not what our rulebook says, is it? I went with our current rulebook and with the judgement that our commish gave last year on the very same issue. Everything I did was within the rules. Now if you want to change the rules of development teams that's fine with me, but you cannot track back to my player claim which was completely legal at the time. You signing Galchenyuk is an egregious injustice, the technical aspects of the Junior Farm Team haven't been thoughtfully covered. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 16:24:01 GMT -5
Whether you consider this ethical, Nos is completely irrelevant aswell. This isn't the holy catholic church and I'm not applying to be the next Pope.  When I signed up to the league I was unaware I have to go through my actions with a council of ethics and proper behaviour. Nowhere did it say you have to play nice, even though I have in just about everything I've done in the league. In fact I'd argue you're no stranger to competetive streak either Nos. That's all in the game. Also we all have different things we consider ethical, but we certainly shouldn't even be voting on such things. I personally have no problems punishing an experienced GM for repeating a mistake for the second time. Then again I would have a problem with benching all my best players to tank to a bottom2 finish for a high pick because I consider that unethical. Yet I've never requested a vote on that. This is a competetive environment and in such places mistakes are often costly. Boom, you just got Poped!   |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 16:28:19 GMT -5
What needs to be amended? And why? This was stated last year Automatic promotion won't work because nearly every team in the league operates at full capacity on both farm teams at all times. In which case it would just become a lot of busy work that would end up in the same result: players in violation becoming free agents and/or being tossed into the summer drafts. Additionally, "automatic promotion" shifts responsibility from individual managers back to me, and that is something that we have been working to move away from over the past couple seasons. At this point, I think it is only fair that the standard 2 DAY GRACE PERIOD (same as a waiver claim) be given. However, I understand that some managers may not log in to see this message until tomorrow, the next day, or even after the two-day grace period has ended. Therefore, this ALL TEAMS NEED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY TRANSACTIONS TO RESOLVE THIS SITUATION BEFORE THE END OF THIS STATISTICAL WEEK (SUNDAY 2/19). No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft. Why should we have a development team that states you can have a player there until 10 games played if were just going to amend that? after it was amended last year? Does that mean that when we amend it now and change it to say 50 games that when someone signs someone after 51 games played we'll amend that to? Fuck all this amending every time someone screws up show some responsibility and pay attention to when your players are no longer eligible for a team. The rules are in place they don't need to be constantly amended especially when it's something like this. I understand the need when it's something bigger than this but this is plain and simple Marks fuck up and he shouldn't be babied after being told the exact same thing last year.  Try reading through the thread, carefully. I've detailed what should be amended, I've also detailed an accountability clause, so there is no 'oh well' here, losing somebody like Galchenyuk in this fashion is insanity. It's too harsh. Amending the rules is a necessity, do you really believe our first rulebook was infallible? Get out of here. It's been amended constantly, for the better. I'm stunned, absolutely stunned, that you two don't honestly believe this is way too harsh. Obviously Markus wants talent, by any means necessary, and Chris sees another way to pluck away talent and doesn't want to give that up. Why would I be arguing so vehemently against such an injustice for a team that's perhaps in the Top 3 in the league? Allowing Markus to keep Galchenyuk would improve my standing in the league but I'm arguing for Mark. Why is that? Think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 17, 2013 16:28:24 GMT -5
If it needed I be amended then why wasn't it last year when the exact same transgression took place? A ruling was made last year and it was fine then should be now nothing has changed
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 17, 2013 16:41:52 GMT -5
The whole issue is as clear as it gets. I picked up a player who was a free agent as defined by the rules. That's the problem you just don't get. The rule you keep quoting didn't say you can take players from the development team. It says once a player is no longer a minor leaguer, he can be signed as a FA. That rule was made before we even established the development teams. The issue at hand is that he's not a FA because he still qualifies as a prospect in my farm system. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 17, 2013 16:45:28 GMT -5
The whole issue is as clear as it gets. I picked up a player who was a free agent as defined by the rules. That's the problem you just don't get. The rule you keep quoting didn't say you can take players from the development team. It says once a player is no longer a minor leaguer, he can be signed as a FA. That rule was made before we even established the development teams. The issue at hand is that he's not a FA because he still qualifies as a prospect in my farm system. But the fact is that he wasn't on your farm team he was on your development team and at which point he played over 10 games he was ineligible for that team making him a FA unless you called him up which you did not. Derrick ruled on this last year with Nudge and it was explained then that you didn't get the excuse of I didn't know and it also stated that players weren't going to automatically be moved up to the farm team thats your job not Derricks. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 16:45:52 GMT -5
The whole issue is as clear as it gets. I picked up a player who was a free agent as defined by the rules. That's the problem you just don't get. The rule you keep quoting didn't say you can take players from the development team. It says once a player is no longer a minor leaguer, he can be signed as a FA. That rule was made before we even established the development teams. The issue at hand is that he's not a FA because he still qualifies as a prospect in my farm system. No he does not qualify as your property because you rostered him in a team where he's no longer eligible. Simple as. Same way players you release from your farm teams are no longer your property. I really don't understand how you can even argue this kind of bs. I recently released Marek Tvrdon from my Development team. Now it doesn't say anywhere he actually becomes a free agent because he wasn't rostered in my AHL-farm or my main team, yet for all intents and purposes he still is a free agent. Or do you argue that I still hold rights to every single player I've released from my development team? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 17, 2013 17:08:21 GMT -5
Also we all have different things we consider ethical, but we certainly shouldn't even be voting on such things. I personally have no problems punishing an experienced GM for repeating a mistake for the second time. Then again I would have a problem with benching all my best players to tank to a bottom2 finish for a high pick because I consider that unethical. Yet I've never requested a vote on that. [/img][/quote] Bitter much? I never intentionally benched players last year. I kept some talented younger players on my farm team to retain their product / minor league status. Last I checked, that wasn't illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 17, 2013 17:11:14 GMT -5
That's the problem you just don't get. The rule you keep quoting didn't say you can take players from the development team. It says once a player is no longer a minor leaguer, he can be signed as a FA. That rule was made before we even established the development teams. The issue at hand is that he's not a FA because he still qualifies as a prospect in my farm system. No he does not qualify as your property because you rostered him in a team where he's no longer eligible. Simple as. Same way players you release from your farm teams are no longer your property. I really don't understand how you can even argue this kind of bs. I recently released Marek Tvrdon from my Development team. Now it doesn't say anywhere he actually becomes a free agent because he wasn't rostered in my AHL-farm or my main team, yet for all intents and purposes he still is a free agent. Or do you argue that I still hold rights to every single player I've released from my development team? I could say the same thing about your argument being bs. Now you're saying I released Galchenyuk? You're just making something up completely now. I never released him. This is entirely different. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 17:13:19 GMT -5
Bitter much? I never intentionally benched players last year. I kept some talented younger players on my farm team to retain their product / minor league status. Last I checked, that wasn't illegal. Ye you certainly didn't bench the likes of Price to play third tier backups who actually weren't even playing, right? Unethical, most certainly yes. Yet no votes were requested because there's nothing in the rules that prevent that. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 17:16:43 GMT -5
No he does not qualify as your property because you rostered him in a team where he's no longer eligible. Simple as. Same way players you release from your farm teams are no longer your property. I really don't understand how you can even argue this kind of bs. I recently released Marek Tvrdon from my Development team. Now it doesn't say anywhere he actually becomes a free agent because he wasn't rostered in my AHL-farm or my main team, yet for all intents and purposes he still is a free agent. Or do you argue that I still hold rights to every single player I've released from my development team? I could say the same thing about your argument being bs. Now you're saying I released Galchenyuk? You're just making something up completely now. I never released him. This is entirely different. I never said that. You however claim to hold rights to Galchenyuk who's no longer eligible to be held in your development team. I could claim to hold rights to any player I've released under the same retarded logic even though they're no longer eligible to be rostered in my development team because my team is already at it's maximum roster size. I could claim to hold rights to any and all prospects out there who aren't already claimed because roster sizes and game limits are irrelevant. Makes sense. Oh wait, I actually couldn't because they haven't passed through normal farm teams so they technically aren't free agents. NOW IT'S REALLY MAKING SENSE. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 17, 2013 17:34:00 GMT -5
Obviously, you're not getting the core concept. If you want, you could try to make those signings. You seem pretty good at signing players you don't own & trying to justify it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 17:39:37 GMT -5
Obviously, you're not getting the core concept. If you want, you could try to make those signings. You seem pretty good at signing players you don't own & trying to justify it. Well it's obvious you don't even have an argument anymore so unless something drastic happens (maybe I get voted as the new Pope, who knows) I'm just gonna close my care here. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Feb 18, 2013 10:52:07 GMT -5
First, let me start off by saying that only 5 votes in almost 2 days in unacceptable from the league. Especially since nearly every GM has logged on during that time frame. Since this is such an important issue, the standard "2 week poll" may not be applicable. EVERY GM needs to vote/input.
With that said, we could argue semantics for days on end to no avail. What it boils down to is that there is a tri-fold problem here involving separate but related discrepancies.
1.) The written rules in the rulebook are outdated/wrongly worded/in contradiction with one another/subsequent informal rulings which results in;
2.) An ethical issue where we must decide how to handle a situation where neither manager is incorrect in his stance (as a result of the aforementioned #1), yet any verdict is going to yield a negative outcome by;
3.) Either creating an ex-post facto law (returning Galchenyuk to Mark, even though Markus was operating within his rights of the current written rulebook and the intent of subsequent rulings on the subject, albeit limited) based on poor/non-existent wording in the rulebook for the "greater good" of the league, and allowing yet another "free pass" to GM's who are in violation of the rules. Or alternatively, by allowing intent to supersede the written rules of the league, by taking a "tough-love" approach and allowing top talent to be lost in such a manner.
The only "wrong-doing" in this entire debate is that Mark was in violation of Section 8, Rule D, but there is no concrete explanation in the rulebook for how to handle such a violation.
Likewise, in signing Galchenyuk, Markus did not do anything wrong and operated within his rights under the current wording of rule Section 8, Rule D
and additionally the corresponding ruling/post made by me 1.5 years ago pertaining to the same issue:
However, there are problems that stem from this. The above was just a ruling, and never officially adopted/amended in the rulebook (it must have taken place after the last amending of the rulebook, and was set to be added in the next update).
Additionally, as Mark has pointed out, more technicalities and bad/errant/non-existing wording exists in the rulebook under Section 8, Rule M that further complicate the situation:
The key words here are "farm team" and "active roster." Based on the wording alone in the rulebook, it is clear that the "additional farm" (as mentioned in Section 8, Rule D above) is not alluded to either by name or reasonable deduction. Ie, A player is unlikely to be "called up to your active roster" straight from the additional farm team, indicating the written rule pertains only to the standard farm team, outdated, and in contradiction to subsequent rules/rulings or not. Thus making Section 8 Rule D, and Section 8 Rule M in direct contradiction of one another, or at the very least, incompatible.
Which brings us to the real crux of the issue. How should this situation be handled? It is my opinion that intent should never supersede the written rules. But one must understand that taking this hardline approach is not foolproof. Often times it calls for an amending of the currently understood rules in order to make progress and move forward for the greater good of the league. But these types of decisions should only be made to accommodate a currently existing problem, not one that could potentially happen. The latter is a very dangerous and slippery slope.
Since we are dealing with a problem that currently exists, and a problem where both parties are correct in their assertions, everyone invloved must understand that there can not possibly be a clear cut "winner." Everyone (including myself) has to give a little so that the rules can be amended, the league better itself, and so something like this doesn't happen again in the future.
I take full responsibility for not formally adding the "Intent Ruling" of 1.5 years ago to the rulebook. Had it been added (and the wordings in the rulebook been changed to fully accommodate the additional farm team), this would have been a cut and dry matter where Markus would have been able to sign Galchenyuk. But since it was not added, Mark has (legally) been able to construct a sound argument against such a process based on flaws in the rulebook. So in short, Markus is being punished by faulty wording/contradicting rules while operating under the currently established ones, while Mark is using the faulty wording/incompatibility of rules to his advantage, albeit in violation of one.
In my opinion, there are no losers here if we use this as just another stepping stone to make the league even better moving forward. But in order to do so, there must be a fine line drawn between handing out free passes, and honoring the written rules of the league. This will almost undoubtedly result in the players who were signed being returned to their previous teams, and me having to add (against my personal beliefs) some rules to the rulebook that clarify and/or safeguard against this problem (as well as others) from happening again in the future.
Therefore, it is my recommendation that we nullify the signings, amend every rule that needs amending (Section 8 Rule D, Section 8 Rule M, inclusion of the "Intent Ruling," and any other rules necessary) to make a more comprehensive rulebook (against my will because one can not possibly anticipate every problem/change), but just as important, devise a punitive system for those who are found in violation (especially repeat offenders) of currently established rules, (as well as to reward those who operate legally under the currently established rules), similar to the already existing Section 1, Sub-section 4, Rules V and VI:
It should be understood that league well-being is more important than any personal opinion. And with that said, I make no bones about saying that I do not agree with the approach that has been described in this post (I am all for a more punitive system that demands accountability and uses others to set an example when found in violation of the supreme law of the land, ie, the rulebook). But I also understand that there will always be shades of gray, and that we must approach them rationally in order to better the league.
Should the league decide otherwise, I will stand behind it. But if a ruling is not reached otherwise, this ruling will stand as-is and we will move forward with amending the rules and establishing a punitive/reward system for those found in violation/finding the violations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 18, 2013 12:18:23 GMT -5
"I take full responsibility for not formally adding the "Intent Ruling" of 1.5 years ago to the rulebook. Had it been added (and the wordings in the rulebook been changed to fully accommodate the additional farm team), this would have been a cut and dry matter where Markus would have been able to sign Galchenyuk. But since it was not added, Mark has (legally) been able to construct a sound argument against such a process based on flaws in the rulebook. So in short, Markus is being punished by faulty wording/contradicting rules while operating under the currently establish ones, while Mark is using the faulty wording/incompatibility of rules to his advantage, albeit in violation of one."
I don't think anything needs to be said beyond that.
|
|
When I signed up to the league I was unaware I have to go through my actions with a council of ethics and proper behaviour. Nowhere did it say you have to play nice, even though I have in just about everything I've done in the league. In fact I'd argue you're no stranger to competetive streak either Nos. That's all in the game.
Try reading through the thread, carefully. I've detailed what should be amended, I've also detailed an accountability clause, so there is no 'oh well' here, losing somebody like Galchenyuk in this fashion is insanity. It's too harsh. Amending the rules is a necessity, do you really believe our first rulebook was infallible? Get out of here. It's been amended constantly, for the better. I'm stunned, absolutely stunned, that you two don't honestly believe this is way too harsh. Obviously Markus wants talent, by any means necessary, and Chris sees another way to pluck away talent and doesn't want to give that up. Why would I be arguing so vehemently against such an injustice for a team that's perhaps in the Top 3 in the league? Allowing Markus to keep Galchenyuk would improve my standing in the league but I'm arguing for Mark. Why is that? Think about it.
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.