04-23-2025, 11:01 AMAgentSmith630 Wrote: This is what hurts the most. Dwight made a clerical mistake, and now Sizz is being forced out against his will. As a secondary result, Tampa is losing a core offensive player and huge war room and LR presence (not that he has to leave the LR, but still), and a second round pick while still theoretically being in a cup window.
A clerical mistake should still have consequences to the team. In the PBE my GM made a clerical error in budget forecasting and we were way over spent on cap, we had to trade a few players and we're playing the season with only 3 people in the bullpen.
The GM is responsible for the whole roster and making a clerical mistake should bring consequences to the roster, but it should also be their responsibility to clean it up as they see fit, hence why I still think a cap penalty (equivalent to the minimum contract, or to the contract they signed) in addition to allowing the contract to stand is the ideal punishment. Or perhaps losing the HTD slots as Tomen pointed out is a really interesting idea.
Putting cap pressure forces the GMs to rectify their mistake, but they will have to decide how they want to handle that for their players (and we can hopefully ensure no active players get sent to FA after everyone's rosters are full).
04-23-2025, 11:01 AMAgentSmith630 Wrote: ... Tampa is losing a core offensive player and huge war room and LR presence (not that he has to leave the LR, but still) ....
04-23-2025, 11:47 AMSymmetrik Wrote: A clerical mistake should still have consequences to the team. In the PBE my GM made a clerical error in budget forecasting and we were way over spent on cap, we had to trade a few players and we're playing the season with only 3 people in the bullpen.
The GM is responsible for the whole roster and making a clerical mistake should bring consequences to the roster, but it should also be their responsibility to clean it up as they see fit, hence why I still think a cap penalty (equivalent to the minimum contract, or to the contract they signed) in addition to allowing the contract to stand is the ideal punishment. Or perhaps losing the HTD slots as Tomen pointed out is a really interesting idea.
Putting cap pressure forces the GMs to rectify their mistake, but they will have to decide how they want to handle that for their players (and we can hopefully ensure no active players get sent to FA after everyone's rosters are full).
Clerical error resulting in being over the cap is not the same thing as any of these punishments.
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.
04-23-2025, 12:09 PMcharlieconway Wrote: 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.
Right but a cap penalty is likely to make it so that some other player has to leave the team instead, maybe even a player who wasn't even remotely involved. And it's not scalable, not realistically. Say it's a 2M cap fine, if a team forgets to move four free agents, do we hit that team with an 8M cap fine? Or is it just a thing where a team could choose not to sign or move any of their free agents at the cost of a flat 2M cap fine?
I completely agree that it absolutely sucks to have players face the consequences for GM offenses, agree that Sizz did nothing wrong, and hope things work out in his favor. But "players catching the brunt of GM offenses" is just the unfortunate end result of most of our punishments, outside of GM salary fines, which have never been much of a deterrent in the first place because there are a lot of rules most competitive GMs would happily ignore for the cost of 8M dollars to their own bank account. Any punishment that isn't just a personal slap to the GM is going to impact the whole team or certain players more than just the GM, that is inherently the weight of a leadership position (and lemme tell you, it really does suck sometimes).
I really do want to find a solution here that doesn't screw over players, we just have not come up with any realistic options.
04-23-2025, 12:17 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: Right but a cap penalty is likely to make it so that some other player has to leave the team instead, maybe even a player who wasn't even remotely involved. And it's not scalable, not realistically. Say it's a 2M cap fine, if a team forgets to move four free agents, do we hit that team with an 8M cap fine? Or is it just a thing where a team could choose not to sign or move any of their free agents at the cost of a flat 2M cap fine?
I completely agree that it absolutely sucks to have players face the consequences for GM offenses, agree that Sizz did nothing wrong, and hope things work out in his favor. But "players catching the brunt of GM offenses" is just the unfortunate end result of most of our punishments, outside of GM salary fines, which have never been much of a deterrent in the first place because there are a lot of rules most competitive GMs would happily ignore for the cost of 8M dollars to their own bank account. Any punishment that isn't just a personal slap to the GM is going to impact the whole team or certain players more than just the GM, that is inherently the weight of a leadership position (and lemme tell you, it really does suck sometimes).
I really do want to find a solution here that doesn't screw over players, we just have not come up with any realistic options.
I do think that in the case of a different player having to move it's better overall, someone who wasn't involved might have to go but ultimately that's a consequence and a decision for the GM to make, and they might do their best by their players in rectifying their own mistake. Plus, trades would likely include roster players moving, which means everyone stays on a team. At this point Sizz and 2 others are still FAs and it's less than 3 hours until the sim, so they will likely miss out on games because of this too. I think a punishment that impacts the whole team is fair because the GM impacts the whole team. And the GM is left to sort out the consequences of their own mistakes. If a player is traded to take the fall for a GM's mistake then so be it, but at least that decision is a personal choice made by the GM. Hell, maybe in order to protect their team they retire their own player and trade them away.
Also I'd say it's scalable if you adjust it to the value of the contracts. Sizz's minimum is 5 million. If there was a 2nd player with a minimum of 3 million, then the penalty can be 8 million. So on and so forth.
04-23-2025, 12:26 PMSymmetrik Wrote: I do think that in the case of a different player having to move it's better overall, someone who wasn't involved might have to go but ultimately that's a consequence and a decision for the GM to make, and they might do their best by their players in rectifying their own mistake. Plus, trades would likely include roster players moving, which means everyone stays on a team. At this point Sizz and 2 others are still FAs and it's less than 3 hours until the sim, so they will likely miss out on games because of this too. I think a punishment that impacts the whole team is fair because the GM impacts the whole team. And the GM is left to sort out the consequences of their own mistakes. If a player is traded to take the fall for a GM's mistake then so be it, but at least that decision is a personal choice made by the GM. Hell, maybe in order to protect their team they retire their own player and trade them away.
Also I'd say it's scalable if you adjust it to the value of the contracts. Sizz's minimum is 5 million. If there was a 2nd player with a minimum of 3 million, then the penalty can be 8 million. So on and so forth.
Oh interesting, I actually kinda do like the idea of cap penalty that adjusts by the player's contract/TPE level, I don't think that's one we've discussed yet, let me take that back to the math nerds in the room!
04-23-2025, 12:17 PMsköldpaddor Wrote: Right but a cap penalty is likely to make it so that some other player has to leave the team instead, maybe even a player who wasn't even remotely involved. And it's not scalable, not realistically. Say it's a 2M cap fine, if a team forgets to move four free agents, do we hit that team with an 8M cap fine? Or is it just a thing where a team could choose not to sign or move any of their free agents at the cost of a flat 2M cap fine?
I completely agree that it absolutely sucks to have players face the consequences for GM offenses, agree that Sizz did nothing wrong, and hope things work out in his favor. But "players catching the brunt of GM offenses" is just the unfortunate end result of most of our punishments, outside of GM salary fines, which have never been much of a deterrent in the first place because there are a lot of rules most competitive GMs would happily ignore for the cost of 8M dollars to their own bank account. Any punishment that isn't just a personal slap to the GM is going to impact the whole team or certain players more than just the GM, that is inherently the weight of a leadership position (and lemme tell you, it really does suck sometimes).
I really do want to find a solution here that doesn't screw over players, we just have not come up with any realistic options.
The nature of the league is that any competitive team will be up against the cap to start the season. Yes, players would need to leave the team before the 'delayed cap penalty' was instituted the next season, but they could do so in a timely manner and would have foreknowledge, which is not something that's afforded to Sizz in this case.
04-23-2025, 12:46 PM(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025, 01:08 PM by hockeyiscool. Edited 1 time in total.)
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.
I say this out of love and desire to improve the league. If you are looking to maintain consistency with past rulings in history. An simple solution is to:
- update Rule k 1. clarifying what the status of a player is once an enforceable agreement is reached. I believe the league has historically interpreted it as a signed member of the team and no longer a free agent. (which is how I understood it)
-the decision on how to change language of the rule that was "broken" depends on how HO choose to define the status of a player on an enforceable agreement going forward.
-If it is agreed that a player under an enforceable agreement is a signed member of the team and no longer a free agent, that would mean the newly added rule requires no change. It no longer impacts players who agree with their GMs on a contract so player wishes are still maintained.
-Opinion: I do not see a need to change the penalty for instances where player and team have NOT come to an enforceable agreement prior to the signing freeze. I think that is fair and is a good deterrent. It protects players from the hopefully never happening case of a GM acting with malicious intent, where a player wants to experience free agency but the GM uses the lack of moving the player to the free agency section to deny other teams the ability to make contact with the player who is desiring to experience free agency and create the illusion that there are no interested teams leading to the player to re-sign with their original team and the pick and salary deduction is a significent enough penalty.
My suggestion is that if the rule II.E.c rule (the violated rule in the post) were to be broken the appeal should not be by the GM but should be by the player themselves who is denied free agency before even notifying the GM there is a problem. As the player should be able to give you the information of if they were looking to experience free agency, before a GM has the ability to potentially influence a player who is not looking to rock the boat. If the player says they wanted to experience free agency...boom open and shut case, full extent of the penalty. If they said, they wanted to stay with their team assess the reduced gm pay and draft pick penalty.
Lastly, I suggest hiring someone whose job is to go through the rulebook and keep it current and have position that doublechecks the progress.
04-23-2025, 01:13 PM(This post was last modified: 04-23-2025, 01:20 PM by hockeyiscool. Edited 1 time in total.)
Personally, I do not like budget penalties, especially those tied to things that are not budget related . I imagine we're trying to not kill organizations over an infraction like this. If a GM were to have malicious intent and get caught, they should retire out of embarrassment and it doesn't make sense to hamstring a new GMs ability to roster a team.
04-23-2025, 01:13 PMhockeyiscool Wrote: Personally, I do not like budget penalties, tied to things that are not budget related. I imagine we're trying to not kill organizations over an infraction like this. If a GM were to have malicious intent and get caught, they should retire out of embarrassment and it doesn't make sense to hamstring a new GMs ability to roster a team.
I mean ACKSHULLY, isn't it a budget related thing though? Isn't keeping a player on your roster who you haven't paid or signed budget related?
Symmetrik![[Image: symmetrik.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/symmetrik.gif)
![[Image: symmshl.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/symmshl.gif)
![[Image: v09bRKvt_o.jpg]](https://images2.imgbox.com/06/17/v09bRKvt_o.jpg)
![[Image: hallsy.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/567556059145961482/956060038223499294/hallsy.png)
jackkmart![[Image: gunnarsoderberg.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/gunnarsoderberg.gif)
![[Image: DG0jZcS.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DG0jZcS.png)
![[Image: U66t7Jy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/U66t7Jy.png)
: .
![[Image: 7lN396k.png]](https://i.imgur.com/7lN396k.png)
![[Image: 9ZNnX19.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9ZNnX19.png)
| 
| 
![[Image: 53994_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/53994_s.gif)
![[Image: hw6Eojc.png]](https://i.imgur.com/hw6Eojc.png)
![[Image: lqfXIpe.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/lqfXIpe.jpeg)
![[Image: knight.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/265919569577639946/689559981451903021/knight.png)
![[Image: sigtight.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/265919569577639946/689561548145819763/sigtight.png)
