|
Post by Spencer on Apr 9, 2007 20:53:39 GMT -5
Vote.
|
|
|
Post by KruPaxson on Apr 9, 2007 20:55:00 GMT -5
no limit...if you can afford to cut or have 5 guys on your roster for a trade be my guest
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Apr 9, 2007 20:55:13 GMT -5
per team or in total?
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 20:55:28 GMT -5
I voted 2...2 or 3 will work though.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 20:55:50 GMT -5
total...why would both teams need to add them?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer on Apr 9, 2007 20:56:30 GMT -5
Total since if each team needs to add a VET FA, each team wouldnt need a VET FA.
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Apr 9, 2007 20:57:39 GMT -5
total...why would both teams need to add them? hah. that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:22:47 GMT -5
my whole thing with this is that if the Vet FAs are actually available to sign then there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be available to be signed and traded at the GMs leasure, regardless of the amount.
vet FA is simply a lazy way of not selecting the guy on your own... you should be able to sign anyone you want (that is not on waivers or when it's the FA period in the offseason) at any time. and if you can't then the entire system is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 21:25:27 GMT -5
my whole thing with this is that if the Vet FAs are actually available to sign then there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't be available to be signed and traded at the GMs leasure, regardless of the amount. vet FA is simply a lazy way of not selecting the guy on your own... you should be able to sign anyone you want (that is not on waivers) at any time. and if you can't then the entire system is meaningless. Technically this isn't allowed in fbb if you don't turn off the 60 day rule. So in actuallity this is just an illegal way to get around the salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:27:44 GMT -5
but then if we're gonna put the 60 day rule on, we cause a whole new problem. the rule is either existent or it isn't... imo at least.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 21:29:50 GMT -5
So do you think we should have the 15% rule in trades? Getting 3 Vet FA's isn't cheating the system enough?
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:33:33 GMT -5
So do you think we should have the 15% rule in trades? Getting 3 Vet FA's isn't cheating the system enough? it might be cheating the system in your view... i can certainly see that side of it. my point is that if you have the roster space that you should be able to add/trade as you wish. while the intent may technically be to cheat the system, you still can't prevent gm's from signing and trading... but i don't wanna go in a cycle with the 60 day rule and all that stuff again lol... we disagree, all my points have been made, i understand your point but i just think it's a flaw that we have to live with.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:35:18 GMT -5
if there was a rule to ban the trading of players without bird-rights, i might be for that.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 21:35:25 GMT -5
The most roster spots any team can have is 3! Thats fine make it 3 max. Not this sign trade cut sign trade cut trade back sign cut sign trade back cut crap.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 21:37:02 GMT -5
if there was a rule to ban the trading of players without bird-rights, i might be for that. Then you couldn't trade 2nd rounders. Besides that I'm game. It would stop teams from giving big one year contracts to crappy players just to trade them.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:41:01 GMT -5
The most roster spots any team can have is 3! Thats fine make it 3 max. Not this sign trade cut sign trade cut trade back sign cut sign trade back cut crap. that doesn't account for the gm's free will to cut anyone and sign a vet FA though?, i just think the notion of stopping a gm's freedom on signing and trading vet FAs infringes(big word, and it's even real i think...) on that gm's freedom in general and contradicts the current rules that have been around in FBB leagues for years now.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:41:50 GMT -5
if there was a rule to ban the trading of players without bird-rights, i might be for that. Then you couldn't trade 2nd rounders. Besides that I'm game. It would stop teams from giving big one year contracts to crappy players just to trade them. yeah... well how about like... no trading players without bird years who make 1 million or more dollars?
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 21:42:38 GMT -5
Then you couldn't trade 2nd rounders. Besides that I'm game. It would stop teams from giving big one year contracts to crappy players just to trade them. yeah... well how about like... no trading players without bird years who make 1 million or more dollars? 500K or more
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:43:58 GMT -5
deal, post it.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 21:45:40 GMT -5
The most roster spots any team can have is 3! Thats fine make it 3 max. Not this sign trade cut sign trade cut trade back sign cut sign trade back cut crap. that doesn't account for the gm's free will to cut anyone and sign a vet FA though?, i just think the notion of stopping a gm's freedom on signing and trading vet FAs infringes(big word, and it's even real i think...) on that gm's freedom in general and contradicts the current rules that have been around in FBB leagues for years now. Leagues? 95% of the ones that I've ever been in have had a 1 per trade rule. Honestly I don't really care if we infringe on a GM's freedom of illegally manipulating the 15% rule.
|
|
|
Post by jahallstar on Apr 9, 2007 21:48:17 GMT -5
I don't how you can be for the "must have birds" rule and not for limiting Vet FA's one. Isn't that kind of like telling a child they can't have a lolypop before dinner because it will spoil their meal but it wil be ok for them to eat 3 king sized snickers.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:48:42 GMT -5
haha. well you are in a lot of em. i've just never seen it but you'd know better.
|
|
|
Post by manasrai on Apr 9, 2007 21:53:37 GMT -5
So do you think we should have the 15% rule in trades? Getting 3 Vet FA's isn't cheating the system enough? it might be cheating the system in your view... i can certainly see that side of it. my point is that if you have the roster space that you should be able to add/trade as you wish. while the intent may technically be to cheat the system, you still can't prevent gm's from signing and trading... but i don't wanna go in a cycle with the 60 day rule and all that stuff again lol... we disagree, all my points have been made, i understand your point but i just think it's a flaw that we have to live with. This argument makes the most sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by duce on Apr 9, 2007 21:54:59 GMT -5
I don't how you can be for the "must have birds" rule and not for limiting Vet FA's one. Isn't that kind of like telling a child they can't have a lolypop before dinner because it will spoil their meal but it wil be ok for them to eat 3 king sized snickers. lmao. nah, it just comes down to the fact that infringing(which you don't care about, i know) on the rules imo causes an even bigger problem. solutions are better. of course the other rule fixes that problem, but whatever.
|
|
|
Post by ducky on Apr 9, 2007 22:13:12 GMT -5
2 or 3. These kind of unrealistic things really bother me.
|
|