04-23-2025, 11:33 AMACapitalChicago Wrote: The way I understand it is that it's acting as further deterrence for the GMs to disincentivize malicious hiding of FAs. Things like fines are shown to be ineffective given the gain for the infraction, picks lost punish the entire team, so this was viewed as the only option of sorts

04-23-2025, 11:33 AMsköldpaddor Wrote: This is the punishment we decided on when we instituted the rule; like I've said a couple other places in this thread, we are absolutely open to changing it if anyone can come up with a solution that doesn't screw the entire team instead of just one player, and is scalable for multiple offenses.

Institute a cap penalty for the following season.

I'm going to refer to the "team" as the franchise for the next paragraph because I think team has a tendency to evoke people rather than the entity of the franchise itself:

I think it's reasonable for GM's behavior to have consequences for the franchise they lead. It turns it from a personal punishment (in this case levied against Sizz) into a general one. Talk of disincentivizing is very reasonable given it's the entire point of rule punishments, but in this case it doesn't make sense to disincentivize Sizz's rule breaking in this signing because Sizz didn't actually break any rules at all.