Review Request by JP
I'm currently reading a book on the fight for Texas independence, and Bren, you are basically being Santa Anna here. Much like he violated the Mexican Constitution of 1824 and ignored all peaceful requests by the Texans and Tejanos until finally it led to rebellion. I'm not saying we're going to have a rebellion or anything Bren, but, I think you need to actually listen to what we're saying here. This is a democracy, and the people that have spoken, the majority want this discussed leaguewide and put to a vote
it probably doesn't matter, but i'm gonna throw my two cents in anyway.
I think we're past the point where the punishment could be dismissed. It happened a long time ago, Bren made the ruling, and controversial or not, it should stand. I think it's in the best interests of the league that we all move forward from it rather than debate it again.
I do, however, think JP has a legitimate complaint about the severity of his punishment. I think the league as a whole thought the punishment was harsh to begin with, and thats when it looked as if JP would have a pick very late in the round. Now he has a legitimate shot at a pick near the top 10, and losing that would be huge blow.
In this league, a pick where JP is going to have it is extremely valuable. It's huge. HUGE. I honestly don't think it was Bren's intention to have the punishment be that severe, but only he can answer that.
So, Bren, I don't really remember why you started this thread, but if it was to get feedback (I really don't remember), count me of the opinion that you should consider altering the penalty. We're a flexible league, and I think everyone can agree that the loss of a top pick is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime.
I think we're past the point where the punishment could be dismissed. It happened a long time ago, Bren made the ruling, and controversial or not, it should stand. I think it's in the best interests of the league that we all move forward from it rather than debate it again.
I do, however, think JP has a legitimate complaint about the severity of his punishment. I think the league as a whole thought the punishment was harsh to begin with, and thats when it looked as if JP would have a pick very late in the round. Now he has a legitimate shot at a pick near the top 10, and losing that would be huge blow.
In this league, a pick where JP is going to have it is extremely valuable. It's huge. HUGE. I honestly don't think it was Bren's intention to have the punishment be that severe, but only he can answer that.
So, Bren, I don't really remember why you started this thread, but if it was to get feedback (I really don't remember), count me of the opinion that you should consider altering the penalty. We're a flexible league, and I think everyone can agree that the loss of a top pick is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime.
-
Athletics
- Posts: 1888
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:00 am
- Location: San Diego, CA
- Name: Stephen d'Esterhazy
We're bringing this issue up because the punishment doesnt fit the crime. We're not talking about eliminating a punishment, but reducing how extreme the punishment is. Bren has also taken it upon himself to make a decision that needs the whole leagues input, yet he has asked for none. I think you need to take a step back and look at the whole situation before posting on the subject Ropers. But, I dont control your keyboard, post as you may.Mariners wrote:Why this is even an issue or has been brought up is a mystery to me. I didn't reply in the first place because I saw nothing but trouble from this and don't think it is something that should continue to be brought up.
It should be a dead issue.
"My shit doesn't work in the playoffs. My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is fucking luck."
LAA 11 - 15 331W - 479L
LAA 16 - 20 477W - 333L 17-20 ALW
OAK 21 - 22 214W - 110L 21-22 ALW
LAA 11 - 15 331W - 479L
LAA 16 - 20 477W - 333L 17-20 ALW
OAK 21 - 22 214W - 110L 21-22 ALW
Angels wrote: I think you need to take a step back and look at the whole situation before posting on the subject Ropers. But, I dont control your keyboard, post as you may.
Take a step back? Why, Dave? Because I don't see it the same way you do? Are GM's only allowed to give their imput here if it follows along with all the JP supporters? JP's a good guy.....but him and Nils fucked up....it was a stupid thing to fuck up too........considering how much talk there was regarding trading draft picks and just how controversial the final outcome was regarding draft pick trading. I mean seriously, how could you forget something like that in the middle of the draft?
The rule they broke was one of the most talked about rules in the IBC last year, second only to the discussions regarding signing international free agents.
The only reason people are complaining again is because JP made a conscious decision to demantle his roster, which in essence tanks his 2007 season and makes the punishment hurt more now. You don't change the punishment dished out months ago because a GM makes a conscious effort to take his team a different direction after he's already been told the punishment.
You guys asked for other GM's opinions on the matter, so don't go telling me to "take a step back" after you didn't get someone to come cowtoe in line with you.
Let's see:
1. Aaron - Garcia started back to back games because you screwed up when you sent in your MP and didn't adjust your Next Starter.
2. Brett D - The post 1. Was to make it known the issue came up. 2. Make it known that I had considered it and what I thought about the issue (my decision was not final at the time of the first post). 3. Initiate discussion. The results were that several people complained he shouldn't have been punished at all (which is out of the question) or asking for a vote on the punishment which is NOT going to happen. The punishment was in place when the rule was instituted. I won't put it up for vote post facto because everyone, including myself, likes JP. JP is a very good GM and a nice kid, but he and Nils broke the rule. Period.
3. Dave - voting. no. Why? because every single member in this league is biased. There was a rule imposed with a penalty established beforehand to PREVENT that kind of bias and make it clear that there would be serious consequences for breaking this rule.
4. JP "I don't recall the league ever agreeing on it, or anybody besides Bren agreeing on it." Actually, the league agreed to the stripping of picks from whatever rounds are involved in the trades by the offending players (i.e. you trade a frist rounder, you lose a frist rounder). I reduced it. if you would like to go back to the original punishment, I can accomodate that.
5. Aaron again - "The rule was broken, Bren came up with a penalty, laid it down without asking anyone and said that his word was law."
not quite, the penalty was there, THEN the rule was broken. I reduced it. Nice attempt though. As for your Santa Ana reference, it's funny that you mention the mexican constitution, because you're right, i did violate the rules... by REDUCING the penalty.
6. Gabe - "I think everyone can agree that the loss of a top pick is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime." I couldn't disagree more. The punishment of losing a first round pick for illegally trading a first round pick fits the crime perfectly. it's not like I'm david stern, taking away the first round pick for 3 years.
7. Dave again - You want the punishment reduced? It already has been. I've considered the circumstances, listened to the few rational comments in favor of doing so again and I will not reduce the punishment AGAIN.
Why are punishments not something the league should vote on? Why is it something that should be inplace beforehand and applied universally and without exception? because we're all biased. Can you tell me that if this Chris and Nash in this situation rather than Nils and JP that you'd be saying EXACTLY the same thing? Sorry, I don't buy it. Like any game (let's not forget this is a game) we have rules and penalties for breaking them.
On a personal note, the fact that anyone is giving shit to Brennan for agreeing with the decision, while chastising me for not opening the whole issue to a league wide vote so everyone can take it easy on their pal, makes me sick.
1. Aaron - Garcia started back to back games because you screwed up when you sent in your MP and didn't adjust your Next Starter.
2. Brett D - The post 1. Was to make it known the issue came up. 2. Make it known that I had considered it and what I thought about the issue (my decision was not final at the time of the first post). 3. Initiate discussion. The results were that several people complained he shouldn't have been punished at all (which is out of the question) or asking for a vote on the punishment which is NOT going to happen. The punishment was in place when the rule was instituted. I won't put it up for vote post facto because everyone, including myself, likes JP. JP is a very good GM and a nice kid, but he and Nils broke the rule. Period.
3. Dave - voting. no. Why? because every single member in this league is biased. There was a rule imposed with a penalty established beforehand to PREVENT that kind of bias and make it clear that there would be serious consequences for breaking this rule.
4. JP "I don't recall the league ever agreeing on it, or anybody besides Bren agreeing on it." Actually, the league agreed to the stripping of picks from whatever rounds are involved in the trades by the offending players (i.e. you trade a frist rounder, you lose a frist rounder). I reduced it. if you would like to go back to the original punishment, I can accomodate that.
5. Aaron again - "The rule was broken, Bren came up with a penalty, laid it down without asking anyone and said that his word was law."
not quite, the penalty was there, THEN the rule was broken. I reduced it. Nice attempt though. As for your Santa Ana reference, it's funny that you mention the mexican constitution, because you're right, i did violate the rules... by REDUCING the penalty.
6. Gabe - "I think everyone can agree that the loss of a top pick is a punishment that doesn't fit the crime." I couldn't disagree more. The punishment of losing a first round pick for illegally trading a first round pick fits the crime perfectly. it's not like I'm david stern, taking away the first round pick for 3 years.
7. Dave again - You want the punishment reduced? It already has been. I've considered the circumstances, listened to the few rational comments in favor of doing so again and I will not reduce the punishment AGAIN.
Why are punishments not something the league should vote on? Why is it something that should be inplace beforehand and applied universally and without exception? because we're all biased. Can you tell me that if this Chris and Nash in this situation rather than Nils and JP that you'd be saying EXACTLY the same thing? Sorry, I don't buy it. Like any game (let's not forget this is a game) we have rules and penalties for breaking them.
On a personal note, the fact that anyone is giving shit to Brennan for agreeing with the decision, while chastising me for not opening the whole issue to a league wide vote so everyone can take it easy on their pal, makes me sick.
i'm not chastising you or ropers, nor am I calling for a league wide vote so that I can lighten the punishment for my friend.
I'm simply saying this - A top ten pick in this league is worth a lot. With all the prospect cocksucking that goes on around here, it makes a huge impact. Knowing that, is that really something you want to strip JP of, given the circumstances.
I'm not gonna go over the "spirit of the rule" and the "what's the harm" angles because they've been said time and time again. I do think, however, as the Commish that you should really give this some thought and consideration. The penalty was largely viewed as harsh before and is now going to be even more severe given where JP will probably end up in the standings.
I think it's a valid point, and instead of this continuing to be a league wide finger pointing session, you should simply close the topic and think it over again.
I'm simply saying this - A top ten pick in this league is worth a lot. With all the prospect cocksucking that goes on around here, it makes a huge impact. Knowing that, is that really something you want to strip JP of, given the circumstances.
I'm not gonna go over the "spirit of the rule" and the "what's the harm" angles because they've been said time and time again. I do think, however, as the Commish that you should really give this some thought and consideration. The penalty was largely viewed as harsh before and is now going to be even more severe given where JP will probably end up in the standings.
I think it's a valid point, and instead of this continuing to be a league wide finger pointing session, you should simply close the topic and think it over again.
Gabe, I thought this over when I first reduced the penalty (thus, the reduction) from loss of first round pick.
I spent most of Monday thinking it over again, as I promised JP I would.
When the penalty was imposed, JP was still in line for a bottom 10 pick. He may have started his youth movement, but it hadn't gotten very far and his team, even after the Manny deal, was a top 10 team. The penalty was fair. Even after the projections came out he seemed optimistic (in his conversations with me) that he could still compete this season. To not bear in mind the effect of the penalty on his team before he made all the moves he made and later ask for an adjustment simply does not strike me as a wise move or a reasonable request.
We don't evaluate/approve trades based on how they look 2-3 months down the line, we evaluate them based on the situation and circumstances as they exist at that time. Penalties for rules violations are and should be assessed in the same manner.
I spent most of Monday thinking it over again, as I promised JP I would.
When the penalty was imposed, JP was still in line for a bottom 10 pick. He may have started his youth movement, but it hadn't gotten very far and his team, even after the Manny deal, was a top 10 team. The penalty was fair. Even after the projections came out he seemed optimistic (in his conversations with me) that he could still compete this season. To not bear in mind the effect of the penalty on his team before he made all the moves he made and later ask for an adjustment simply does not strike me as a wise move or a reasonable request.
We don't evaluate/approve trades based on how they look 2-3 months down the line, we evaluate them based on the situation and circumstances as they exist at that time. Penalties for rules violations are and should be assessed in the same manner.
All right, fair enough. I was just giving my two cents.
That's a good point. I'm moving on."We don't evaluate/approve trades based on how they look 2-3 months down the line, we evaluate them based on the situation and circumstances as they exist at that time. Penalties for rules violations are and should be assessed in the same manner."
I actually really, really wish I had thought to put it that way in the first post.Cubs wrote:All right, fair enough. I was just giving my two cents.
That's a good point. I'm moving on."We don't evaluate/approve trades based on how they look 2-3 months down the line, we evaluate them based on the situation and circumstances as they exist at that time. Penalties for rules violations are and should be assessed in the same manner."
