Two votes this year. As a reminder, per the Constitution, these will be effective for the 2026 season, not the current offseason.
(1) if an owner owns multiple teams, and such owner wishes to bid on a C player on such owners other team, the following applies: the owner shall announce that the C player is on the owner's other team while making the initial bid and the bidding team shall be assessed a single $40 transaction fee if the bidding team is does not have the highest bid.
(2) Any trade can be objected to within 24 hours of it being posted on the league site. If so objected to, the trade will be voted on by all owners as to its fairness and if 75% of owners agree that such trade is not fair then it will be rescinded. If an objection does not achieve a 75% agreement then the objecting owner will lose their 5th round pick.
Not asking for anyone to single out specific examples, but re: #2, does someone feel that there has been a particular rash of "bad" or "unfair" trades recently? There are certainly trades made that I wouldn't have made myself, but those are often a matter of diffetences in the evaluation of the talent involved. I wouldn't be keen on even a consensus Big Brother approach to telling people how they should value players. Your secret breakout player is my overrated waste of a roster spot.
Yeah, there have certainly been some trades over the years that I've thought were sick and wrong. However, I'm skeptical that this rule would reduce the frequency of bad trades. On the other hand, it probably would bring more bad feelings. If we were to introduce such a rule anyway, it would make more sense for failed objectors to forfeit cash instead of a 5th round pick, which can only be lost once.
As for the 1st rule proposal, that's just weird, man.
On the 1st proposal I think that is the final articulation that was proposed by Josh in the thread, but I defer to him if I misread or if there is further / different articulation.
I believe that proposal #1 as written by YOC is the correct compromise that came out of the earlier discussion.
I thank everyone for the prior discussion which was repectful respectful of the views of those who think multiple team C-Auction puffing is is a problem and those who don't. I would urge folks to vote for what YOC described as a "soft compromise" intended to, hopefully, be something everyone can live with even if not anyone's ideal solution, if for no other reason than to avoid having to have this discussion again next year!
2) No (but we might change our vote before the polls close depending on how the conversation goes)
I would like to hear more from the author of #2 -- in particular does the author of this Rule think that some teams have just made dumb trades, which could negatively impact the competitive balance of the League, or does the author think that there has been some shenanigans going on?
I will let the person who proposed #2 (it was not me) speak for themselves if they want to, but I do not believe from speaking with them that there is any allegation of or belief that actual shenanigans have occurred - more of a safety valve for lopsided trades.
1: I don't think its a problem but if it helps ease some owners concerns then I can live with it
2: No, but only because I don't think its well thought out. Do all owners vote? What happens if all owners don't vote? Is the vote public or private? What if you don't have a 5th round pick? Do the owners involved in the trade have a chance to explain why they made the trade? I don't think I have ever seen a trade in ARBA that I would have challenged if this rule was in place but if the majority of ARBA owners are in favor I think the rule needs to be discussed deeper than what is currently being proposed
1. Present (Mudville has too much of a conflict of interest on this one)
2. No - not sure of the basis, seems complicated and agree with Travis that it raises too many unknown answers to questions. Certainly open to discussion in a later offseason.
