Kingdom

I once posted a blog about how sim leagues are being taken too seriously, fun is being zapped from the life of leagues, etc. and well, it's still that way. The bickering and nonsense has escalated, treaties have been broken, wars amongst counties have broken out, you name it. It's probably happening. So I come to you all with fantastical ideas that will likely never be taken seriously, but maybe should be considered for upping the worthwhile of our fun little pseudo-fantasy leagues. Let's walk.



One Nation Under a Trade Council:
Oh yeah, I'm starting off with the big nerve ending. Face it, if you're not on council, you dislike us. And it's been made apparent in all of the leagues as of late. But I'm going to stop everyone, because the point of this is not to dissect the need or cause of a trade council, it's instead a new take on the process at hand. Most of us have had a trade vetoed, if not all of us. Yes, Missionhockey has, and so haven't I. It happens. But every so often a trade causes a stir, and sometimes it shifts focus of the council or the rules of the league. So what if.. what if you as a GM were allowed to challenge the ruling of a trade, only once per season. Much like instant replay in the National Football League, you win your challenge that season, you get another (only for that season). There is no rolling over. What happens when you challenge a trade? The council posts the deal in order for the rest of the league to vote on (council and GMs involved in the trade will not count towards vote). That's assuming the deal was not vetoed for financial reasons, draft pick issues, or a team trading someone they don't have (it has happened). With the trade in public, the teams involved made give an appropriate and logical reason why it's fair and should pass, and the council may also post their consensus reason why the deal was failed.

Kicker number 1: Both teams involved in the deal must agree to challenge the ruling.
Kicker number 2: If the ruling stands per league vote (i.e. it fails again), those teams lose the right to re-work the deal for that season (they can still trade with one another, but it has to be a completely new trade). A lot of times, teams are able to re-work a deal after it passes. Sometimes they don't. Ultimately, instead of falling down the path of immaturity, the league could end up deciding and putting hard feelings aside.


Get Out of Jail Free Card
Monopoly had the right idea. And it's clearly used and accepted all around the world, unless you're trying it on Roger Goodell. One of the thorns, many thorns, in the side of all of us in OOTP is the random death of our prospects or players entering their prime. Realistically, and I've always said this, that should only happen due to a major injury, serious drug abuse, or the player commits a major criminal offense. But 6.5 is limited, and at best we sometimes get notification of a player losing talent after they had a season ending injury, or something of a severe nature (Hell, sometimes it's a day to day for 4 weeks injury that knocks a player down). I hate that, and even though this is not realistic, it's still bullshit. There's many ways to handle this situation, or simply not even bother. But I'm always in support of a lifeline and helping others. The easiest ways are typically in use by leagues, such as an injury exception rule (S3SL), which is very fair and works very well. Some leagues offer zilch. What if leagues adopted a rule where draft picks, let's say 1st and 2nd rounders only, were under protection for 3 full seasons (turns out to be 3.4 seasons since drafts are typically held on June 1st).

Outline
- A prospect can be protected for 3 full seasons or up until he turns 26 and loses prospect status, whichever occurs first.
- The prospect carries the protection with him when he is dealt to other teams.
- If a prospect gains talent, then the new talent level is the benchmark in which to be protected at
- The protection clause does not protect talent loss occurring after a severe injury (6 weeks or more)
- In leagues just starting up, it would not apply to already established prospects

It won't solve everything, but it gives draft picks a fighting chance. Unfortunately, it still leaves open a player dying in his prime, or dying as he enters his prime. I compare that to Albert Pujols suddenly being unable to hit or be great. He's only 30. Unrealistic, unless there's a major injury, drugs, etc. involved. But even Josh Hamilton proves one can overcome drugs to be an all-star. Countless pitchers have proven they can come back from major injury (Tommy John surgery) to be as good as they were before being hurt.


You sign 'em, you play 'em
I'm against tanking, well, the super duper obvious tanking. I don't think those teams deserve high draft picks. But what irks me more, is when teams throw around a lot of money and over pay free agents, only to let them rot in AAA. It's one part tanking, one part being a douchebag. There is no competitive skill to this act. So I'm saying, if a team signs a Major League talent in free agency for 5 million a year, or more, that player has to be on the Major League roster. If that team does not comply, they lose the player and suffer the financial setback (if any) and player is open to blind bidding by the other teams. The warning is made before free agency begins and if a team fails to comply, out come the proverbial sim scissors and that player is on the open market. Again. Because wieners like you only belong in the McCourt family.