VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

13/06/26 4:38pm [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 30/09/21 9:15am
Author: tenderWARRIOR
Subject: isn't that why we had a rule about not being able to trade all future picks?
In reply to: GTD 's message, "The rule is to protect a coach leaving a side in a heap" on 30/09/21 8:11am

I am not a fan of priority picks for incoming coaches - if they have less than three wins they get the priority pick at the draft and early draft picks in general. Unlimited access to the FA list is another 'advantage' they get.

I don't think we should have a rule about future picks, but if a coach is worried about a potential incoming coach not having good resources, than maybe they should vote to keep future pick trading restrictions in place.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT+11
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.