BDL Owners Meeting 2019

[bcb1213]

32 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said:

No to any and variations theretofore of rule changes currently available to be legally voted on.

theres actually one or 2 i think don't suck, and i'm normally with you on this mindset

[SirA1]

2 hours ago, pheltzbahr said:

2 is dumb.

Agreed.  It's a needless change just to make a change.  Creates more complication as positions can be subjective. 

[WFLukic]

On 3/1/2019 at 4:51 AM, TedLavie said:

It's this time of the year.

For the new guys, you will find a list of items below that we need to rule on in the offseason. Application will usually be for next year, but I will try to specify it each time. Co-owners can vote, but there will be only vote per team.

Like last year there will be a 12h period to discuss items and a 12h period to vote on them (can be extended if needed of course)

I've tried to list them by priorities in terms of urgency. Feel free to PM me for any item I would have missed / you would want to add.

 

Roster Management

1a. Unlock ERFAs - Ted

1b. Allow the cut of locked sub500 players - Ted

1c. Allow the cut of players on 500-700 salary with 1yr deal left - Ted

1d. Reduce roster size to 60 - Ted

2. Waivers claims for IR replacements should be the same position as the player who landed on IR - Mike

3. Automatically remove retired players from a roster (can't be traded) - Mike

4. Create a Practice Squad system - Ted

5. Your annual 3UP rules review and update - everyone?

6. Reduce the draft to 5 rounds - starting in 2020 (2021?) - SirA

7. Implement future 3ups. - Hockey

 

League Management

8. Create workbooks for PFA, Waivers - Mike

9a. Review league roles and responsabilities (guidelines and members of committees, rules workbook, roster guys ...) - Ted

9b. Create a rule workbook master that would update the rules workook as season goes on - Hockey

10. Cancel owners meetings and instead create a process to vote on a rule proposal all year round - Mike

 

Regular Season Management

11a. Reduction of the season (10 games reg.season + 3 playoffs) - Mike

11b. Clarify the rules of postseason availability - Mike

12. Reduction of the amount of playoff teams (from 8 to 6) - Whicker

13. Extend voting deadlines to Wednesday 11:59pm EST - Ted

14. Limit gameplan sizes to 500 words - Lukic

 

@Jlash @wwhickok @pheltzbahr @BringinDaPain @Whicker @Counselor @samsel23 @WFLukic @PR @Ragnarok @RuskieTitan @bcb1213 @MD4L @SirA1 @Hockey5djh @SwoleXmad

 

1a. Yes

1b. No

1c. No

1d. No

2. No

3. No

4. No

5. Yes

6. No

7. Yes

League Management

8. Yes

9a. Yes

9b. Yes

10. No

Regular Season Management

11a. No

11b. Yes

12. No

13. Yes

14. Yes

[PR]

Yes to 1a-1d

[Jlash]

At this point are Lukic's votes even valid? Dude's clearly not reading any of the parameters of what he's voting on.

[TedLavie]

2 minutes ago, Jlash said:

At this point are Lukic's votes even valid? Dude's clearly not reading any of the parameters of what he's voting on.

I'm not considering any vote before votes open

Items 1a, 1b and 1c have been rejected. Given than 1b and 1c were rejected, my YES BUT to 1d became a NO, hence rejecting 1d as well.

So no change on roster size or locked/cut player rules

[Whicker]

Lol

[VigilantZombie]

While I'm a yes on #2, I don't feel so strongly about that that I think it makes a huge worldly difference either way tbh.

[DingoLadd]

If ya'll want to address the injury issues for prop 2, just make it an extra claim per starter lost. (I.E if X player has started X number of games) With a max of 4 claims per week.

Also extra IR claims would be after every team had a chance at waivers.

[bcb1213]

Am I allowed to vote no on two yet lol 

[PR]

I think #2 is stupid. If one of my putz depth lbers go down but I have 6 others, Im not likely to select the same position.

[TedLavie]

3 hours ago, PR said:

I think #2 is stupid. If one of my putz depth lbers go down but I have 6 others, Im not likely to select the same position.

But should you get an additional claim? After all IR claims exist to replace injured players

[WFLukic]

There's no restriction like that in the NFL. I don't see why we'd apply the same here. 

[SirA1]

4 hours ago, TedLavie said:

But should you get an additional claim? After all IR claims exist to replace injured players

Another solution would be to not give an extra claim but if the player was a starter the guys who lost players moved to the top of the waiver claim list. 

This would prevent things like bottom teams taking the backups of the guys that went on IR which happens a lot. 

[Jlash]

45 minutes ago, SirA1 said:

Another solution would be to not give an extra claim but if the player was a starter the guys who lost players moved to the top of the waiver claim list. 

This would prevent things like bottom teams taking the backups of the guys that went on IR which happens a lot. 

Does that then open things to subjectivity in the form of "well he's a starter in my base sets, but everyone runs spread so I rarely use base sets BUT he is a starter." Stuff like that?