2024 Rule Changes

[SharksGM]

I probably should have posted these earlier, but I didn't remember and the CON booster thing didn't come up. So:

1. The minimum qualifying offer will be 800k. This is because currently there is no compensation for offers of 800k and below, so there's basically no reason not to spam every RFA due under 800k (which is only players earning 600k, since 650k*1.2 rounds up to 800k). The alternative would be to make it a 5th in compensation or something, but I think RFAs who mostly laboured away for 3 years at league minimum deserve an extra 100k.

2. GMs will be allowed to change one forward's position (or alternate position) to a wing position once per season. This is typically going to be switching C to L/R, although there are a small number of players who can only play one forward position and I guess you could also switch one of the rare W/D players to L/R if you really wanted to.

3. You will not be able to trade CON boosters until the season after their draft year has ended, i.e. after the next draft has ended and the file has rolled over to the next season. This is similar to the policy of not allowing POT boosters to magically improve the week after they're drafted. In the future we'll endeavour to make better/more interesting CON boosters since they've historically not been as good as POT boosters (Glukhov being the most notable exception).

Questions/comments/complaints, have at 'em.

[SharksGM]

It has been brought to my attention that we didn't actually formalize a rule for cap penalties for retired players. This was more relevant in the past when high bids for free agents were calculated from the total offer amount, not the yearly salary - so it actually made some sense to offer a 41-year-old 2y 2m instead of 1y 3m (if you were willing to take 2m of dead cap the next season, anyway). Now, there's really no incentive to sign old players to more years than you intend to play them.

The simplest clarification is that you won't be able to offer players contracts extending beyond age 42 (when they will always retire). Any such bids will be considered invalid. Similarly, following established precedent, any players who suffer career-ending injuries will have their contract cancelled at the end of the season (i.e., no lingering LTIR penalties). So, it will essentially be impossible for players to retire with any years remaining on their contract.

[TorontoGM]

So I can switch Artem Anisimov from R/C to L/R? If so, that will be my position change

[SharksGM]

So I can switch Artem Anisimov from R/C to L/R? If so, that will be my position change

You will be able to once I make a thread for it, yes.

[SharksGM]

Some astute viewers noticed that I entered this trade including a CON booster that had already been traded this season. Actually I thought he didn't boost but he did (to 53, hah) and I reversed it.

Technically this is against the rules but I think it is probably a better rule to allow trades but reverse CON boosts. It is annoying not to be able to trade players at all, although CON boosters are mostly marginal until/if they boost. On the other hand, this does mean that GMs would maybe be more careless about trading CON boosters and simmers will have to be more vigilant in checking when they were last traded, which is also annoying. So I am open to suggestions to simplifying the rules here.

I don't want to lift the limits on CON booster trades entirely because then there'd be no reason not to trade all of them every 2 days.

[SensGM]

Some astute viewers noticed that I entered this trade including a CON booster that had already been traded this season. Actually I thought he didn't boost but he did (to 53, hah) and I reversed it.

Technically this is against the rules but I think it is probably a better rule to allow trades but reverse CON boosts. It is annoying not to be able to trade players at all, although CON boosters are mostly marginal until/if they boost. On the other hand, this does mean that GMs would maybe be more careless about trading CON boosters and simmers will have to be more vigilant in checking when they were last traded, which is also annoying. So I am open to suggestions to simplifying the rules here.

I don't want to lift the limits on CON booster trades entirely because then there'd be no reason not to trade all of them every 2 days.

In my book, It should be the trade committee's responsability to check this over.

And It's pretty easy to verify with the search tool

[NYRNYRNYR]

Some astute viewers noticed that I entered this trade including a CON booster that had already been traded this season. Actually I thought he didn't boost but he did (to 53, hah) and I reversed it.

Technically this is against the rules but I think it is probably a better rule to allow trades but reverse CON boosts. It is annoying not to be able to trade players at all, although CON boosters are mostly marginal until/if they boost. On the other hand, this does mean that GMs would maybe be more careless about trading CON boosters and simmers will have to be more vigilant in checking when they were last traded, which is also annoying. So I am open to suggestions to simplifying the rules here.

I don't want to lift the limits on CON booster trades entirely because then there'd be no reason not to trade all of them every 2 days.

In my book, It should be the trade committee's responsability to check this over.

And It's pretty easy to verify with the search tool

Do you mean committees job to make sure a CON growth is reset if it happens in violation? Or to not allow a second trade? I agree with Dan, allowing multiple trades seems better with a restriction that only the first per year allows for a boost.

I definitely don't want the committee doing rulings on "well this guy is ok getting his third chance, but this guy can't get a second, etc etc" that seems horrible

[SensGM]

Some astute viewers noticed that I entered this trade including a CON booster that had already been traded this season. Actually I thought he didn't boost but he did (to 53, hah) and I reversed it.

Technically this is against the rules but I think it is probably a better rule to allow trades but reverse CON boosts. It is annoying not to be able to trade players at all, although CON boosters are mostly marginal until/if they boost. On the other hand, this does mean that GMs would maybe be more careless about trading CON boosters and simmers will have to be more vigilant in checking when they were last traded, which is also annoying. So I am open to suggestions to simplifying the rules here.

I don't want to lift the limits on CON booster trades entirely because then there'd be no reason not to trade all of them every 2 days.

In my book, It should be the trade committee's responsability to check this over.

And It's pretty easy to verify with the search tool

Do you mean committees job to make sure a CON growth is reset if it happens in violation? Or to not allow a second trade? I agree with Dan, allowing multiple trades seems better with a restriction that only the first per year allows for a boost.

I definitely don't want the committee doing rulings on "well this guy is ok getting his third chance, but this guy can't get a second, etc etc" that seems horrible

I probably misunderstood the original poster

I just meant whatever the rule will be, It should be the trade committee's responsability to make sure the rule won't be broken.

Regarding the rule itself, that would make sense that a LOW CON should not been traded more than twice per season (With a 3 months period in between)