Tom, I agree with Keith.  With Don leaving the league the draft is moot.  It has never been done before when a two team owner left.  Referencing me of course.  Ft Worth and Houston were assigned as is.  I think this is a precedent we want to back away from.

Tom S.

While its true the draft was originally created primarily to accomodate Don, it is also true that it was part of the deal when Eric agreed to take on a new team. 

So, while the motivation for creating the draft in the first place is gone, we did, in fact, create it. 

I think it would be unfair our new owner to un-create it now, after Eric has spent all the necessary time to research all the players on both teams and has already started building a team of his own.  (Everything I'm saying about Eric is also true of me to a lesser degree.)

I totally understand the problem of creating a precedent that people aren't happy with, but I would rather solve the problem by voting on a rule that specifies how future inheritances etc. will work. 

I have to admit, I have no idea whatsoever why anyone would be opposed to this.

We're in the unique situation of havign two teams come open up at the same time.  Having this kind of draft allows the new managers to have a greater "ownership" in their team - they assembled it themselves - and thus makes them more invested in the league (and that much more likely that we won't need to find new owners for the team(s) next year).

I have no clue what "abuse" could possibly be carried out by having a dispersal draft.  Maybe I'm missing something.  I would note that at some basic level we, as owners, have to have a certain amount of trust in each other.  I don't see how this process could be exploited any more than, say, the ability of owners to do trades.

As for setting a precedent, I think it's pretty unlikely that we'll be in the situation of having two open teams at the same time again anytime soon (at least I certainly hope not).  But if we do, what is the worry about this precedent, as long as the new owners are willing and able to pull off a draft?

I think that there is also some merit in Kevin's note that while the idea was Don's, the draft was part of the package that was used to entice Eric to take a team, and to entice Kevin to bail us out when Don left.  Would they both have taken BUD/PET as is anyway?  Maybe; I don't know.  But being able to pick their own players was definitely part of the deal as advertised.

The one aspect that does cause me some concern is the timing.  I have asked Eric and Kevin to try really hard to get the draft done before Christmas, so that they can conduct trades before the end of the first trading period.  I am going to continue to spur them toward meeting that goal.

As always, contrary (or supplementary) thoughts and opinions are more than welcome, I'm just not seeing the possible problem here.

And of course, we can always have a vote on how to deal with these kinds of issues going forward.

I guess I'm confused. Is Eric taking on one of these teams or is Kevin taking over both teams?

I am still opposed to this. We have two teams built by a totally competent gm and now we are taking and splitting them apart to form up two new teams. Why? Buda and Petty are both attractive teams with great talent and plenty of cash. There is no need to give incentives to get a GM for them.

Here is the potential downside:

Gm A wants a prospect laden team and Gm B wants to win now. You get a superstar laden team and none of the fellow gms get a chance to make fair market value offers for the talent on these teams.

GM A is new to our league and doesn't necessarily know the value of players and their contracts and GM B is very savvy to our league. You figure out who has the advantage in this scenario.

I'm sure there are other negatives that I have not considered.

If Don had released both of his teams at the end of the season, we would have never considered this acceptable. I see this as a rule change and it should have unanimous acceptance from all gms. I didn't oppose it initially as it was to accomodate a long time gm in good standing. I do oppose it now. The commissioner should bring this before the league for a vote as rule change and as it is in an in-season change it will require unanimous approval. I believe there are a significant, if not a majority, of gms opposed to this. I call upon the commissioner to cease and desist this draft from continuing until it is put before the league's gms.

what is wrong with keeping the teams as is?  why is it necessary to redraft these teams? Is the talent unattractive on either of these teams? This is totally unecessary and sets a bad precedent. Yes it does set a precedent.  Allow Eric to take which ever team he likes better and give the other team to the next owner. Would Kevin choose not to take over the remaining team? I think not.

There is no rule governing this and it is exactly why this needs the approval of the league's gms. We have never allowed this before. By definition we are doing things differently than we ever have before. When Don asked for help, the league gave it's unanimous approval. There is not that approval for this current situation. 

I didn't oppose it intitally to help keep Don in the league. I would have opposed it for 2 new owners or 2 current arba owners taking over the teams.

Whether anyone understands the objections or not is not what is most important. What is relevant is that there is substantial opposition to this and it should be addressed. Please respect the point of view of those who don't agree with taking the unowned teams in any year and making a pool of their players and then redrafting them.

I'll change my tone. It was not meant to be offensive. Mr. Commissioner please stop this now unless you can secure the unanimous support of the league. Thank you for considering my point of view.

I still don't care which way this goes, but the objections seem to be much ado about nothing.  I don't think anyone agrees that this is setting a precedent.  We all agreed that it would not set a precedent.  I don't know how far along the draft is but I'm sure Eric and Kevin have put some time into it.  How couldn't they?  Given their efforts, could we not let this one time event slide?  What is the harm if it doesn't set a precedent? 

I also don't think a vote is appropriate.  The vote is used for rule changes/additions. From the rulebook:

"Changes to these Rules for Play and other items open for vote shall be determined by a simple majority of owners, with the exclusion of (i) in-season rule changes, and (ii) realignment.  In-season rule changes must be approved by unanimous vote.  Realignment must be approved by a simple majority of owners and must not be objected to by any owner having a team in a division that has its composition changed as a result of such realignment.

The Commissioner shall be the caretaker of the league.  He shall be invested with the powers to protect the best interest of the league.  The Commissioner is empowered to enforce the Rules for play and league maintenance.  The Commissioner shall enforce the will of the league, not enforce his will upon the league."

I don't think Tom T. is trying to enforce his will upon the league.  3 out of 21 owners have voiced opposition...hardly substantial opposition.

5 of the owners have expressed their support. hardly strong that way either

Didn't see Keith's four questions until after I posted that.

1. Its beneficial because it lets the new owners build their own team following their own strategy rather than someone else's. 

Its *not* necessary, but we've already started and I'd rather not be told "All that time you spent researching PET players was pointless."

2. No.  They're both perfectly fine teams. 

3. Don made an unusual request and then left the league in the middle of its being carried out.  That's a bizarre situation that's unlikely to ever be repeated.  But if you're really concerned about a precedent you can propose a rule.  Explicit rules supercede past practice.

4. Of course.  And until today Tom sincerely thought he had such support.   

Keith,

I don't think I ever made any claims as to support.  I was just addressing your comment concerning substantial opposition.  There is not substantial opposition.

Gary -

Thank you for your post.  Without getting deeply into it, I will mention that I appreciate the tone and lack of demands in your note.  Maybe I'm getting too sensitive in my old age. 

I will point out that Kevin volunteered to help out the league by taking over the second team.  If anyone had given me a viable alternative to a new owner when I asked for one the morning after Don told me he was quitting, I would have loved to do that.  I completely understand that at that time it was not known that it was Don that was quitting (as I wanted to give him the opportunity to make the announcement himself), and that if that was known it may have changed the responses.  In any event, if Kevin doesn't end up taking one of these teams it's truly unfortunate that, by doing the league a favor and volunteering to step up when nobody else volunteered to take a team, he will have wasted a bunch of his time in studying two teams that he won't have anything to do with.

I'll touch base with Eric M. and Kevin and try to get this all sorted out tomorrow.

-Tom

> It has not been stated whether Kevin was taking the second team as a permanent manager > or as a caretaker until a new manager can be found. I am assuming that he was preparing to > be a permanent manager of a second team. 

My wife and I are living apart right now as she completes an internship on Long Island, so I have a lot of free time in the evenings this year.  Tom knows this and that's probably why he asked me. 

I thought I was doing the league a favor for this year and hadn't particularly thought beyond that. 

I'm happy to manage a team this year and turn it over next offseason if a new owner can be found, but I don't particularly like this notion of having a panel of three people review any trade I make and it was certainly never part of the deal when I agreed to do this.   

Tom S for Consiglieri!!!  Hip, Hip, Hooray!

I'm a superstitious man, and if some unlucky accident should befall Tomlinson - if he is to be shot in the head by a police officer, or be found hung dead in a jail cell... or if he should be struck by a bolt of lightning - then I'm going to blame some of the people in this room; and then I do not forgive. But with said, I pledge - on the souls of my grandchildren - that I will not be the one to break the peace that we have made today.

Damn, what am I gonna do with this huge crate of Tomlinson Effigy Dolls?  Oh well, I'm sure that market hasn't totally dried up yet...

Hey guys -

First off, thanks to people for calming down somewhat over the last several posts.  In particular, Dave and Jeff's thread make me laugh heartily this morning.

I suspect that everyone knows this, and I know that everyone (myself included) gets fired up in the heat of the moment, but the best way to get your position taken seriously (at least by me) is to keep the emotion out of it, state and support your position, be patient and respectful, and refrain from accusations or veiled notions of bias, abuse, or ill-intent.  Not to suggest that anyone was doing any or all of those things in this thread, but I thought it would be useful to put that out there.

On to business.  I am allowing the dispersal draft of BUD and PET to continue.  The league needs finality, and this is it.  I am glad to discuss the issue further if people want, but I have no intent of repeating myself ad nauseum.  In the interest of full disclosure, I will state my position on the various arguments that have been raised against this.

(1) It's a bad precedent.

Leaving aside the issue of whether this would actually be a *bad* precedent or not, I think it's clear that this is in no way a precedent that may be relied on for future action.  We are in a unique situation where a two-team dispersal draft was set up and begun when one participant therein dropped out.  It's hard to imagine that set of circumstances coming up again.  Moreover, I think that everyone has agreed that this will not be treated as precedent.  I will state now conclusively that I will not consider having had this dispersal draft as precedent that may be cited in support of future action.  (Well, I can't stop someone from citing it, but I will not consider that in determining a future issue.)

(2) The potential for abuse is too great

I still don't understand this one.  Keith raised two possibilities (one team drafting for the future, one team drafting for now and one manager being outclassed).  I don't see either one as abusive, or potentially abusive.  Since this is not precedential, I am only concerned with the present facts.  Eric M is not being outclassed or outmanouvered, and steps have been taken to assure that that will not happen.  The other example, where the two managers draft with different priorities, doesn't trouble me in the slightest - there have always been rebuilding team and competative teams in ARBA.  Indeed, PET is more or less a rebuilding team and BUD is more or less a competative team.  No other "potential for abuse" scenario has been raised.  The only other "abuse" scenarios I can come up with involve believing that someone will act with ill intent, and absent any evidence whatsoever I will not consider this a valid argument.

(3) It's a rule change that, because we are beyond the normal rule voting time period, required unanimous GM approval.

I have stated in detail my reasons for disagreeing with this position.  To recap, there is nothing in the Rules that addresses how teams are placed with new owners and the Commissioner is charged with acting in the best interests of the league.  Moreover, after nobody calling for a vote when there was an express request for anyone to state if they thought a vote was called for, this is untimely for consideration.

(4) A significant "if not a majority of" ("at least 7") GMs are opposed

First off, I am not going to consider the opinions of GMs who are not willing to state them on the board or privately to me.  I think I have made it well known that everyone is welcome to come to me, via email, phone, or posting on the board with any concerns, comments, or questions that they have.  If someone is not willing to take the time to do that, that is of course absolutely fine and their choice, but I am not going to consider an objection or comment that is not raised to my attention.

More substantively, we do not vote on every event in the league.  We elect a Commissioner.  The Commissioner (and every owner) is subject to the Rules.  When something comes up that is outside of the Rules, the Commissioner is to act in the best interest of the league.  The best interest of the league is not necessarily synonimous with what the majority believes should be done.  For example, two years ago a majority of GMs expressing opinions to me on the issue believed that HDT should have been kicked out of the playoffs for extensive player overusage.  As Commissioner, I disagreed, and HDT was left in the playoffs.  While I believe that it is definitely part of the Commissioner's job to seek advice and comment from the owners on difficult issues and to carefully weigh their opinions, the job of Commissioner is not to poll the GMs and enforce majority rule.

I hope that it is abundantly clear from the length of these emails that I value the opinions and suggestions of our owners and I have devoted substantial time and energy to thinking about the points raised.

(5) We don't have the time to have this dispersal draft

I am, and have been all along, very sensitive to this issue.  We are about to run up on some very important deadlines, and it takes alot of time to adequately prepare for the C/FA auction and the IOD.  Additionally, I think it is important to allow the new owners some time to make (or at least discuss and try to make) trades in the first trading period.

I have discussed this with Eric M and Kevin and believe that they will be able to complete the dispersal draft by tomorrow night.  I will be spurring them on to meet that goal.

(6) This is a significant departure from prior practice

Yes, it sure is.  As mentioned above, this is a unique situation.  Don raised the prospect of having this dispersal draft, there was a comment period, there was discussion, no objections were raised and the draft started.  Then Don dropped out, no new owners were brought forward (in, admittedly, an extremely short time period), and Kevin stepped up to the plate to take on the team.  This is, I sure hope, a unique situation that we will never be in again.

(7) It was only okay before because it was for Don's benefit

I have several issues with this.  First off, while Don has since stated that he was viewing the dispersal draft as a way of getting his interest back in the league, he didn't state that at the time and I didn't know that until he called me to tell me he was leaving the league.  The stated rationale was that Don was coming around to the belief that we should not have as many two-team owners (I'll address this below).  Having the dispersal draft was his way of agreeing to drop a team, and thus it would have let to one less two-team owner, but it was not being done to keep him in the league or otherwise help him out, unless someone else had communicated with Don and knew that he was trying this only to get his interest up to stay involved.

Second, I know that nobody thinks ill of Kevin and I appreciate that several of you have gone out of your way to state that it's nothing at all personal, but golly it's hard for me to see this particular argument (as opposed to the other arguments I'm listing here) as anything other than a random attack on him for no reason.  It's ok for Don and Eric M to have a dispersal draft, but it's a big problem for Kevin and Eric M to have the exact same dispersal draft?  If you want to argue that the difference is that Kevin already owns a team and thus the benefit of getting rid of a two-team owner is no longer being met, fine, but frankly I'm not interested in a argument that this was approved to accomodate Don but is a big problem to accomodate Kevin.

(8) We are creating another two-team manager, thus depriving the league of the main benefit of having the dispersal draft in the first place

This is one of the three arguments that I do have some sympathy with (the others being the timing issue discussed above and the fairness issue discussed below).  Gary has been completely consistant throughout this process that he supported it because it would be lowering the number of two-team managers.  However, the situation we are in requires that there will be a two-team manager, one way or another.  While I appreciate the "caretaker" approach that Gary proposes and I thank him for volunteering to take over a team, I am not in favor of that approach other than as a last resort if we cannot find a manager to take over a team.  While I am certain that Gary would have the best intention and use his best efforts to take the best possible care of the team, my opinion is that there is no substitute for a manager with a vested interest in the team that he actually owns.

While I understand Gary's issues with two-team owners, I ultimately believe that Tom S is right that the league has benefitted from them more than it has been harmed from them.  Our two-team owners have typically been among the most dedicated and devoted to the league, and I am not planning to initiate a program to discourage that at this time.

Additionally, Kevin has already vested time and effort to familiarize himself with these teams and players.  Essentially voiding that time and effort to turn a team over to a caretaker does not seem to me to be the correct thing to do.

(9) Both BUD and PET are perfectly fine teams on their own as is

Yes they are.  This is, to me, entirely irrelevant.  I do not believe that anyone has ever advanced the idea that the dispersal draft is required because one of the teams is significantly better than the other or that one of the teams is so terrible that it cannot be sustained as is.  The original reason for the draft was to induce Don to give up a team.  When he quit, I honestly never considered not having the dispersal draft with whoever the other owner would be.  Perhaps this was my failing as Commissioner.  However, I will note that this thread was up for 3.5 days before anyone raised an objection.  I assume that those objecting were simply not checking the message board during that time, and that's totally understandable.  Failing to object over such a short period of time does not waive one's right to do so later.  However, during that 3.5 days, Kevin spent considerable time and effort researching the BUD and PET players and preparing for a draft.  Eric M continuted his preparations.  Saying that the teams are fine as is does not mean that a dispersal draft cannot or should not take place.  In my opinion, that is not a burden that must be met, in light of the efforts put forth by Eric M and Kevin in good faith reliance on a dispersal draft taking place.

(10) It's not fair to other owners who have taken on teams that did not have the benefit of a dispersal draft

As mentioned above, I have sympathy for this argument.  Other owners have recently taken on teams that likely were not in as good a shape as BUD and PET.  I thank those owners (and not just the ones that took teams this year - other teams that were adopted over the last few years have issues too) for taking on what may be substantial rebuilding projects.  I will note that SFE was in bad, bad shape when I took it over many years ago, and it eventually won 3 championships.  The BRK and (IIRC) CMD teams were expansion teams living off of the dregs that they scraped together and are now powerhouses.  It takes time, but any team can become a winner in ARBA.

If I had taken on one of these teams only to see someone else get a more advanced team, I have to admit that I might be a bit annoyed myself.  However, I fail to see the relevance of this to the issue at hand.  If BUD and PET have "better" players than other teams, that will be true regardless of whether or not there is a dispersal draft.

This argument, for me, boils down to one that is in stark opposition to the position advanced by those making it.  The only way to be "fair" to all new owners would be to have an annual dispersal draft for all the unowned teams so that all new owners have access to the players.

Frankly, I'm not sure that that's such a bad idea.  But given what was said about precedent above and given the substantial (and, frankly, extremely surprising) opposition to to this process, I'm not about to do that without a vote (not because I couldn't but because there would be no need to, as the future situation would not have the same reliance issues as this one does).

If someone had raised the issue of including other new owners in the dispersal draft when it was first proposed, I would have definitely considered it.  However, the timing issues make this, in my opinion, impractical for this season.  Not only would any other owner have to get up to speed on the BUD and PET players, but Eric M and Kevin would have to get up to speed on the other team's players.  Given the timing issues discussed above, I am not in favor of this at this juncture.

(11) There is no compelling reason to allow a dispersal draft at this time.

I disagree in two respects.  First, I do not believe that "a compelling reason" is necessary.  Second, I believe that good (possibly compelling) reasons do exist.

My job as Commissioner is to act in the best interest of the league.  It is not to make sure that everything happens exactly the same as before absent a compelling reason.  As stated far-too-extensively above, I do not find any of the reasons for not having this dispersal draft to be persuasive.  In short, I can see no harm in allowing this dispersal draft. 

By contrast, I do see harm in failing to allow this dispersal draft.  Eric M has spent considerable time and effort in studying the BUD and PET players in anticipation of a dispersal draft.  This time and effort was spent after the issue of having such a draft was presented before the entire league and no objections were raised.  While I agree that the circumstances are different now because instead of losing a two-team owner we're just changing the identity of the two-team owner, the fact is that Eric M spent that time and effort in reliance on there being a dispersal draft.  Once Don dropped out, Kevin came on board and spent considerable time and effort preparing for a dispersal draft in reliance of the same thing.  While I will take the criticism that I should have stepped back and considered at that point whether we should have had a dispersal draft or not, I presented Kevin with the scenario of a draft and he acted in reliance on that.

This is what my decision boils down to: I do not find the various rationales advanced against the dispersal draft to be convincing.  I do see harm in failing to have the dispersal draft.  Thus, the harm in calling it off (some) outweighs the harm of having it (none).

I certainly acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree on this issue (and, indeed, have done so).  But I believe that my decision is in the best interests of the league.