Reacquiring Players

FGump · Post #21 » by **FGump** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:50 pm

Curmudgeon wrote:The question is, why should there be ANY rule against this?

Why not?

It's their league. Their rules.

Curmudgeon · Post #22 » by **Curmudgeon** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:17 am

Because a rule is supposed to have a purpose, isn't it?

FGump · Post #23 » by **FGump** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:00 am

Curmudgeon wrote:Because a rule is supposed to have a purpose, isn't it?

Sure.

It's their league. Their rules. They can be created for whatever purpose they decide is valid.

And it's obvious the owners and players conspired on this rule, and created it just for the purpose of annoying Curmudgeon on the RealGm forums, and nothing more.

Good thinking. Great rule.

Dunkenstein · Post #24 » by **Dunkenstein** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:31 am

Curmudgeon wrote:Because a rule is supposed to have a purpose, isn't it?

The goal of the league is to restrict player movement as much as possible. Restricted free agency is an example of this.

The goal of the Players Assn is to enable its players to have as much freedom of movement as possible.

My guess is that this rule was a compromise agreed upon by the two sides. It limits a player's movement back to his original team, but only for a defined time period.

FGump · Post #25 » by **FGump** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:44 am

Dunkenstein wrote:-
My guess is that this rule was a compromise agreed upon by the two sides. It limits a player's movement back to his original team, but only for a defined time period.

I like my explanation better.