RULES ANNOUNCEMENT - SIGN AND TRADE RESTRICTIONS

[MagicGM]

We talked about this a lot last year and it was strongly suggested that we would try this, but I realized I never made an announcement, and it's absolutely critical that people know this prior to FA.

Under the old rule, you could sign and trade any player until sim 1, at which point the restriction kicked in.

Due to significant discussion we had last year, we're going to trial a change to the rule.  I want to see what happens and go from there.

FROM NOW UNTIL IT IS ANNOUNCED OTHERWISE:

If you sign a player, he is restricted and cannot be traded until Dec. 15 unless:
1. You had bird rights on that player (3 bird years - so you re-signed your own guy that you've had for a few years or at least had bird years through a trade), OR
2. You pay $500 TPE to remove the restriction. 

This should make it so that people aren't going around signing a whole bunch of guys they have no intention of keeping, UNLESS they're really good players and are worth the $500 TPE charge.  If you sign a superstar, you can trade him immediately - you just have to pay the TPE.

We are also doing away with the "there is no restriction on a player if he is traded by himself" rule.  If we don't, the above is completely meaningless.

[WizardsGM]

We talked about this a lot last year and it was strongly suggested that we would try this, but I realized I never made an announcement, and it's absolutely critical that people know this prior to FA.

Under the old rule, you could sign and trade any player until sim 1, at which point the restriction kicked in.

Due to significant discussion we had last year, we're going to trial a change to the rule.  I want to see what happens and go from there.

FROM NOW UNTIL IT IS ANNOUNCED OTHERWISE:

If you sign a player, he is restricted and cannot be traded until Dec. 15 unless:
1. You had bird rights on that player (3 bird years - so you re-signed your own guy that you've had for a few years or at least had bird years through a trade), OR
2. You pay $500 TPE to remove the restriction. 

This should make it so that people aren't going around signing a whole bunch of guys they have no intention of keeping, UNLESS they're really good players and are worth the $500 TPE charge.  If you sign a superstar, you can trade him immediately - you just have to pay the TPE.

We are also doing away with the "there is no restriction on a player if he is traded by himself" rule.  If we don't, the above is completely meaningless.

Great addition, imo.

[MagicGM]

I confess I was against this at first but was convinced by a bunch of others.  We had a very productive discussion on this last year and I think it's worth a shot.   

[PelicansGM]

Who knew for er RapsGM would leave a positive mark.

[WizardsGM]

Who knew for er RapsGM would leave a positive mark.

The Declaration of Raptorpendence

[ThunderGM]

You should also make it so you can't split this TPE penalty. Just a consequence for the GM that signed him to have to take the full hit.

[WizardsGM]

You should also make it so you can't split this TPE penalty. Just a consequence for the GM that signed him to have to take the full hit.

[MagicGM]

You should also make it so you can't split this TPE penalty. Just a consequence for the GM that signed him to have to take the full hit.

If people agree with this, sure.  I think it's pretty arbitrary though, and easy to work around.   

[WizardsGM]

You should also make it so you can't split this TPE penalty. Just a consequence for the GM that signed him to have to take the full hit.

If people agree with this, sure.  I think it's pretty arbitrary though, and easy to work around.   

What if you have the recipient of the newly-signed-and-traded player paying the $500 as part of the deal? doesn't that kid of defeat the purpose? For example, Team A signs Rocky Kirkland for $20-million/1 year. Trades him to Team B for 2 picks and $500 TBD (exception).

[MagicGM]

You should also make it so you can't split this TPE penalty. Just a consequence for the GM that signed him to have to take the full hit.

If people agree with this, sure.  I think it's pretty arbitrary though, and easy to work around.   

What if you have the recipient of the newly-signed-and-traded player paying the $500 as part of the deal? doesn't that kid of defeat the purpose? For example, Team A signs Rocky Kirkland for $20-million/1 year. Trades him to Team B for 2 picks and $500 TBD (exception).

No, it just means that mediocre players won't get signed and traded because no one will want to pay the TPE.  If you force the trader to pay $500 TPE it just means that the guy trading for him has to add in something worth $500.  Easy to work around.

[WizardsGM]

You should also make it so you can't split this TPE penalty. Just a consequence for the GM that signed him to have to take the full hit.

If people agree with this, sure.  I think it's pretty arbitrary though, and easy to work around.   

What if you have the recipient of the newly-signed-and-traded player paying the $500 as part of the deal? doesn't that kid of defeat the purpose? For example, Team A signs Rocky Kirkland for $20-million/1 year. Trades him to Team B for 2 picks and $500 TBD (exception).

No, it just means that mediocre players won't get signed and traded because no one will want to pay the TPE.  If you force the trader to pay $500 TPE it just means that the guy trading for him has to add in something worth $500.  Easy to work around.

I see what you're saying. It limits the (hate to use colors as an example) Yellow/Green guys from getting signed-and-traded because the $500 won't be worth the hassle.

[MagicGM]

You should also make it so you can't split this TPE penalty. Just a consequence for the GM that signed him to have to take the full hit.

If people agree with this, sure.  I think it's pretty arbitrary though, and easy to work around.   

What if you have the recipient of the newly-signed-and-traded player paying the $500 as part of the deal? doesn't that kid of defeat the purpose? For example, Team A signs Rocky Kirkland for $20-million/1 year. Trades him to Team B for 2 picks and $500 TBD (exception).

No, it just means that mediocre players won't get signed and traded because no one will want to pay the TPE.  If you force the trader to pay $500 TPE it just means that the guy trading for him has to add in something worth $500.  Easy to work around.

I see what you're saying. It limits the (hate to use colors as an example) Yellow/Green guys from getting signed-and-traded because the $500 won't be worth the hassle.

That is the entire purpose of the rule.  It is not to discourage GREAT players from getting signed.  That's fine.  If someone hits a home run in FA and signs a superstar, it's worth the TPE to trade him. If you didn't allow that it would basically just mean that great FAs would be much less likely to leave, and I don't think we want that.  Mobility of top players is important. It's the signing of the middling guys by teams which would NEVER want them that's the principal problem here.

[ThunderGM]

Also, maybe make it so trades that are dealing with sign-and-trade players don't receive TBD trade rewards. Sorry, all I think of is consequences.

[MagicGM]

Also, maybe make it so trades that are dealing with sign-and-trade players don't receive TBD trade rewards. Sorry, all I think of is consequences.

Not sure $20 TBD changes anything if the cost is $500. Think this is arbitrary and confusing.

[BucksGM]

I think forcing the tpe to be unsplittable is interesting.