Of course you like his arguments, because even though the subject of parity has nothing to do with the discussion, you'd like to glean any means of support possible for your position.-JH
No, I like his post because I was about to say the same myself.
Parity is a huge issue, that may be approached in many ways. Protected list is one way. You have mentioned others. I disagree that his post had 'nothing to do' with parity. In fact, Rob is arguing that the protected list does not increase parity ("two veteran protected players don't go through training camp, they are no longer worth very much, so they won't get picked up by the weaker teams. It could actually create a bigger gap between the powerhouse teams and the rebuilding teams. Less parity.") You have not succeeded in separating the protected list issue from the parity issue. Why would you write "the subject of parity has nothing to do with the discussion [about the protected list]"? If the protected list was made to stop the 'vulture' issue, and the 'vulture' issue was a problem due to lack of parity, then the protected list is a parity issue. When rules are made to protect less successful teams, it is a parity issue.
By what metric would you stop supporting the protected list? When fewer than 1/3 of the teams use it? In that case, for example, there would probably be an equivalent player on the FA list that could be picked up without having to trade. Therefore, the progressive benefit of the FA list is lost. The benefits of increased training for the FA players is detrimental to the league. Why would I take a protected list player when there are so many comparable FA around that I can pick up and train?
Vets Free Agents?
Apparently past postings have confused you. I'll simplify.
The protected list has always been part of the league's ruleset. It exists for the reasons stated above.
The vulture rule was added because, at the time, Dave was worried that players accumulating stats on the career lists would be carelessly cut, and he wanted to see them continue to add to their numbers. Vulture day was thrown in to provide a convenient catch-all, hoping that any 7s or 8s cut by inexperienced owners would be snatched up by veteran owners.
If you'd like to turn a rule created such that: "If new/casual owners drop good vets, this way experience owners will grab them" into your White Knight of Parity, you go right ahead. Of course, its intent is rather the opposite- but I'm sure you can come up with something amusing.
Parity is served primarily through the draft vehicle and the structure surrounding the pickup of free agents during the season. Poor drafting, poor camp structure, poor roster movements, and poor PPP selection have far more to do with "gaps" between one team and another than whether or not you are unable to trade for a protected player you want to camp. As to addressing those gaps... can you think of one veteran owner in this league who would refuse to help a less experienced owner if they asked for it? I can't. I'm fairly certain Dave makes sure to point out that fact to anyone who chooses to join the league. It's not as though we don't have a plethora of owners who've been around for a while- and are more than happy to share their opinions.
Honestly, though, that wasn't even a spirited try. Your earlier posts packed far more punch. You should go back to the parts where you were insisting that the fact that the free pickup you can get week 3 wasn't made available to you earlier and run through camp is some sort of human rights violation, or that it's just not fair that you only have 350 guys to pick from and you need one of those 11 protected guys. Actually, come to think of it, I suppose that asserting that "Freeing up a handful of protected guys will balance out the difference between veteran ownership and the new guys, because we all know the new and more casual owners are definitely the ones who pick up dropped players and those over-the-hill vets would immediately right any listing ship" would fit right in with you earlier arguments.
Please, more! This is fun. Hopefully, at some point in the thread, someone will insist that the abolishing of protected guys will cure cancer. (My money's on Jimmy, but of course it would only be because his post looped around on itself a couple of times and he forgot what he was talking about.)
But seriously- what you want to do is further erode the bonds of ownership, with a side of reducing the necessity for interaction. And to do it, you're looking to boost the effectiveness of a rule you don't seem to understand. Is it so surprising that you would find (somewhat incredulous) opposition to it?
The protected list has always been part of the league's ruleset. It exists for the reasons stated above.
The vulture rule was added because, at the time, Dave was worried that players accumulating stats on the career lists would be carelessly cut, and he wanted to see them continue to add to their numbers. Vulture day was thrown in to provide a convenient catch-all, hoping that any 7s or 8s cut by inexperienced owners would be snatched up by veteran owners.
If you'd like to turn a rule created such that: "If new/casual owners drop good vets, this way experience owners will grab them" into your White Knight of Parity, you go right ahead. Of course, its intent is rather the opposite- but I'm sure you can come up with something amusing.
Parity is served primarily through the draft vehicle and the structure surrounding the pickup of free agents during the season. Poor drafting, poor camp structure, poor roster movements, and poor PPP selection have far more to do with "gaps" between one team and another than whether or not you are unable to trade for a protected player you want to camp. As to addressing those gaps... can you think of one veteran owner in this league who would refuse to help a less experienced owner if they asked for it? I can't. I'm fairly certain Dave makes sure to point out that fact to anyone who chooses to join the league. It's not as though we don't have a plethora of owners who've been around for a while- and are more than happy to share their opinions.
Honestly, though, that wasn't even a spirited try. Your earlier posts packed far more punch. You should go back to the parts where you were insisting that the fact that the free pickup you can get week 3 wasn't made available to you earlier and run through camp is some sort of human rights violation, or that it's just not fair that you only have 350 guys to pick from and you need one of those 11 protected guys. Actually, come to think of it, I suppose that asserting that "Freeing up a handful of protected guys will balance out the difference between veteran ownership and the new guys, because we all know the new and more casual owners are definitely the ones who pick up dropped players and those over-the-hill vets would immediately right any listing ship" would fit right in with you earlier arguments.
Please, more! This is fun. Hopefully, at some point in the thread, someone will insist that the abolishing of protected guys will cure cancer. (My money's on Jimmy, but of course it would only be because his post looped around on itself a couple of times and he forgot what he was talking about.)
But seriously- what you want to do is further erode the bonds of ownership, with a side of reducing the necessity for interaction. And to do it, you're looking to boost the effectiveness of a rule you don't seem to understand. Is it so surprising that you would find (somewhat incredulous) opposition to it?
-
Connecticut
- All-Pro
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:40 am
I'd like to make two points:
1) If protected players could go through Training Camp, I'd be in favor of protected players. Otherwise, I'm not in favor of it.
2) No matter which way this particular rule goes (or doesn't go), I will not threaten to leave the league, cuz I doubt anyone would care anyway haha
3) Coyotes will make the playoffs in 2016!!!! (yes, i only made two points)
Rob
Connecticut Coyotes
:o)
1) If protected players could go through Training Camp, I'd be in favor of protected players. Otherwise, I'm not in favor of it.
2) No matter which way this particular rule goes (or doesn't go), I will not threaten to leave the league, cuz I doubt anyone would care anyway haha
3) Coyotes will make the playoffs in 2016!!!! (yes, i only made two points)
Rob
Connecticut Coyotes
:o)
Agreed that Parity is achieved primarily through other means.
Are you a lawyer? Lawyers I know like to put arguments in other peoples' mouths! You exagerrate so much I miss your points, and making up false arguments for me is inappropriate.
There simply is not a high demand for protected players. I don't think I ever have taken a protected player, nor really been hurt by not having access to a particular protected player. The issue has low relevance for Fort Wayne, and it is incorrect when you charge me with wanting to take players from another team for my benefit by cutting the protected list. I think it is simply inefficient for the league, as only a few teams protect players, and fewer teams trade for protected players.
Again, I say throw the vets in the 4th or 5th round or the weaker teams, let stronger teams pick vets later on. That would be more efficient than the current situation.
Are you a lawyer? Lawyers I know like to put arguments in other peoples' mouths! You exagerrate so much I miss your points, and making up false arguments for me is inappropriate.
There simply is not a high demand for protected players. I don't think I ever have taken a protected player, nor really been hurt by not having access to a particular protected player. The issue has low relevance for Fort Wayne, and it is incorrect when you charge me with wanting to take players from another team for my benefit by cutting the protected list. I think it is simply inefficient for the league, as only a few teams protect players, and fewer teams trade for protected players.
Again, I say throw the vets in the 4th or 5th round or the weaker teams, let stronger teams pick vets later on. That would be more efficient than the current situation.
2011 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
If you feel they're inefficient, you don't need to use them. At the same time, you shouldn't be jumping feet-first into the discussion about it unless you're prepared to put up a solid defense of your position.
My position is fairly simple, I think; first off, if you're going to change the game's ruleset, there should be a compelling reason. Secondly, the game doesn't improve by subtracting opportunities for interaction. Third, reducing owner control when said control is the only means for owners to participate should only be done for overwhelmingly solid reasons.
I loathe the vulture rule in the first place because I figure the career numbers will take care of themselves; its negatives, such as being poorly implemented and reducing trade interaction, I feel greatly outweigh the positives. Folks wanting to extend its reach are the reason there is a debate of any sort regarding the protected lists.
When various people launch their yearly diatribes against the list, as though it's the source of problems, it pisses me off to no end.
Their argument will always boil down to:
1) They don't want to have to trade for the protected guys
2) They want the guys they can pick up when they come off the lists to get camp
No vulture rule, the whole "list issue" disappears.
My position is fairly simple, I think; first off, if you're going to change the game's ruleset, there should be a compelling reason. Secondly, the game doesn't improve by subtracting opportunities for interaction. Third, reducing owner control when said control is the only means for owners to participate should only be done for overwhelmingly solid reasons.
I loathe the vulture rule in the first place because I figure the career numbers will take care of themselves; its negatives, such as being poorly implemented and reducing trade interaction, I feel greatly outweigh the positives. Folks wanting to extend its reach are the reason there is a debate of any sort regarding the protected lists.
When various people launch their yearly diatribes against the list, as though it's the source of problems, it pisses me off to no end.
Their argument will always boil down to:
1) They don't want to have to trade for the protected guys
2) They want the guys they can pick up when they come off the lists to get camp
No vulture rule, the whole "list issue" disappears.
-
Connecticut
- All-Pro
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:40 am
what is the "vulture rule"?
Picking up free agents is part of the game, in every single sport I can think of. If a player isn't good enough to make a team's 53-man roster, then let him go to another team. I don't see how this is bad for the league. Yes, i've read the very-wordy reasons but i don't understand them - perhaps i'm the only one. Sure, I think its a great idea to allow other teams to trade for those protected players first, but if a trade can't be reached then (as FWS has proposed) a pecking order of worst-team to best-team should implemented.
<i>My position is fairly simple, I think; first off, if you're going to change the game's ruleset, there should be a compelling reason. Secondly, the game doesn't improve by subtracting opportunities for interaction. Third, reducing owner control when said control is the only means for owners to participate should only be done for overwhelmingly solid reasons. </i>
my humble response: 1) 3/4's of the league has voted AGAINST protected players, isn't that compelling enough? 2) just because a rule allows for interaction, doesn't make it a good rule. We could make a rule that says if you don't make 5 trades a year then your entire team gets dumped into the FA pool. That would lead to more interaction, but isn't a good rule 3) i don't really know what that means
I don't think this "protected player" rule is a HUGE problem, its just discussed every year and most of the league wants to do away with it. If the rule stays, I will certainly take advantage of the rule, and use it to protect my own players if I think someone else might want them, because 1) i may be able to trade them for something small and 2) if it ends up that no one wants to trade for them, then the player won't go through TC and will rot on the Free Agent list, therefore meaning someone else can't pick up a good player. I still don't like the rule, but if I can use it to my advantage of course I'd use it.
okay, off to work. Everyone have a great day!
Rob
:o)
Picking up free agents is part of the game, in every single sport I can think of. If a player isn't good enough to make a team's 53-man roster, then let him go to another team. I don't see how this is bad for the league. Yes, i've read the very-wordy reasons but i don't understand them - perhaps i'm the only one. Sure, I think its a great idea to allow other teams to trade for those protected players first, but if a trade can't be reached then (as FWS has proposed) a pecking order of worst-team to best-team should implemented.
<i>My position is fairly simple, I think; first off, if you're going to change the game's ruleset, there should be a compelling reason. Secondly, the game doesn't improve by subtracting opportunities for interaction. Third, reducing owner control when said control is the only means for owners to participate should only be done for overwhelmingly solid reasons. </i>
my humble response: 1) 3/4's of the league has voted AGAINST protected players, isn't that compelling enough? 2) just because a rule allows for interaction, doesn't make it a good rule. We could make a rule that says if you don't make 5 trades a year then your entire team gets dumped into the FA pool. That would lead to more interaction, but isn't a good rule 3) i don't really know what that means
I don't think this "protected player" rule is a HUGE problem, its just discussed every year and most of the league wants to do away with it. If the rule stays, I will certainly take advantage of the rule, and use it to protect my own players if I think someone else might want them, because 1) i may be able to trade them for something small and 2) if it ends up that no one wants to trade for them, then the player won't go through TC and will rot on the Free Agent list, therefore meaning someone else can't pick up a good player. I still don't like the rule, but if I can use it to my advantage of course I'd use it.
okay, off to work. Everyone have a great day!
Rob
:o)
The vulture rule was explained earlier in the thread.
No vulture rule, protected guys become a complete non-issue (as they wouldn't be used to protect tradeables as is often the practice now).
And let's not get started on the whole "if the majority votes for it the rest should follow along" business. You gonna cough up the dough after I run a "Who thinks Rob should send us all $50K?" poll?
To top it off, you're now confusing "irritation with a rule that decreases interaction" with "advocating random schemes to improve interaction".
Comments like these: "Sure, I think its a great idea to allow other teams to trade for those protected players first, but if a trade can't be reached then (as FWS has proposed) a pecking order of worst-team to best-team should implemented. " ... are just... impossible to react to without being offensive. If I offer you 5 bucks for your house, and you say "no," should I be able to get it for free if I wait a couple of days? I mean, hey, I offered a trade!
But then again, it may well be that I'm out of line. Perhaps the league would be better off existing as a random bag of whimsical rules and guidelines, each one tacked onto the next haphazardly (though, of course, with "majority support"). You guys do what you will with it, and when it becomes too ridiculous to stomach I'll just go on to the next thing.
No vulture rule, protected guys become a complete non-issue (as they wouldn't be used to protect tradeables as is often the practice now).
And let's not get started on the whole "if the majority votes for it the rest should follow along" business. You gonna cough up the dough after I run a "Who thinks Rob should send us all $50K?" poll?
To top it off, you're now confusing "irritation with a rule that decreases interaction" with "advocating random schemes to improve interaction".
Comments like these: "Sure, I think its a great idea to allow other teams to trade for those protected players first, but if a trade can't be reached then (as FWS has proposed) a pecking order of worst-team to best-team should implemented. " ... are just... impossible to react to without being offensive. If I offer you 5 bucks for your house, and you say "no," should I be able to get it for free if I wait a couple of days? I mean, hey, I offered a trade!
But then again, it may well be that I'm out of line. Perhaps the league would be better off existing as a random bag of whimsical rules and guidelines, each one tacked onto the next haphazardly (though, of course, with "majority support"). You guys do what you will with it, and when it becomes too ridiculous to stomach I'll just go on to the next thing.
Regardless of whether one wants the protected list or not, regardless of any votes, low participation on the protected list makes it useless.
Last year, signed to the protected list:
WCH- QB Jim Ballard
PIT- T Vecchio
PEO-Garcia
MIN- QB Arcenaux WR Blanchard
FGO –OL Soli, G Bazile
EVE- K Beau Vinetari
CON- QB Feterik
CHE-Rb Murray, DB Cronin
POR-K Biancomo
LEX-Nagle
(13 players at least)
Signed from the protected list:
QB Garcia (PEO)
K Vinetari (EVE)
Traded for from the protected list:
none. (and there is no apparent way to evaluate whether they are trade-worthy or not).
Total players signed after release from protected list by OTHER teams who waited for a 'free lunch': at least two.
Conclusion: protected list useful as backup plan in case training goes wrong, not 'trade bait'.
Total numbers of players released before draft: 27.
I think we're putting too much effort into the protected list, as it is only 2 players out of 55. So I'll leave it at that.
Last year, signed to the protected list:
WCH- QB Jim Ballard
PIT- T Vecchio
PEO-Garcia
MIN- QB Arcenaux WR Blanchard
FGO –OL Soli, G Bazile
EVE- K Beau Vinetari
CON- QB Feterik
CHE-Rb Murray, DB Cronin
POR-K Biancomo
LEX-Nagle
(13 players at least)
Signed from the protected list:
QB Garcia (PEO)
K Vinetari (EVE)
Traded for from the protected list:
none. (and there is no apparent way to evaluate whether they are trade-worthy or not).
Total players signed after release from protected list by OTHER teams who waited for a 'free lunch': at least two.
Conclusion: protected list useful as backup plan in case training goes wrong, not 'trade bait'.
Total numbers of players released before draft: 27.
I think we're putting too much effort into the protected list, as it is only 2 players out of 55. So I'll leave it at that.
2011 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
2013 Gold Cup Winner
-
Connecticut
- All-Pro
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:40 am
<i>The term "vulture rule" refers to the modification of the league's original ruleset, whereby the submission of 53-man rosters for camp processing was separated from the submission and processing of camps. This separation was enacted as a "temporary" fix to what Dave saw as a potential problem: That the vast majority of defensive players populating the league's career list hailing from the original draft, at the time of the draft nearly all "age 2", were, at the time of the rule's inception, reaching "age 7"; he feared that less experienced or overly casual owners would panic after seeing their players lose points due to aging, and drop the players from their rosters wholesale (thus rendering a sizable chunk of the career list inactive). While other, better alternatives were available, enacting the split was more expedient; in essence, if any of the newer or inattentive folks were to dump a good player, surely a savvy veteran owner would "swoop in" and grab them in the couple of days between the now-separated cut date and the date of camp processing. Hence, the terms "vulture rule", "vulture day", or "vulturing".
The rule was, of course, flawed in many ways. For example, "Team A" is required to cut its excess players by a certain date so as to allow other teams time to consider the cuts; however, if "Team B" picks up one or more players, inevitable processing delays allow "Team A" and others insufficient time to consider "Team B"'s cuts.
</i>
So i still don't get the vulture rule. I understand that less experienced owners would cut aging players that were losing points. So how does having roster cuts BEFORE training camp solve anything? Is that the vulture rule? Please temporarily pretend I'm a 3rd grader and explain slowly for me.
thanks,
Rob
:o)
The rule was, of course, flawed in many ways. For example, "Team A" is required to cut its excess players by a certain date so as to allow other teams time to consider the cuts; however, if "Team B" picks up one or more players, inevitable processing delays allow "Team A" and others insufficient time to consider "Team B"'s cuts.
</i>
So i still don't get the vulture rule. I understand that less experienced owners would cut aging players that were losing points. So how does having roster cuts BEFORE training camp solve anything? Is that the vulture rule? Please temporarily pretend I'm a 3rd grader and explain slowly for me.
thanks,
Rob
:o)
OK, let's go with an offseason timeline by way of illustration.
So that no one is left confused, this is....
THE OLD WAY (seasons 1-5)
1) FIFL Bowl is played, ending the season and beginning the offseason
2) Aging is run, retirements are posted
3) Rookie draft list is posted, trading opens
4) Draft day 1-4 (1-2 weeks after draft list posting)
5) Draft day 5-8 (3-7 days after draft day 1)
6) Veteran free agents posted (carried over from previous season)
7) FA pickups allowed (2-3 days after vets list posted, max.3* players)
8) Training camp run, protecteds declared, others released
* = 3 players was the normal maximum, but if for some reason a team's roster was not yet full, more could be acquired (after everyone else has drawn their 3) until the roster filled.
Number 8 is what concerns us, obviously.
Offseason roster limits don't exist, obviously; rosters need to be expandable to accommodate multiplayer trades, huge wads of draft picks, and so forth. However, the game requires that the roster be reduced to 53 in order to process camp. Ergo, everyone would turn in:
- their camp values
- a 53-man roster
- up to 3 protecteds, if desired
- a cut list for any excess guys
At the time, protecteds were generally made up of 2 basic types:
Type 1: A training cover guy.
On the roster there's a guy, usually very old or very young, who's not quite good enough to keep "as-is". The owner is hoping camp will make that guy good enough to keep. But if not, he's got a backup plan- a protected guy already good enough for the spot.
Type 2: Usually a "beloved veteran", occasionally a not-so-great new guy.
In this case, the owner normally has a worn out old guy that's been on his team forever, but his scores have dropped so low that he's not really effective anymore; alternately, the owner may be protecting a younger guy with similarly poor scores that the owner happens to be a fan of for whatever reason. The owner can't make room for this protected yet, but if, after camp, they swing a trade or whatever and a spot opens up they'll be able to keep what is basically just a vanity player (i.e. A guy they keep on the roster just for fun).
The trade paradigm was, of course, quite different.
First off, each owner controlled:
- His returning roster from the previous year (say 49 or so guys)
- His draft picks (average of 8 per team, obviously)
- Any vets he picked up from the FA group (most didn't bother, but lets say 1)
So, an average team might control 58 or so guys heading into camp.
The owners knew they could only send 53 to camp. Ergo, most would try to get whatever return they can from guys they'd need to drop anyway. "Available players lists" were quite common, etc.
Meanwhile, owners looking to shore up positions also had incentive to move on trades- if they waited too long, the trades wouldn't get done before camp day. They could usually pick up whoever they were looking at afterward, but the player would have missed camp. As you can imagine, trade across all levels of player skill tended to be fairly brisk.
Hopefully, you've been able to understand the above clearly enough.
THE NEW WAY (season 6 on)
As mentioned previously, Dave was worried that guys creeping up the career lists would be suddenly teamless and miss out on camps. This is where the vulture rule comes in.
By forcing owners to make their roster cuts BEFORE camp, and removing the "3 player maximum" for pickups, he hoped that anyone whose name showed up on the career list would be spotted by veteran owners and snagged. As I've pointed out before, his intent at the time was fairly benign- he just wanted those career guys to play a few more years- but the consequences of the change were predictable.
There now exists very little incentive for owners looking for veteran backups or hole-fillers to work out trades prior to "vulture day", the day where roster cuts are due.
It's entirely possible mid- or low-quality players they're looking for will be cut, or someone close to their ability levels. If not, you can always move on a trade AFTER vulture day, because there's still a couple of days before camp.
And that's where protected guys suddenly become an "issue".
An owner waits to see if the guy he wants will get dropped on vulture day.
The player isn't dropped, but instead ends up protected.
The owner becomes annoyed because they feel they shouldn't have to trade to get that player, and if they wait around for the guy to be dropped camp will have passed, so the guy they pick up misses out.
My position is that the vulture rule really isn't useful at this point, and should be dumped. But whether or not Dave would agree, he doesn't have the time or interest to implement a solution to protect career-listers who might get carelessly dropped, and certainly wouldn't want to deal with the caterwauling that would ensue if the rule were scrapped.
Their position is that it would improve the league if the scope of the vulture rule were extended, and the protected list removed; this would allow them to get those handful of guys protected every year without having to engage in trade first.
Got it now?
So that no one is left confused, this is....
THE OLD WAY (seasons 1-5)
1) FIFL Bowl is played, ending the season and beginning the offseason
2) Aging is run, retirements are posted
3) Rookie draft list is posted, trading opens
4) Draft day 1-4 (1-2 weeks after draft list posting)
5) Draft day 5-8 (3-7 days after draft day 1)
6) Veteran free agents posted (carried over from previous season)
7) FA pickups allowed (2-3 days after vets list posted, max.3* players)
8) Training camp run, protecteds declared, others released
* = 3 players was the normal maximum, but if for some reason a team's roster was not yet full, more could be acquired (after everyone else has drawn their 3) until the roster filled.
Number 8 is what concerns us, obviously.
Offseason roster limits don't exist, obviously; rosters need to be expandable to accommodate multiplayer trades, huge wads of draft picks, and so forth. However, the game requires that the roster be reduced to 53 in order to process camp. Ergo, everyone would turn in:
- their camp values
- a 53-man roster
- up to 3 protecteds, if desired
- a cut list for any excess guys
At the time, protecteds were generally made up of 2 basic types:
Type 1: A training cover guy.
On the roster there's a guy, usually very old or very young, who's not quite good enough to keep "as-is". The owner is hoping camp will make that guy good enough to keep. But if not, he's got a backup plan- a protected guy already good enough for the spot.
Type 2: Usually a "beloved veteran", occasionally a not-so-great new guy.
In this case, the owner normally has a worn out old guy that's been on his team forever, but his scores have dropped so low that he's not really effective anymore; alternately, the owner may be protecting a younger guy with similarly poor scores that the owner happens to be a fan of for whatever reason. The owner can't make room for this protected yet, but if, after camp, they swing a trade or whatever and a spot opens up they'll be able to keep what is basically just a vanity player (i.e. A guy they keep on the roster just for fun).
The trade paradigm was, of course, quite different.
First off, each owner controlled:
- His returning roster from the previous year (say 49 or so guys)
- His draft picks (average of 8 per team, obviously)
- Any vets he picked up from the FA group (most didn't bother, but lets say 1)
So, an average team might control 58 or so guys heading into camp.
The owners knew they could only send 53 to camp. Ergo, most would try to get whatever return they can from guys they'd need to drop anyway. "Available players lists" were quite common, etc.
Meanwhile, owners looking to shore up positions also had incentive to move on trades- if they waited too long, the trades wouldn't get done before camp day. They could usually pick up whoever they were looking at afterward, but the player would have missed camp. As you can imagine, trade across all levels of player skill tended to be fairly brisk.
Hopefully, you've been able to understand the above clearly enough.
THE NEW WAY (season 6 on)
As mentioned previously, Dave was worried that guys creeping up the career lists would be suddenly teamless and miss out on camps. This is where the vulture rule comes in.
By forcing owners to make their roster cuts BEFORE camp, and removing the "3 player maximum" for pickups, he hoped that anyone whose name showed up on the career list would be spotted by veteran owners and snagged. As I've pointed out before, his intent at the time was fairly benign- he just wanted those career guys to play a few more years- but the consequences of the change were predictable.
There now exists very little incentive for owners looking for veteran backups or hole-fillers to work out trades prior to "vulture day", the day where roster cuts are due.
It's entirely possible mid- or low-quality players they're looking for will be cut, or someone close to their ability levels. If not, you can always move on a trade AFTER vulture day, because there's still a couple of days before camp.
And that's where protected guys suddenly become an "issue".
An owner waits to see if the guy he wants will get dropped on vulture day.
The player isn't dropped, but instead ends up protected.
The owner becomes annoyed because they feel they shouldn't have to trade to get that player, and if they wait around for the guy to be dropped camp will have passed, so the guy they pick up misses out.
My position is that the vulture rule really isn't useful at this point, and should be dumped. But whether or not Dave would agree, he doesn't have the time or interest to implement a solution to protect career-listers who might get carelessly dropped, and certainly wouldn't want to deal with the caterwauling that would ensue if the rule were scrapped.
Their position is that it would improve the league if the scope of the vulture rule were extended, and the protected list removed; this would allow them to get those handful of guys protected every year without having to engage in trade first.
Got it now?
-
Connecticut
- All-Pro
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:40 am
Protected
I agree it happens every year, a protected player, mostly older get put on a protected list and misses camp.
Missing camp in reality shortens his playing career.
In addition if parity is really what you seek, it is the weaker teams that benefite from being able to pick up the older guys. The strong teams generally don't need the older guys that wouldn't start for them. But the weaker teams benefit by filling that 2nd, 3rd, or 4th spot with a vet.
Lastly, trading. The stronger teams don't need to trade and the weaker can't afford to.
So either increase the rosters by three for camp, and iliminate the protected orr get ride fo the protect straightout. Either way older guys get to go to camp.
SET MY PEOPLE FREE.
Missing camp in reality shortens his playing career.
In addition if parity is really what you seek, it is the weaker teams that benefite from being able to pick up the older guys. The strong teams generally don't need the older guys that wouldn't start for them. But the weaker teams benefit by filling that 2nd, 3rd, or 4th spot with a vet.
Lastly, trading. The stronger teams don't need to trade and the weaker can't afford to.
So either increase the rosters by three for camp, and iliminate the protected orr get ride fo the protect straightout. Either way older guys get to go to camp.
SET MY PEOPLE FREE.
protected
MIke your agruement missed one very important point.
Had those protected player given the opportunity to go to camp, more would have been picked up.
I know year after year I try to get a player from the protected list before camp, but am unable to pull it off. OK maybe I suck at trading, maybe it is the protected players owners not wanting to let that player go to camp. Who knows.
I do know that had I been able to send him to my camp I would have kept him, after that they loose their value.
Had those protected player given the opportunity to go to camp, more would have been picked up.
I know year after year I try to get a player from the protected list before camp, but am unable to pull it off. OK maybe I suck at trading, maybe it is the protected players owners not wanting to let that player go to camp. Who knows.
I do know that had I been able to send him to my camp I would have kept him, after that they loose their value.