+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+---- Forum: Suggestion Box (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+----- Forum: Archived Suggestions (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=349)
+----- Thread: Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule (/showthread.php?tid=8574)
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - manicmav36 - 05-09-2018
(05-09-2018, 11:30 AM)Beaver Wrote:Yeah, I may be getting my sim league retirement rules mixed up here but Cushing will be retiring this offseason, right? While under the proposed rule if he was traded 1 day before his announcement he would be retiring in 2 offseasons so that he ends up playing a full season for his new team, right?
If so then anyone planning on retiring that's not on a contender could return assets for their team and farm an extra season's worth of stats by getting traded right before the announcement compared to if they just retired normally.
So for Sandoval, he would have to finish out this season (S7), and play next season (S8). Meaning he would only have 1 off-season with the team, S7 -> S8. I guess the potential for abuse is there, as he could in fact bank another season of stats, but that would still most likely burn bridges between GMs, making it harder for the Yeti GM (again, just the example) to complete trades with other teams.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - 7hawk77 - 05-10-2018
(05-09-2018, 10:01 AM)timeconsumer Wrote:Dan Miller should just retire. That'd show em.
![[Image: escalated.gif]](http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/escalated.gif)
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - 7hawk77 - 05-10-2018
For real, that sucks for SJS because it's happened twice.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - ErMurazor - 05-10-2018
I don't think trapping players or keeping "retired" people around are the best solutions.
Obviously, it sucks that SJ has gotten the short end on this twice. Usually an inactive players aren't going to come back and retire, but some people are shits (irony, yeah, yeah).
To protect themselves GMs should get in contact with players who are active prior to trades and ask about their plans, etc.
If a GM does something shitty, other GMs should also remember that for the future.
The biggest potential rule change would allow teams to negotiate stuff into their deals (which may already be allowed?). If somebody is a retirement risk or even an unknown, say you get a pick back if they don't last two seasons or whatever. Obviously, there will be a few situations that are unpredictable and may still burn teams, but doing the above would help to solve a lot of those issues.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - kckolbe - 05-10-2018
(05-10-2018, 11:11 AM)ErMurazor Wrote:The biggest potential rule change would allow teams to negotiate stuff into their deals (which may already be allowed?). If somebody is a retirement risk or even an unknown, say you get a pick back if they don't last two seasons or whatever. Obviously, there will be a few situations that are unpredictable and may still burn teams, but doing the above would help to solve a lot of those issues.
Conditional picks are already allowed. In the past we've seen them for activity and re-signing, but I don't see any reason why retirement wouldn't be allowed as a condition. I think it's just in that rare situation where it's only happened 3 times (Peterson, Jefferson, Sandoval) in 7 seasons (that I've seen), so it's rare enough that GMs don't think to protect against it.
How about if ANY formal offer is made regarding a player by the owning team, the to-be receiving team is granted communication rights to the player. If nothing else, making it easier for teams to ask the players' intentions might prevent this.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - ErMurazor - 05-10-2018
(05-10-2018, 10:22 AM)kckolbe Wrote:Conditional picks are already allowed. In the past we've seen them for activity and re-signing, but I don't see any reason why retirement wouldn't be allowed as a condition. I think it's just in that rare situation where it's only happened 3 times (Peterson, Jefferson, Sandoval) in 7 seasons (that I've seen), so it's rare enough that GMs don't think to protect against it.
How about if ANY formal offer is made regarding a player by the owning team, the to-be receiving team is granted communication rights to the player. If nothing else, making it easier for teams to ask the players' intentions might prevent this.
I couldn't remember what was allowed in this league. But that could work. Is there potential for reverse abuse if you "make an offer" and just chat somebody up about FA.
Add a Requirement to the Retirement Rule - kckolbe - 05-10-2018
(05-10-2018, 11:32 AM)ErMurazor Wrote:I couldn't remember what was allowed in this league. But that could work. Is there potential for reverse abuse if you "make an offer" and just chat somebody up about FA.
That's why the team owning the player has to make the offer.