|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jun 17, 2014 16:42:56 GMT
One suggestion: If there's any way we could emphasize teams keeping up with their roster pages this coming year, it would be helpful. We're pretty dependent on the Google spreadsheet. One way of doing this might be to have the TC hold off on voting for trades until the teams involved have their roster pages up to date. It's kind of simple, but might promote good habits that are useful in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Jun 17, 2014 20:45:52 GMT
One suggestion: If there's any way we could emphasize teams keeping up with their roster pages this coming year, it would be helpful. We're pretty dependent on the Google spreadsheet. One way of doing this might be to have the TC hold off on voting for trades until the teams involved have their roster pages up to date. It's kind of simple, but might promote good habits that are useful in the long run. Leagues I am in run random roster checks throughout the year. If not up to date, you have 24-48 hours to update it. If it isn't done by then, penalties ensue (loss of matchup, empty lineup for a day, loss of picks, etc.) This way, you punish only the offenders. If you and I made a trade and my roster wasn't updated, you are being hurt. Just my .02, can really go either way. I agree 100% with your sentiment, however, that people need to be up to date with their PBs rosters |
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Jun 20, 2014 10:52:39 GMT
I agree. We could have guys assigned in each division to run those roster checks. That way it doesn't take too long to check it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Domingo on Jun 20, 2014 22:43:02 GMT
I agree with Renato, Maybe have a trusted divison mod that can update their whole divisons teams roster (Unless some teams who want rather update their own, but would have to be consistent) after transactions have been completed. This is really on people including myself being lazy or forgetful to update their rosters. Not everyone has time
|
|
|
|
Post by Nuggets GM (Joe) on Jun 21, 2014 2:21:40 GMT
disagree, if you have time to make a deal, you have time to update your own roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2014 16:34:41 GMT
Either update your own roster, or get penalized for it. That's the way I see it. We shouldn't need babysitters, but we can have people look over rosters just to be sure.
Also..can we start offseason activities? Come on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakers GM (Renato) on Jun 27, 2014 14:34:51 GMT
Domingo, I was talking about checking the team page, not about actually doing the updates for others. I wouldn't mind doing it in my division and could totally send reminders to both the LM's and the team that needs to be updated. I wouldn't do the update myself though...
|
|
|
|
Post by Grizzlies GM (Max) on Jun 28, 2014 20:13:25 GMT
Yea I was in a league where the LM updated the roster and it was... Troubling. Big brother to the max
Just having someone to check over the roster is more than good enough
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 16, 2014 0:59:31 GMT
Wondering about a few more ideas to simplify operations and improve efficiency. Please don't get me wrong, I love this league. It's run very well. And I'll still be very content if nothing changes. Just floating these ideas out there....
1. As mentioned earlier, it would be wonderful if we all keep our roster page up to date. Different methods have been proposed to incentivize this. I would be in favor of any of the methods suggested. The only tricky thing about penalties is ¿How long to allow a team to update their roster after a change has been made? Not everyone can get to it in a day or two. Even a week or two might be pretty strict considering some of the proposed possible penalties. Personally, I still prefer the basic restriction: The TC won't vote on your trades until your roster page is up to date. Really though, any incentive (even penalties) would be an improvement and reduce reliance on the spreadsheet.
As a side note: The master spreadsheet is absolutely necessary because of the incremental salary structure. But last year we ran into problems when it wasn't updated for long stretches combined with the many teams that didn't maintain their roster page. I like that we have this dual system, but feel that we've perhaps leaned too heavily on the work of the LMs in this regard. They should be able to update the spreadsheet at their own convenience rather than because of the demands of the league.
2. Is it necessary to maintain 3 separate threads per team?
Draft picks could easily be consolidated onto the Roster page, eliminating the need to update multiple pages when picks are involved, and providing quicker access at a glance of a team's assets.
Should it continue to be mandatory to maintain a Transaction thread? It's interesting if someone wants to look at how their team has changed over time or review their moves. But it can't really be trusted as a reference if there's ever a dispute. (The same info. can be found in the original trade threads.) And it makes updating roster pages that much more complicated. Personally, I don't find it hard, and don't have any problem with those who wish to maintain it, but I also don't see any reason why it should be mandatory. It adds an extra step when simplicity could help incentivize roster maintenance.
Basically, one page instead of three is more efficient. Draft rooms, transaction threads, press releases, player ratings, and interviews could all be optional.
3. A little further out there: Are we responsible enough to entrust changes on the ESPN page to individual team owners?
The rule would have to be absolutely iron-clad with very strong penalties: no changes to the ESPN roster until after the third TC approval. Or in the case of a free agent confirmation (from a TC member or a commissioner) of the winning bid.
There are pros and cons to both ways of operating.
Under the current system, ESPN changes are only supposed to occur every Sunday night. (I believe Thursdays were added as well.) There hasn't been very much consistency in this though. It's completely understandable that there are far more important things in real life than this game. No one should be faulted for keeping their priorities straight.
Last season, there was quite a bit of frustration caused by the uncertainty of knowing after a trade was completed whether you would get that player in one day or ten.
Again, no problem understanding that there are other things to attend to. If you asked me to be pinned down every Sunday night updating everyone's roster, I wouldn't do it. But this is an option for a way around that problem.
By delegating this responsibility of adding/dropping players it could ease up the pressure on the LMs, and provide a little more consistency for individual teams.
The risk is that it would be abused, and someone would add a Durant or LeBron for a game. Or, more likely, adding players before complete approval had been granted. However, with self-policing (much like the tanking issues) and stiff penalties (instant removal from the league), it could work. Its done in other leagues that have been around for many years.
I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but will be content either way.
All of these suggestions are borrowed from another league in which I play. 1. The TC won't vote on a trade unless the roster page is up to date. 2. Only one roster page is mandatory. 3. Every team completes it's own transaction on the game site. We all know the penalty for abusing the system.
Every league has it's own way of doing things. What's important is that the commissioners feel comfortable with the process, and that it's equitable to all teams. Please consider these ideas simply as options. Just because they work elsewhere doesn't mean they work here. I just wanted to type these up in case its useful in any way.
Once again, thank you to Tiago and Jose for all the time and work you put into this league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 15:10:30 GMT
Item 1 of what Adam said is what I think needs to be addressed the most. It honestly isn't tough AT ALL to keep your roster updated on your own team board. I think making teams do this will increase league activity overall as well. Also I'm on my phone 99.9% of the time(I'm sure I'm not the only one) and the spread sheets don't work. Having teams have there rosters updated would goa long way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 16, 2014 15:14:16 GMT
I agree with almost everything.
And we were already discussing almost every point you talk about, including giving some duties to other people as weel in checking everything and/or updating it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Jul 16, 2014 16:57:32 GMT
What an inefficient post about efficiency! Sorry about that.
Thinking about a couple of challenges if we rely on individual teams for add/drops: Player removal could become a concern. I could easily picture someone forgetting to remove a player at the end of a 14 day contract. Or, because we use 3 ESPN leagues, someone forgetting to drop a player that was just traded ... despite the same player being picked up on a different ESPN page. I'm not 100% sold that the idea works here, but just worth thinking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder GM (Tiago) on Jul 16, 2014 17:01:57 GMT
I think that the level of control something like that needs is actually more work than making the changes ourselves.
The ability to drop players that you waive is a must, imo.
About trades and FA adds I have the same issues you have posted just now.
I think a much easier path was having more owners with Commish powers in the ESPN leagues (maybe 1-2 per league) and set a deadline for the moves (24-48?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Oct 28, 2014 20:11:52 GMT
Can we re-open this conversation?
It doesn't necessarily require anyone else to have Commish powers. Just allow every team to make their own add/drops, and assign someone from each league to monitor it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Spurs GM (Adam) on Dec 1, 2014 21:53:32 GMT
Just curious, it would be useful to know: Are 14 day contract players also only added on Monday nights?
|
|
