03-06-2020, 09:10 PMgrok Wrote: The rule doesn't look for an agreement, it looks for statements reflecting that the player will sign with the team. Under the rule as written and in that scenario, the GM would at least have standing for a HO hearing.
I mean... we could tighten up the language on the rule, but I would not be in favour of removing this rule.
I wouldn't mind a similar, equitable solution, with heavy emphasis on "equitable". As long as players and GMs are held to the same standard and have the same negotiating options.
03-06-2020, 09:55 PMGrapehead Wrote: I mean... we could tighten up the language on the rule, but I would not be in favour of removing this rule.
I wouldn't mind a similar, equitable solution, with heavy emphasis on "equitable". As long as players and GMs are held to the same standard and have the same negotiating options.
It's not like a GM could re-neg on an agreed contract anyway. I think the Portland Admirals budget scandal is a good example of a GM trying to re-neg and getting punished for it.
03-06-2020, 10:17 PMgrok Wrote: I wouldn't mind a similar, equitable solution, with heavy emphasis on "equitable". As long as players and GMs are held to the same standard and have the same negotiating options.
It's not like a GM could re-neg on an agreed contract anyway. I think the Portland Admirals budget scandal is a good example of a GM trying to re-neg and getting punished for it.
HO has proven that precedent is only a guideline and is non-binding. Changing the rule is a fairer and more consistent path forward for non-management players.
I've been thinking about this some more. What if the Jack Crasher rule was time gated? Here's a sample text:
"Verbal contract agreements between a free agent and GM are enforceable if the contract offer is posted in the General Transactions subforum within 24 hours of the agreement. A free agent who disputes a verbal contract made less than 24 hours prior to a contract thread post will be punished by suspension."
grok
