Rule Discussion: Another Keeper Option January 6, 2009
Posted by nerf20 in Rules Discusssion.trackback
The Fugawi Frogz have made the following Rule Suggestion:
KeepersNERFL Franchises may keep two keepers per year.(a) One keeper must be designated as a Franchise Keeper and can only be kept once for a total of two years on the roster. Franchise Keepers will be labeled as (FK) on the official roster sheet to designate that they have to be released at the end of the NERFL season.(b) The other keeper is an unlimited keeper and can be kept for as many years as the NERFL Owner feels like the player is a viable candidate for their team.(c) Once a player is designated as a Franchise Keeper, they are to be released at the end of the next season.(d) If a Franchise Keeper is traded during the NERFL season, they lose their Franchise Keeper tag on the new NERFL franchise and the player can be reclassified by the new team at the end of the NERFL season in which they were traded.(e) Franchise keepers cannot be traded in offseason trading if because, by rule, FK keepers must be dumped at the end of the NERFL Season.(f) Any keeper can be dropped via Free Agency at any time. A Franchise Tag does not mean that a player has to be kept for the season, it only means the NFL player cannot be kept for more than once.(g) Franchise Keeper penalty. If for any reason a NERFL team wishes to switch their designation of Franchise keeper to the Unlimited Keeper, in effect circumventing the franchise tag; that NERFL team would lose the ability to use the Franchise Keeper tag on another player for three successive seasons. Which means that in the year of the switch, they would only be allowed one keeper (the switched player) as well as for the next three years (for a total of four years), that NERFL team would not be allowed by rule to keep a second player.
This rule allows a NERFL team that drafted or acquired NFL players (especially rookies and younger players; or late bloomers in the NFL season) to build upon a team for the second year. It does not affect the Keeper Rule we have in place currently and it means the second player is an automatic one and done keeper; which prevents the ability to build a dynasty with the same two players for a solid four or five seasons.
douglas
if there is a way to make things more complicated i fear you’ll find it.
why not just do the obvious. make two keepers for one year and be done with it. unlimited keepers we have already which i’m not in favor of as you know. to add a second keeper for two year [plus the year the team picked him] means we have two keepers for a potential of three years.
the idea of the league is not to mimic the al davis/bill ford model of the nfl. it is to have fun each year drafting, picking up and dropping players, talking trash each week and the like. its not about squirrelling away players for years so an owner can beat his chest and say “look how smart i am”
if you want to change the keeper rule make it one year keeper and one player and move on. the rest is not so sweet smelling cha cha
Interesting comment on many fronts.
1) I disagree with your last paragraph.
2) Don’t totally disagree with your third paragraph.
There is a faction in this league that likes two keepers, as a 7-5 vote against last year proved. The vote could be 7-5 in favor this year, who knows.
What I do know is that two keepers unlimited; is not the best idea but may have traction. So I thought a compromise proposal might be palatable. If it isn’t, no sweat off my back. I threw it out there.
But I find it interesting when you write, “…i’m not in favor of as you know. to add a second keeper for two year [plus the year the team picked him] means we have two keepers for a potential of three years.”
Just so we are clear, the proposal was for one and done on the second keeper…. not three years…. hmmmmm… I wonder where you got the three year idea from?
Oh please with the two keeper rule. All because we think the draft is too long. It’s more fun drafting like pop’s said. Too many complications here. If league is going to be about all kind of rules then forget the draft and pay more attention to all the rules and everything else. Keep It Simple Stupid and have fun. Only one keeper . and the only reason Doug is for this is because he has two players he wants to keep in Slaton and Johnson. How about raising the stakes and I bet nobody wants to talk about that. To be continued……….
Rich,
I have to address this one issue.
The league is about everything and it is all encompassing. When the League was first created back in CT (even before NERFL), my friend John and I had one agreement; at the end of the first year, and every year, the membership/owners will be allowed to discuss, debate, fight over, argue and hash out any and all rule changes they would like to implement. Once we were done, we would vote on the proposed rules; those that passed became part of the game and those that didn’t, would either fade away or be resurrected the next year.
But the philosophy of NERFL has always been a league that is established and governed by all twelve owners, not by an arbitrary decision maker. It is what makes our league unique to other leagues that are predicated on the rules of the commish; take it or leave it.
Hey, you voted for two keepers last year (So did Dave). Probably because you had two players you wanted to keep, maybe for another reason; who knows? Doesn’t matter. This year, you have changed your mind. And therein lies the altruistic reality that as we all play this game, we formulate our own opinions about what is in the best interest of NERFL and what is not.
And like our teams, we all have various opinions and thoughts about what might be best for the league. And as it has been for almost two whole decades, every January, right or wrong, the membership is allowed to share their ideas and opinions. In the end, we will vote and our rule book for 2009 will be reflective of the ideas brought forth and carried forward by a vote of all twelve owners. Not one or two, but by all twelve.
It may not be simple but when teams are competing throughout the season, we all realize that the rules we have are “membership created,” not arbitrary. It is democratic. It is fair. And in the end, when a majority of the teams vote in or out a rule, it is for the betterment of the game. And when it isn’t and we have made a mistake, this membership has proven time and time again to be intelligent enough to correct errors the following January. It’s what makes NERFL the best and most competitive league I know of; because in the end, we all do the right thing.
So yes, the rules are important.
Also Rich,
Two things:
1) I proposed a rule change that deals with entry fee and payouts. So we are talking about it and please feel free to go to the link that addresses league fees and prizes. It will be on the slate of final votes.
2) As stated above:
The simple reality is that whether I am in favor or not in favor, eleven other owners have to vote. And since the current rule is “one keeper (unlimited)” and Carlos’ proposal was for “two keepers (unlimited),” I threw out a compromise that addressed everyone’s concern. Vote it up, vote it down; it’s not a concern. I just wanted to make sure, in this debate, that all options are on the table…
But since we are talking about possible keepers for my team, don’t forget about Kevin Boss, Joey Addai, Larry Fitzgerald (cap number is in the ballpark), and Mark Clayton… Boy, do I love options.
Hey, Pop’s, looking to make any off season deals this year? I got a few guys we could talk about.
doug
if i were only interested in winning don’t you think i would vote for this rule with deangelo williams [keeper value 6] and michael turner [keeper value 21] on my roster.
i think the original keeper rule is bad and i think adding another keeper is worse.
HOWEVER, IF IT PASSES I WILL NOT BE SHOCKED NOR WILL I BE UNHAPPY.
just a thought bro
ps: also gonzalez would be a viable option if i didn’t have the other two.
so go ahead and make the rule and lets play
by the way douglas you can propose a trade anytime you wish. just don’t talk to me about before the amendments are voted on. and of course i’d be more than happy to discuss a rb swap. as long as its a lower priced rb like slaton. i’m sure he’s available right??????????
Once again, Pops…. twelve owners vote… not one or two.
I don’t know how keepers will fare. This proposal was a proposal to make sure all options were on the table when we had the discussion.
Read comment 4 above again… And as to your “so go ahead and make the rule and lets play” comment. That would be true of any rule change.
[...] Rule Discussion: Another Keeper Option [...]