Stewarding Ownerless Teams
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:46 pm
In the past few days, two teams have come available and were nearly instantly snatched up. Clearly, these franchises are a hot item (at least since I joined . . . the Cavs sat for a while, so . . . you're welcome). However, what sticks in my Fryeing craw is that the once proud Warriors were available prior to each of these teams hitting the market, and those owners sat on the sidelines waiting for another team.
Now, I'm not going to raise questions on testicular fortitude or vaginal abundance (that's for another thread), but, all kidding aside, owners should take the best team available. This helps them stay interested, they can actually learn because there's not a foot on their Fryeing neck that keeps from from seeing which changes make what kind of difference, etc.
Viewed in this way, it's a comment that the Warriors are simply not desirable, and we can look at the team and see that it's a project. We can blame prior ownership, but it's our league so it's also our fault.
I'd like to avoid this. Here are my suggestions for stewarding ownerless teams.
Goals
G1) To prevent unnecessary loss of value to the team . . . loss of a valuable RFA, unnecessary tax, failing to use cap space for points or acquire value talent in the short term so a new owner will be attracted to the team and be able to start his career sooner than later.
G2) To get active owners more of a chance to grow as owners and see the league from another perspective
G3) To not interfere with the power balance of the League in a large way
The are vague guiding principles. I think being against the principles is very different that being against the actual rules. Here are my draft set.
R1) I propose each team without an owner have 3 custodians: the commissioner, and 1 GM from each conference. Those 3 make all decisions for the team, like signing free agents, and they must do so unanimously.
R2) When it comes to dealing with other teams, the three decide, at their discretion and only when unanimous, to put a player or asset out for trade. People must bid to the commissioner who reviews the bids. The bids must all meet a minimum standard (set at least internally but maybe public for each bid), and there must be at least 3 qualifying bids. Then, the three decide to execute the deal. An example may be trading Rose or Christie for a seeming lotto pick. After the transaction, the bids are made public with a statement as to why the one was chosen over the other two.
R3) The 3 custodians handle media, points tallying, pick 'ems, all the league business, and act in the best interest of the team. The custodians gets League responsibility points for their actions. The team benefits from the actual media, winning, etc.
R4) No transactions can be performed between a custodian and the team for which they are a custodian, including bidding on that team's RFA.
R5) The DC is always recommended.
Special Proposal (can be handled in a separate vote and discussion) for the Current Warriors.
W1) With the Warriors in particular, since no action was taken after the owner left and it's been quite a while, I propose their tax bill from last season be considered for reduction since the team was abandoned with no intervention.
W2) I also propose the tax bill be settled up as much as possible so any RFA rights can be exercised, whether they will or not.
Let's discuss, firm things up (I likely left some good stuff out), then see about a vote to get the Warriors going. I'm betting someone will snatch them up quickly once we shine them up after letting them languish.
Note: I know the Warriors do not own their own pick, but since this transaction was made long ago, us sprucing up the team, if that even happens, will have no effect on that pick different than another owner may. Because of that, I feel this is fair to the owners of that pick, whoever they are.
Thoughts?
Now, I'm not going to raise questions on testicular fortitude or vaginal abundance (that's for another thread), but, all kidding aside, owners should take the best team available. This helps them stay interested, they can actually learn because there's not a foot on their Fryeing neck that keeps from from seeing which changes make what kind of difference, etc.
Viewed in this way, it's a comment that the Warriors are simply not desirable, and we can look at the team and see that it's a project. We can blame prior ownership, but it's our league so it's also our fault.
I'd like to avoid this. Here are my suggestions for stewarding ownerless teams.
Goals
G1) To prevent unnecessary loss of value to the team . . . loss of a valuable RFA, unnecessary tax, failing to use cap space for points or acquire value talent in the short term so a new owner will be attracted to the team and be able to start his career sooner than later.
G2) To get active owners more of a chance to grow as owners and see the league from another perspective
G3) To not interfere with the power balance of the League in a large way
The are vague guiding principles. I think being against the principles is very different that being against the actual rules. Here are my draft set.
R1) I propose each team without an owner have 3 custodians: the commissioner, and 1 GM from each conference. Those 3 make all decisions for the team, like signing free agents, and they must do so unanimously.
R2) When it comes to dealing with other teams, the three decide, at their discretion and only when unanimous, to put a player or asset out for trade. People must bid to the commissioner who reviews the bids. The bids must all meet a minimum standard (set at least internally but maybe public for each bid), and there must be at least 3 qualifying bids. Then, the three decide to execute the deal. An example may be trading Rose or Christie for a seeming lotto pick. After the transaction, the bids are made public with a statement as to why the one was chosen over the other two.
R3) The 3 custodians handle media, points tallying, pick 'ems, all the league business, and act in the best interest of the team. The custodians gets League responsibility points for their actions. The team benefits from the actual media, winning, etc.
R4) No transactions can be performed between a custodian and the team for which they are a custodian, including bidding on that team's RFA.
R5) The DC is always recommended.
Special Proposal (can be handled in a separate vote and discussion) for the Current Warriors.
W1) With the Warriors in particular, since no action was taken after the owner left and it's been quite a while, I propose their tax bill from last season be considered for reduction since the team was abandoned with no intervention.
W2) I also propose the tax bill be settled up as much as possible so any RFA rights can be exercised, whether they will or not.
Let's discuss, firm things up (I likely left some good stuff out), then see about a vote to get the Warriors going. I'm betting someone will snatch them up quickly once we shine them up after letting them languish.
Note: I know the Warriors do not own their own pick, but since this transaction was made long ago, us sprucing up the team, if that even happens, will have no effect on that pick different than another owner may. Because of that, I feel this is fair to the owners of that pick, whoever they are.
Thoughts?