Post by Miege22 on Sept 4, 2021 14:12:35 GMT -5
After twelve years of doing re-signs the same way, I think we're in need of a refresh. For the most part, I think the system we have has been good... but good is the enemy of great. After seeing the discussion both publicly and privately, I've got an idea that I would like to hear feedback on as we work to tweak this system. Here is what I'm thinking:
1. Mods will no longer vote on re-signs. That will be done by an independent re-sign committee. This committee will be made up of 1 mod and 4 non-mods (with a back-up mod and non-mod on call for when someone in this group has to propose their own re-sign).
2. Re-signs will be submitted to me (I will not be on this committee), and I will remove the player's name and owner's name. Now, this might be a tad unnecessary, but it is something I was kicking around in another league and we never got to see it through. This does two things... one, it removes any kind of name bias (though the committee could potentially do some digging to figure out who the player is, I guess, still think it's worth a shot), and two, it forces the owner to really support their case with a solid narrative and facts.
3. I will post the re-sign with names removed, so that everyone can view the re-sign. I would ask that any independent discussion on a proposal be withheld until the committee makes their decision. Once a proposal is posted, the committee won't vote publicly. Instead, they will privately discuss and either accept the proposal with a vote (i.e. 3-2, 4-1, 5-0), or they will submit a counter proposal with a number averaged among the five committee members. For example:
Player A is submitted for re-sign with an offer of $9,500,000 for 4 years with a 5th year option. If a majority of the committee approves, they head of the committee will simply reply "Approved, 4-1 (committee member X dissents)." If a majority of the committee does not approve (so 3 or more no votes), then each committee member will give their preferred number. It could break down like this:
Member 1: $10,000,000
Member 2: $10,500,000
Member 3: $9,500,000
Member 4: $9,900,000
Member 5: $10,400,000
Average: $10,060,000
The head of the committee will post the average with each member's number, and the owner submitting the re-sign will either accept the counter-proposal, or decline it. If it is declined, then they will retain the option to trade said player. Now, when it comes to a committee member rejecting an offer, they should only reject if the offer does not meet their minimum acceptable salary OR the offer is absurdly high. It's hard to define "absurdly high," but I feel like we all know it when we see it (this Jordan Clarkson re-sign is instructive: miege.proboards.com/thread/3827/jordan-clarkson).
Does anyone have any thoughts? I know this probably seems a little more complex than is necessary, but I'm genuinely curious to see how these changes impact the process.
1. Mods will no longer vote on re-signs. That will be done by an independent re-sign committee. This committee will be made up of 1 mod and 4 non-mods (with a back-up mod and non-mod on call for when someone in this group has to propose their own re-sign).
2. Re-signs will be submitted to me (I will not be on this committee), and I will remove the player's name and owner's name. Now, this might be a tad unnecessary, but it is something I was kicking around in another league and we never got to see it through. This does two things... one, it removes any kind of name bias (though the committee could potentially do some digging to figure out who the player is, I guess, still think it's worth a shot), and two, it forces the owner to really support their case with a solid narrative and facts.
3. I will post the re-sign with names removed, so that everyone can view the re-sign. I would ask that any independent discussion on a proposal be withheld until the committee makes their decision. Once a proposal is posted, the committee won't vote publicly. Instead, they will privately discuss and either accept the proposal with a vote (i.e. 3-2, 4-1, 5-0), or they will submit a counter proposal with a number averaged among the five committee members. For example:
Player A is submitted for re-sign with an offer of $9,500,000 for 4 years with a 5th year option. If a majority of the committee approves, they head of the committee will simply reply "Approved, 4-1 (committee member X dissents)." If a majority of the committee does not approve (so 3 or more no votes), then each committee member will give their preferred number. It could break down like this:
Member 1: $10,000,000
Member 2: $10,500,000
Member 3: $9,500,000
Member 4: $9,900,000
Member 5: $10,400,000
Average: $10,060,000
The head of the committee will post the average with each member's number, and the owner submitting the re-sign will either accept the counter-proposal, or decline it. If it is declined, then they will retain the option to trade said player. Now, when it comes to a committee member rejecting an offer, they should only reject if the offer does not meet their minimum acceptable salary OR the offer is absurdly high. It's hard to define "absurdly high," but I feel like we all know it when we see it (this Jordan Clarkson re-sign is instructive: miege.proboards.com/thread/3827/jordan-clarkson).
Does anyone have any thoughts? I know this probably seems a little more complex than is necessary, but I'm genuinely curious to see how these changes impact the process.