Stepien Rule

#1
Does anyone else think this rule does more to hinder teams than help?

I know it’s designed to save franchises from themselves but I think it often has a negative effect.

what are your thoughts?
Could it be amended in a way that would accomplish the goal while allowing more freedom?
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#2
The point of the Stepien rule is to hinder teams!

The one thing I can imagine without completely tearing it to the ground is this: The rule as envisioned now says you can't make any moves that might result in two future consecutive years without a first-round draft pick. This could be changed to, say, "you can't make any moves that might result in you not having three years with a first-round pick going into draft day in any six-year period (past or future)". Then, for instance, if you've used three picks in a row you could then trade the next three consecutive picks (but then you'd have to make picks in the next three years after that). I kind of doubt many teams would trade three straight, but you might see teams trading two straight under the right circumstances.
 
#3
Does anyone else think this rule does more to hinder teams than help?

I know it’s designed to save franchises from themselves but I think it often has a negative effect.

what are your thoughts?
Could it be amended in a way that would accomplish the goal while allowing more freedom?
I’m a fan of it. Without it, a bad GM can set a team back a decade.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#6
im not saying get rid of it, but I think it could be better. A lot of good trades don’t happen because of it IMO.
A lot of good trades don't happen for salary cap and salary matching reasons. A lot of good trades don't happen for no trade clause reasons. Get rid of those too?