Several illegal offers by DET

[Ben E Lou]

2-year offers to at least five players in years 3-5.

[Ben E Lou]

I'm removing this export per the rules, but I'm thinking that starting next year, I can release the players and let people suffer cap hits. Thoughts?

[Disturbed]

I don't see any issue with that.

I don't know if you would want to keep a record of it but maybe set it up to where a owner gets 1 strike where you don't release their guys and then if they do it a second time or more the players get released.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm removing this export per the rules, but I'm thinking that starting next year, I can release the players and let people suffer cap hits. Thoughts?

I donno, granted I just joined the league, but given the types of signing bonuses that seem to be handed out in this league, that could kill a team for 2 seasons, right?

[Sef0r]

I say drop the export. Newbies joining will be turned off when they don't have money to play with.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I donno, granted I just joined the league, but given the types of signing bonuses that seem to be handed out in this league, that could kill a team for 2 seasons, right?

How often are these big money deals? Aren't they generally someone forgetting when offering to their former scrub players?

[cthomer5000]

im sure every illegal offer was borderline minsal.

my mistake obviously.... i think a lot of this had to do with recreating a ton of offers from the my 'too late' export from the day before.

this offseason is off to a fuckin flying start.

[QuikSand]

I agree with the above that skipping a stage (in a league where we only have a few) is probably punishment enough. But I'm a repeat offender, so take that for what it's worth.

Also, consider that with as few stages as we do have, allowing an illegal export to result in a signing and then release may have an unintended effect of mucking up the timing for another team interested in that player. Just excluding the export is the simplest way to avoid that, I'd think.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by wade moore

How often are these big money deals? Aren't they generally someone forgetting when offering to their former scrub players?

If you combine the illegal offers I've had to remove exports for in this league, WOOF, and IHOF, I'd be willing to wager that over 90% have been the only offer given to said player, whether the owner's own scrub, or some other scrub.

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

im sure every illegal offer was borderline minsal.

Yup.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I agree with the above that skipping a stage (in a league where we only have a few) is probably punishment enough. But I'm a repeat offender, so take that for what it's worth.

Also, consider that with as few stages as we do have, allowing an illegal export to result in a signing and then release may have an unintended effect of mucking up the timing for another team interested in that player. Just excluding the export is the simplest way to avoid that, I'd think.

I would agree with this (especially the bolded part) wholeheartedly if it were commonplace for the illegal offers to be on guys with multiple offers. But as I mentioned above, in almost every case, that's not what happens.

Originally Posted by Yoda

I donno, granted I just joined the league, but given the types of signing bonuses that seem to be handed out in this league, that could kill a team for 2 seasons, right?

See above. These aren't the guys getting these offers.

[QuikSand]

I guess I'd frame my response differently, then. Would allowing the exports and releasing the players save you meaningful administrative burden? If so, then that's the best reason to do this.

I don't think the added punishment is worth it. I don't believe anyone does this on purpose, as we all know it will get caught 100% of the time, so all that's happening is carelessness. Ramping up penalties for a crime that never succeeds doesn't sound wise to me.

If this is a real help to the simmer, I'm probably okay with it. If the goal is to improve compliance, I think it's pointless and potentially harmful, and I'm against it.

[Subby]

I vote for just removing the export.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I guess I'd frame my response differently, then. Would allowing the exports and releasing the players save you meaningful administrative burden? If so, then that's the best reason to do this.

I don't think the added punishment is worth it. I don't believe anyone does this on purpose, as we all know it will get caught 100% of the time, so all that's happening is carelessness. Ramping up penalties for a crime that never succeeds doesn't sound wise to me.

If this is a real help to the simmer, I'm probably okay with it. If the goal is to improve compliance, I think it's pointless and potentially harmful, and I'm against it.

I agree with Quik's statement here.

I don't feel anyone is doing illegal exports on purpose in this league. I don't see a need for increased punishment for the sake of punishment. Removing the export penalizes the party that made the mistake and only them. Allowing the export to go through and then cutting the players penalizes others that might have bid on that player. I understand that the norm is these illegal bids are usually on players that no one else bid on, but I am sure that is not 100% of the time true.

If this is an issue of making Ben's life easier when we have to go through this process every other week in a fast sim league, then that is a different story and one I'll defer to you on if it is going to save you that much time/ease.

[Tasan]

I'm going to agree with Quik on this one. Kicking out the file is enough, nobody in this league is trying to pull anything (I think). Missing a stage here is bad enough.

[TheMeat]

Well, I think Ben's point is that releasing these scrubs is LESS of a punishment than removing their whole export. Correct me if I'm wrong Ben but you're saying that since these 2 yr deals are just on scrubs, it seems harsh to remove an entire export, which could really kill a teams offseason momentum and potentially cause too much grief, especially for new owners.

I would agree with Quik's original point that releasing players that had multiple offers would screw with everyone's timing but if these are almost always sub-par losers anyways then I think it makes sense to just release them.

I would rather err on the side of Ben's judgement. He would be the expert on these matters.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah..my concern here is more for the frustration factor of making a tiny mistake on an insignificant player and it causing you to miss out completely on a critical stage.

But at the same time, I do see Quik's point. Maybe it should be case-by-case: screw up on some scrubs, I just release them. Screw up on good players, and lose your export.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yeah..my concern here is more for the frustration factor of making a tiny mistake on an insignificant player and it causing you to miss out completely on a critical stage.

But at the same time, I do see Quik's point. Maybe it should be case-by-case: screw up on some scrubs, I just release them. Screw up on good players, and lose your export.

Perhaps instead of adding in grey area of what defines a good player vs scrubs, just leave it as: You place an illegal contract on a player that other teams also placed offers for, the export is deleted. If you are the only team offering a contract for that player, the player is just released.

The only issue there is you start getting into adding administration overhead that I wanted to avoid in my first thoughts. Sometimes just keeping things simple is the best approach too.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Perhaps instead of adding in grey area of what defines a good player vs scrubs, just leave it as: You place an illegal contract on a player that other teams also placed offers for, the export is deleted. If you are the only team offering a contract for that player, the player is just released.

The only issue there is you start getting into adding administration overhead that I wanted to avoid in my first thoughts. Sometimes just keeping things simple is the best approach too.

This makes a good amount of sense, and I would imagine code could be written to pick this up? (if there is a rejected offer, etc).

[Bako]

I'm a noob around here, but I'll weigh in here.

I agree with Quick and Alan T here. I doubt this would be done on purpose and this accident could prove very costly for the GM depending on the stage.

If it is easy for that particular offer to be removed, I'd be all for that.