Well, then I guess the league rule should read "Any intentional deviation from the intent of the rules (loop-holes) will be dealt with by a vote of all league members (not involved in an infraction) voting on whether to keep or dispel the offender from the league". I don't know why you want to try to make everything so complicated.

If need be, let the offender try to explain his action and how he can make a correction that would be acceptable to the league for the infraction.

So my proposal is that if you hide LT contract guys from your 20, you lose the same number of the best players off your roster that you went over the 20 with. Is that not simple and punitive enough? Or, a softer version is that you lose the players that you hid, thereby denying any benefit from the infraction of the rule. By lose, I mean "waive"

I don't know if they have to be your best, but at least better than what they got.

Posted by wcrebel on 1/7/2015 8:51:00 PM (view original):
Well, then I guess the league rule should read "Any intentional deviation from the intent of the rules (loop-holes) will be dealt with by a vote of all league members (not involved in an infraction) voting on whether to keep or dispel the offender from the league". I don't know why you want to try to make everything so complicated.

I'm not "trying to make everything so complicated".  Just pointing out that there are complexities to this theme that need to be understood and discussed.  If it's going to be rolled out and administered in a half-assed way, it's inevitably going to get half-assed results.  

And as for your suggestion: once you start getting into committees or league votes to try to determine if a violation was intentional or an honest mistake, then it eventually becomes a popularity contest based on subjective opinions.  If you have one owner who's popular, and another owner who's an insufferable jackass, and both are found to be out of compliance, which do you think is more likely to get the benefit of the doubt from the jury, and which will be shown the door?

As a commish of a world myself, the most important thing with enforcing world rules is fairness.  That means everybody needs to be treated fairly.  Subjectivity clouds the ability to be fair.

Posted by shobob on 1/7/2015 9:08:00 PM (view original):
So my proposal is that if you hide LT contract guys from your 20, you lose the same number of the best players off your roster that you went over the 20 with. Is that not simple and punitive enough? Or, a softer version is that you lose the players that you hid, thereby denying any benefit from the infraction of the rule. By lose, I mean "waive"

Is castration off the table?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2015 9:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 1/7/2015 9:08:00 PM (view original):
So my proposal is that if you hide LT contract guys from your 20, you lose the same number of the best players off your roster that you went over the 20 with. Is that not simple and punitive enough? Or, a softer version is that you lose the players that you hid, thereby denying any benefit from the infraction of the rule. By lose, I mean "waive"

Is castration off the table?

Are you offering your services?

Posted by wcrebel on 1/7/2015 9:15:00 PM (view original):
I don't know if they have to be your best, but at least better than what they got.

Whatever we choose, it needs to be possible to be consistently enforced. So, it would have to be top rated by overall, or lose the unassigned players. I prefer the latter, because I'm a nice guy.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/7/2015 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2015 9:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 1/7/2015 9:08:00 PM (view original):
So my proposal is that if you hide LT contract guys from your 20, you lose the same number of the best players off your roster that you went over the 20 with. Is that not simple and punitive enough? Or, a softer version is that you lose the players that you hid, thereby denying any benefit from the infraction of the rule. By lose, I mean "waive"

Is castration off the table?

Are you offering your services?

You hold 'em, I'll cut 'em off.

20 Man Keeper World Private World Rules:

Each team may not have any more than 20 players on their 40 man roster at the time of the rule 5 draft.

40 man rosters shall be trimmed to 20 by means of release, designate for assignment with waivers, or trade.

Upon signing, being awarded a waiver claim, or acquiring by trade a player with a contract with more than one season remaining, owners must assign them to their ML roster before the rule 5 roster freeze.

If a player with more than one season remaining on his contract is left unassigned by the rule 5 roster freeze, said player must be placed on waivers.

The owner of any franchise that fails to attain 55 wins in one season, 120 wins in two consecutive seasons, 190 wins in three consecutive seasons, or 265 wins in four consecutive seasons shall not be allowed to return the following season.

Each owner is responsible to keep their franchise's minor leagues adequately stocked and free of excessive fatigue.

And again, a point that seems to be ignored....not allowing owners to park LT free agents in unassigned creates a huge advantage for anyone able to log on right after the R5 draft.   They will get top free agents at a deep discount without a competitive bidding process.   That advantage is far greater than having an extra few guys protected by parking the FA in unassigned, and will result in an extremely unbalanced world. 

Nowhere does it say that you can't sign free agents during the free agency signing period. I don't know how you're drawing that conclusion.

If it means having to cut one of your 20 keepers, it's less likely, resulting in a large pool of FA talent available for first come, first serve pickup right after the R5 at a deep discount.   That could be equivalent to multiple consecutive picks at the top of the R5 draft if you are the first one to log on, creating a major imbalance.  That's what I think will happen.  But I guess we won't know til we try it.   Until then it's all speculation.  

There will always be teams that don't even have 20 to keep. The better free agents will get signed in the FA signing period, guaranteed. I'll admit that having to drop a guy off your 20 will definitely act as a drag on signings, but I don't think it would add up to a competitive imbalance creating effect.

As one of the 5 original GM’s of FORD who is still here…time to chime in with my 2 cents (been a bit busy with real life to say anything before)

 

There are so many options that you can look at when trying to form your team based on the 20 man keeper theme. If the idea is to try and spread out the talent and makes teams more even…then the real driving force behind what kind of talent redistribution there will be – will be based on how many minor league players each GM keeps on their 40 man.    Right now I have 32 players on my 40 man:  24 in the ML and 8 in the minors with maybe 2 more players who are eligible.   If I decide to keep 5 players in the minors on my 40 man – then that means I need to get rid of 9 players from my ML team…thus leaving it with only 15. (5 +15=20).   Or should I keep all 20 player on my ML team and forget about my prospects?   Teams with more minor leaguers on their 40 will mean more ML player should be available…and vice-versa the other way around.

 

…however…in reality…at the start of each season –how many players on your 25 man roster change from year to year?  For good teams - lets say on average 6.  Of those 6 – lets say that you replace 2 with young prospects coming up the ranks.  The other 4 are F/A signees.   If I decide to do the 15/5 split with my 20 keepers…what are the chances I will be able to find 10 F/A players before the R5 Draft that I will be able to keep stashed away unassigned?  Probably pretty low…especially since all of other teams will also be looking to sign at a minimum 5 F/A to do the same thing.   And as it stands right now…the only rule with regards to the 20 man keeper is that I need to be at that number before the R5 Draft.  Whose to say that I (and every other GM) decide to make all of my roster moves (releasing of players) on the last cycle before the roster freeze prior to the R5 Draft?  The player pool for F/A before that point would be only those players whose contracts had expired (like any other year) and were not going to be resigned, Arb eligible players who get released and more than likely a lot more AAAA type players who were on a 40 man roster but were waived.  The redistribution of talent would not really come into play as hoped – because the depth of ML players is not there to be signed during F/A.  Once the R5 roster freeze is in effect…any GM who is up at that first AM Cycle will then be able to sign the remaining F/A who were released uncontested on a first come first serve basis. 

 

The idea of have only 20 KEEPERS is fine…but smart GM’s are going to find any competitive way possible to find the loopholes that may exist.  Rather than put in all this effort to circumvent creative thinking why not just let them try to win whatever way possible – with the only rule being you must not have more than 20 players on your 40 man roster at the time of the Rule 5 Draft.  Let GM’s try and figure out how to beat the system.   It happens in real life all the time…so why not have it in play here?  It will be so much easier to administer than trying to police every transaction.