Yeah, I'm including the 3 inactive slots, so 9-3-3 would be the likely model, given people's obvious interest in to carrying injuries and rooks without undue harm. Essentially, each team would have 12 guys per week to do what they want with. That answers a lot of the questions about carrying injuries and rooks, but leaves the hard-core daily subs guys the option to roll with daily matchups the way they want. I think it sounds like a decent compromise.
That's more or less what we've been saying, so I'll agree in principle. Except that the drafting team would own his rights, which is the feature that makes it actually useful, rather than futile, to draft for future returns.
I mentioned the roster acquisition deadline in there, you must have missed it.
We're currently set at 7 days, not 10, it's the actual NBA that has 10. But it wouldn't bother me much if it was 7 or 14 days to be honest, if we keep it at 7 days then I'd suggest we allow up to 20 of them a season, whereas 14 day contracts should be limited to about 10. We still want to allow plenty of roster flexibility, just not any streaming.
I'm on the fence about whether or not I like the idea even, but I thought I would bring it up. When someone is normally not on a team in regular fantasy, first person to pick them up gets them when they get hot. When looking at these 7 day contracts, in the NBA, first person to bring up the player for a 10 day then also gets the first shot at signing them for the rest of the season. I'm wondering if this should be imitated as well. The problem with this, and why I'm on the fence, is that this essentially means that FA bidding is basically removed when the season starts. The good side about that is that there is no need for tie breakers, and the most active GM can work to improve their team by being diligent.
If this is the decision to have Euro's not take a slot on the team, we should obviously lower the amount of slots on the inactive list as well. I think we should really only have 1 slot in this case (which makes it easier for watching and gives you something to work with), but I'm pretty easy on this in pushing it to 2. I'm still leaning more towards just having every player drafted have their rights owned for Europeans and NCAA draftees, and even perhaps a combination, where you have 1 slot, and then can hold the rights to as many players as you want. If the player plays in the NBA you do not NEED to have them active, but if they are not active they could then be bid on by anyone else (at their set contract size), which could be matched by the owner. Then we have 1 spot for development so that you can still be covered, but have less guys to keep an eye on between on the teams for bidding/7 days. Having 1 guy in the Smack talk section shouldn't be hard to keep an eye on.
Well, I don't think we want to remove free agent bidding so we should probably address this.
First off, if we leave in 7 days (or 14 days, or whatever) I think we should match the bids for that up with week waiver bids. The pms go to the same place ect ect.
Second, I think we'd need to explicitly state that a full season contract trumps a 7 day, so if a FA is offered both on the same bid day, the full contract wins out. Personally, I didn't use a single 10 day last year - I had more than enough cap space to just sign the guys I wanted and then waive them if they needed replacing. It's only the capped out guys who really needed to use the 10 day, and even then they didn't really because the cap hit for a contract that's only for the rest of the season doesn't really impact a team's cap situation at all past that year.
Third, this is one place where we might possibly want to consider a first come first serve tie breaker. The 7 day's are all the same salary wise, and since it's a temporary add, I'm suppose I'd be ok making it first come first serve. I'm not so sure I want that to translate into that team having first right of refusal when it comes to the rest of the season. Right now they can extend for a second 7/10 day, which is fine, but I think after that the player needs to revert to being a normal FA. Linking the 7 day as a FCFS process to some sort of restricted free agent status just sidesteps the FA process, which can't be the outcome. (so yes, I share scully's concerns here).
And yeah, streaming is definitely something to be avoided.
I think you'll find that the crew here who want more flex to develop prospects want a little more done than just the one slot, espceially since the idea of inactive slots is already a compromise of sorts instead of weekly lineup changes. I was fine with three slots and Euro guys off it as well.
That doesn't mean that your idea about how rights work is a bad one though - I quite like it actually. Let me itemize it...
1. Teams own the rights to every player they draft, but are not obliged to sign them to a contract and add them to their team.
2. When that player is signed then the rookie scale will apply for first round picks.
3. Draft rights allows a team to match any offer to an unsigned draft pick.
4. Offers to Draft rights players must be for the rookie scale in the case of first round picks, and may be whatever amount for second round picks.
Beyond that, I'm ok with an inactive lists set at 3, leaving 12 players active for every weeks matchup. I don't think three guys in a smack window is too hard to track, and provided the penalties for cheating are stiff enough I think people will actually manage this properly. I also like this whoe idea because ti doesn't require me to look at any lists outside of Yahoo.
Just a thought here, we could use the Keeper tags to identify Draft Rights players in our league. It would take a bit of maintenance in the case of guys who get added to the database, but mostly it means that those guys would be identifiable at a glance in the Y! interface. (For anyone who hasn't played a Keeper league in Y!, the Keeper players have a big black 'K' next to their names that shows up both on rosters and in the FA pool. I'd have to look into whether or not a Keeper tag can be added (or taken away) during the season, but I like the general idea.