+1
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by wsdp
My situation is a vet wanted to leave if we didn't need him and as of Day 40, we needed him because the guy we were recruiting to fill his slot didn't commit until D41. He took a S17 extension in order to prevent us having to spend chem points by getting auto cut on D41 (due to being on an end day 40 contract) and then resigning him if we didn't get a commit at his position.
Once we got the commit on D41, we went to cut him but the 6 day rule is in effect so we can't do it. We have a full 55 man roster so the guy waiting to take his spot is getting slaughtered with offers and PMs (which he doesn't want) because we can't cut the guy in his space who was helping us out by sticking around.
The intent of original rule is gone and causing many different irritating situations like the one I outlined above.
I think removing it makes it too easy for those who are just trying to screw with agents.. or just sign someone just to make they are covered.. then cut as soon as the next best comes along... I don't think that should be the road recruiting takes in this game.. it is annoying enough to recruit, to make it shitty for the one being recruited is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
My situation is a vet wanted to leave if we didn't need him and as of Day 40, we needed him because the guy we were recruiting to fill his slot didn't commit until D41. He took a S17 extension in order to prevent us having to spend chem points by getting auto cut on D41 (due to being on an end day 40 contract) and then resigning him if we didn't get a commit at his position.
Once we got the commit on D41, we went to cut him but the 6 day rule is in effect so we can't do it. We have a full 55 man roster so the guy waiting to take his spot is getting slaughtered with offers and PMs (which he doesn't want) because we can't cut the guy in his space who was helping us out by sticking around.
The intent of original rule is gone and causing many different irritating situations like the one I outlined above.
I think removing it makes it too easy for those who are just trying to screw with agents.. or just sign someone just to make they are covered.. then cut as soon as the next best comes along... I don't think that should be the road recruiting takes in this game.. it is annoying enough to recruit, to make it shitty for the one being recruited is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
wsdp
offline
offline
Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
the rule was put into place to stop 2 exploits:
- signing a player just for the bonus then cutting him to go to his real team
- signing and playing a game, then getting cut to play a 2nd game in the same day
neither of those are applicable any longer, so the rule is no longer needed. with your logic, you should still be wearing diapers since there's there's no reason to fix something that isnt broken.
the rule was put into place to stop 2 exploits:
- signing a player just for the bonus then cutting him to go to his real team
- signing and playing a game, then getting cut to play a 2nd game in the same day
neither of those are applicable any longer, so the rule is no longer needed. with your logic, you should still be wearing diapers since there's there's no reason to fix something that isnt broken.
wsdp
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
I think removing it makes it too easy for those who are just trying to screw with agents.. or just sign someone just to make they are covered.. then cut as soon as the next best comes along... I don't think that should be the road recruiting takes in this game.. it is annoying enough to recruit, to make it shitty for the one being recruited is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
What does 6 days make a difference if I'm going to be an a-hole and sign you just to cut you 6 days later? Wouldn't you rather be cut right away rather than waiting til D47 and then having to find a team when there's barely any spots left?
I think removing it makes it too easy for those who are just trying to screw with agents.. or just sign someone just to make they are covered.. then cut as soon as the next best comes along... I don't think that should be the road recruiting takes in this game.. it is annoying enough to recruit, to make it shitty for the one being recruited is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
What does 6 days make a difference if I'm going to be an a-hole and sign you just to cut you 6 days later? Wouldn't you rather be cut right away rather than waiting til D47 and then having to find a team when there's barely any spots left?
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
neither of those are applicable any longer, so the rule is no longer needed. with your logic, you should still be wearing diapers since there's there's no reason to fix something that isnt broken.
first.. how the f is it not a broken situation to be stuck to using a smelly ass diaper.. quit being illogical and attacking me simply because I don't simply conform to the stupid idea you have about it is bad design to force an simple extra click in a situation that the owner brought on usually himself....
neither of those are applicable any longer, so the rule is no longer needed. with your logic, you should still be wearing diapers since there's there's no reason to fix something that isnt broken.
first.. how the f is it not a broken situation to be stuck to using a smelly ass diaper.. quit being illogical and attacking me simply because I don't simply conform to the stupid idea you have about it is bad design to force an simple extra click in a situation that the owner brought on usually himself....
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by wsdp
What does 6 days make a difference if I'm going to be an a-hole and sign you just to cut you 6 days later? Wouldn't you rather be cut right away rather than waiting til D47 and then having to find a team when there's barely any spots left?
sometimes a-holes have a change of heart or the reason they wanted to cut changes over that 6 days regardless.. time is time.... and those 6 days don't hurt either in the situation.. but that is why I offered the idea that the agent should be able to approve the let go..... if he thinks he will get fked.. he has the option to cut and run still..
What does 6 days make a difference if I'm going to be an a-hole and sign you just to cut you 6 days later? Wouldn't you rather be cut right away rather than waiting til D47 and then having to find a team when there's barely any spots left?
sometimes a-holes have a change of heart or the reason they wanted to cut changes over that 6 days regardless.. time is time.... and those 6 days don't hurt either in the situation.. but that is why I offered the idea that the agent should be able to approve the let go..... if he thinks he will get fked.. he has the option to cut and run still..
wsdp
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
that is why I offered the idea that the agent should be able to approve the let go..... if he thinks he will get fked.. he has the option to cut and run still..
Whether he gets "fked" that day or in 6 days, he's still going to get cut. Why add a 6 day delay?
Either way, rule as is doesn't have a place anymore - that's the purpose of this thread.
that is why I offered the idea that the agent should be able to approve the let go..... if he thinks he will get fked.. he has the option to cut and run still..
Whether he gets "fked" that day or in 6 days, he's still going to get cut. Why add a 6 day delay?
Either way, rule as is doesn't have a place anymore - that's the purpose of this thread.
Buckeyes and Browns
offline
offline
I like it for the simple fact of the overnight, AFK, simultaneous signings that take place. A few seasons ago I needed a kicker, sent out offers to a few kickers. 2 kickers signed nearly at the same time. Now I had 1 kicker tied up for 6 days. Kicking jobs are few and far between and the guy was locked for 6 days during the off season. Not fair to the odd man out.
buffal0soldier
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
Then that is your fault for being impatient in signing players.. if he signs with another team... good for him. having said that.. I would be okay with removing it for some of the other reasons I guess........ but still you sign players. being stuck with those is your problem.... just my 2 cents.
he's going to get cut anyways...
Then that is your fault for being impatient in signing players.. if he signs with another team... good for him. having said that.. I would be okay with removing it for some of the other reasons I guess........ but still you sign players. being stuck with those is your problem.... just my 2 cents.
he's going to get cut anyways...
Edited by buffal0soldier on Jul 16, 2010 14:52:37
Guppy, Inc
online
online
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
first.. how the f is it not a broken situation to be stuck to using a smelly ass diaper.. quit being illogical and attacking me simply because I don't simply conform to the stupid idea you have about it is bad design to force an simple extra click in a situation that the owner brought on usually himself....
first of all, i didnt attack you. attacking you would have been if i said you wear diapers because you are full of shit, which is clearly NOT what i said. the analogy holds true because when we are born, we wear diapers because we cant control ourselves but as we grow older, we can control ourselves therefore the diapers are no longer needed and therefore we stop wearing them. you stated that we shouldnt change things just because the reason for them is no longer valid. therefore in my analogy, not needing a diaper is no reason to stop wearing them.
second, there are many valid reasons to sign with teams, and by mutual agreement, for the relationship to be terminated within 6 days. the 2 big reasons being accidentally signing with the wrong team, and signing to help a friend then not being needed after all.
your lone argument seems to be that you might like the team if FORCED to stay on it for 6 days. thats not even a valid argument because you can associate with a team whether you have a player on it or not. your other 'argument" against actually screws the player not the owner. if a owner is going to keep signing the next best player, then forcing that player to stick around for 6 days instead of being cut right away hampers that player's ability to find a new team while the pickings are at their best.
first.. how the f is it not a broken situation to be stuck to using a smelly ass diaper.. quit being illogical and attacking me simply because I don't simply conform to the stupid idea you have about it is bad design to force an simple extra click in a situation that the owner brought on usually himself....
first of all, i didnt attack you. attacking you would have been if i said you wear diapers because you are full of shit, which is clearly NOT what i said. the analogy holds true because when we are born, we wear diapers because we cant control ourselves but as we grow older, we can control ourselves therefore the diapers are no longer needed and therefore we stop wearing them. you stated that we shouldnt change things just because the reason for them is no longer valid. therefore in my analogy, not needing a diaper is no reason to stop wearing them.
second, there are many valid reasons to sign with teams, and by mutual agreement, for the relationship to be terminated within 6 days. the 2 big reasons being accidentally signing with the wrong team, and signing to help a friend then not being needed after all.
your lone argument seems to be that you might like the team if FORCED to stay on it for 6 days. thats not even a valid argument because you can associate with a team whether you have a player on it or not. your other 'argument" against actually screws the player not the owner. if a owner is going to keep signing the next best player, then forcing that player to stick around for 6 days instead of being cut right away hampers that player's ability to find a new team while the pickings are at their best.
Staz
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
Then that is your fault for being impatient in signing players.. if he signs with another team... good for him. having said that.. I would be okay with removing it for some of the other reasons I guess........ but still you sign players. being stuck with those is your problem.... just my 2 cents.
I'm not sure whether you're just playing Devil's advocate here, or if you're really in favor of keeping this rule around.
If you ARE in favor, would you care to explain why? The whole "you signed him, you should have to deal with it" line of thinking isn't exactly sound logic, imo. There is no point in forcing a team to hold on to a player that they don't want/need for an extra six days, when they're going to cut him anyways. Being able to cut the player immediately (even if this is only an off-season sort of thing) would make things easier for the player in question, as well as the team by freeing up that roster spot, allowing the problem to be solved NOW, and allowing that player to find himself a new home and not have to "wait", when his potential home could be taken by an another agent if the person offering the spot is impatient.
Then that is your fault for being impatient in signing players.. if he signs with another team... good for him. having said that.. I would be okay with removing it for some of the other reasons I guess........ but still you sign players. being stuck with those is your problem.... just my 2 cents.
I'm not sure whether you're just playing Devil's advocate here, or if you're really in favor of keeping this rule around.
If you ARE in favor, would you care to explain why? The whole "you signed him, you should have to deal with it" line of thinking isn't exactly sound logic, imo. There is no point in forcing a team to hold on to a player that they don't want/need for an extra six days, when they're going to cut him anyways. Being able to cut the player immediately (even if this is only an off-season sort of thing) would make things easier for the player in question, as well as the team by freeing up that roster spot, allowing the problem to be solved NOW, and allowing that player to find himself a new home and not have to "wait", when his potential home could be taken by an another agent if the person offering the spot is impatient.
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Guppy, Inc
the analogy holds true because when we are born, we wear diapers because we cant control ourselves but as we grow older, we can control ourselves therefore the diapers are no longer needed and therefore we stop wearing them. you stated that we shouldnt change things just because the reason for them is no longer valid. therefore in my analogy, not needing a diaper is no reason to stop wearing them
This analogy is that of lack of understanding of how to make things similar. Diapers are indeed as you said for during a time we can't control ourselves. Therefore it makes sense to allow for that for a time.. but they are disgusting. All I have been saying from the beginning of the thread is I am not sure this is completely broken.. I have agreed later that something might be changed but I don't agree that the owner or a gm should have all the say in it.. the agent should have something to be said as well... otherwise the agent should be able to leave a team any damn time he wants as well. I mean what is the difference. He should be able to retire during the season even if he is signed to a real team.. oh but wait that would make teams less competitive.. there has to be some sort of give and take.... making ppl stick with contracts on both sides at least for a given amount of time makes sense in some way..... In some ways I feel the OP would be a step backwards not forwards.. but I see some legitimate arguments.. therefore I am willing to say perhaps if we get an approval process then okay.... otherwise I stick to my thoughts at this point.. attacking my thoughts rather than giving me real reasons is not the best method to go about this discussion.
the analogy holds true because when we are born, we wear diapers because we cant control ourselves but as we grow older, we can control ourselves therefore the diapers are no longer needed and therefore we stop wearing them. you stated that we shouldnt change things just because the reason for them is no longer valid. therefore in my analogy, not needing a diaper is no reason to stop wearing them
This analogy is that of lack of understanding of how to make things similar. Diapers are indeed as you said for during a time we can't control ourselves. Therefore it makes sense to allow for that for a time.. but they are disgusting. All I have been saying from the beginning of the thread is I am not sure this is completely broken.. I have agreed later that something might be changed but I don't agree that the owner or a gm should have all the say in it.. the agent should have something to be said as well... otherwise the agent should be able to leave a team any damn time he wants as well. I mean what is the difference. He should be able to retire during the season even if he is signed to a real team.. oh but wait that would make teams less competitive.. there has to be some sort of give and take.... making ppl stick with contracts on both sides at least for a given amount of time makes sense in some way..... In some ways I feel the OP would be a step backwards not forwards.. but I see some legitimate arguments.. therefore I am willing to say perhaps if we get an approval process then okay.... otherwise I stick to my thoughts at this point.. attacking my thoughts rather than giving me real reasons is not the best method to go about this discussion.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
