|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 14:19:29 GMT -5
i was using the UFA as an example. i dont give a rats ass when or how or what is implemented for UFA. However you brought up the comment of "accepting the rules" thereby i used the UFA as a perfect example of those rules being changed. Then you further made the comment of "changing to include a bench to better our personal agenda" when again i used the UFA as an example of how changing the UFA rules could be a situation of "changing it to better suit the commish's agenda". I was making a comparative analysis from the Bench topic to the UFA topic and how "accepting the rules" and "changing it to better serve 'your' own agenda" was being contradictory with what was taking place in the whole UFA process.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 14:24:17 GMT -5
My whole point was that I dislike having BOTH of these 2 rules:
1. No bench spots. (non NHL rule)
2. Pay half salary for cutting someone. (NHL rule)
if you have bench spots, an NHL rule, then also having to pay half the salary, another NHL rule, makes sense.
if you dont have bench spots (non NHL rule) then the cutting of players should also be non NHL.
Disagree??
Also, no1 answered, can you cut players during our 1st off season without penalty?
I hope you understand my argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamesGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 14:26:57 GMT -5
I have to say I agree with both sides. I like how panthers brought up the fact that us later gm's had little option to pick better teams. So I went for a team where I coul drebuild and make smart free agency signings. I find it unfair that I would have as equal chance as say pittsburgh( not pointing you out at all just picked the strongest real life team to mind) to get a better free agent who in my case may be my 2nd liner compared to another teams 4th liner. In real life lowe gave penner 4-5 mill bad contracts gms do it and make mistakes so why should we be aware. Thats why teh double the past contract I think is very good. But on the flip side I feel that the arguements are getting heated and some of the gm's are blaming all the commishes for every little thing setting up a sound league is tough there are many bumps. This is why we have discussions. Sothats what I'd have to say and if you want to respond I'll kindly listen below or in a pm  |
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 14:37:44 GMT -5
i fully get your argument sharks. i am in total agreeance with you. i think you should be able to drop a player without penalty if no bench is implemented. There is no room for error, where as in the NHL teams can bury Redden's 6 million dollar contract in the AHL.. however we can not, and thus the realism that the league so endeavours to emulate is lost on this sole issue. We do not have a farm system where we can send down nhlers. That is why most fantasy leagues implement a bench system where we can still have ownership of a player but yet not play them because of X amount of reasons.
Here is what i propose to fix ALL the bench problems, please read very carefully. On the fantrax site or whatever site we are using, have the set rosters at the start of the year. Everyone gets to "protect" 3 additional non goalie players on the forums here as part of their Team. Instead of changing your bench every day where some people forget, and some people are not as active and keeping it the same to promote fairness, have 3 periods in the NHL regular season where you can change in or out the 3 bench players to your active roster. Those 3 dates where you can alter your roster from your bench would be Christmas, Trade Deadline, and the start of the playoffs. Atleast this way you get to still have ownership of the player, and still could use him at a later date, and eliminating changing on a daily basis to a 3 date "interchangable" addresses sharks issues and addresses the issues of having a bench because of activity/forgetfullness and fairness.
|
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 14:42:56 GMT -5
Ok, something has been misconstrude here.
I am in no way shape or form advocating that it is a bad idea to change rules if there is an exploitation that could hurt the league. I am a supporter of rule changes and having a few different options present to vote on for the betterment of the league.
My issue was not with the UFA process, however Erik was making statements like "accept the rules" and "betterment for your own personal agenda" and all i was doing was applying those statements to the UFA discussion. And showing Erik that what he was saying about the bench discussion could very well easily be applied to the UFA discussion, and i was more or less saying it was being contradictory how those statements being applied to the bench issue was ok but no ok to apply it to the UFA discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 14:57:15 GMT -5
i fully get your argument sharks. i am in total agreeance with you. i think you should be able to drop a player without penalty if no bench is implemented. There is no room for error, where as in the NHL teams can bury Redden's 6 million dollar contract in the AHL.. however we can not, and thus the realism that the league so endeavours to emulate is lost on this sole issue. We do not have a farm system where we can send down nhlers. That is why most fantasy leagues implement a bench system where we can still have ownership of a player but yet not play them because of X amount of reasons. Here is what i propose to fix ALL the bench problems, please read very carefully. On the fantrax site or whatever site we are using, have the set rosters at the start of the year. Everyone gets to "protect" 3 additional non goalie players on the forums here as part of their Team. Instead of changing your bench every day where some people forget, and some people are not as active and keeping it the same to promote fairness, have 3 periods in the NHL regular season where you can change in or out the 3 bench players to your active roster. Those 3 dates where you can alter your roster from your bench would be Christmas, Trade Deadline, and the start of the playoffs. Atleast this way you get to still have ownership of the player, and still could use him at a later date, and eliminating changing on a daily basis to a 3 date "interchangable" addresses sharks issues and addresses the issues of having a bench because of activity/forgetfullness and fairness. thanks, nobody else is acknowledging the issue really lol. this is an ok solution. id rather just have a bench of 2 or 3 tho. |
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM (Commish) on Jul 11, 2012 14:57:16 GMT -5
i think this is a league with very healthy trading had taken place....it will serve to bring parity to the league. i find it interesting that the flamesgm who started with one of the hardest teams to work with is asking for a cooling of heads. obviously a spirited discussion of rules is great for the league but the fact that the admins put a poll up to decide how to move forward demonstrates that they are trying to openly come up with a solution to fix what is a problem. they are open to ideas. i echo flamesgm in saying i don't think it is fair at all to cry afoul of the admins or the commish(s) for the UFA augmentation.
i really don't think a team with lower cap space will have as much a chance to get a UFA as team with higher cap space. no matter what changes if any will take place, the cap will probably be honored.
|
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 15:14:58 GMT -5
yes i know sharks, its not the solution you wanted in full, but it was a solution to satisfy both arguments, and i think that was achieved
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 16:12:51 GMT -5
yes i know sharks, its not the solution you wanted in full, but it was a solution to satisfy both arguments, and i think that was achieved yes but it has not been agreed upon right? i dont like not being able to move a guy off the bench until xmas but... i dunno, better than having nothing i suppose =) |
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 16:18:59 GMT -5
well im laying out an OPTION of what COULD happen, so would you rather have NO BENCH or the solution i came up with, i think i could guess which one you prefer
|
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 16:20:26 GMT -5
sharks, its called playing devils advocate, taking concerns from one side, concerns from the other side and finding a happy medium. It's like saying to your child, you can't have chips because it is unhealthy and do not want to spoil your dinner, but instead offer popcorn with no butter, sure its not the ideal snack your child had in mind, but its better then nothing
|
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 16:21:12 GMT -5
sorry sharks, i dont like it when people call me buddy, when they are not my buddy, you get my jive?
|
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 16:37:31 GMT -5
well im laying out an OPTION of what COULD happen, so would you rather have NO BENCH or the solution i came up with, i think i could guess which one you prefer are u actually upset with me or messing with me. yeah i like ur solution better than none |
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 16:38:10 GMT -5
sorry sharks, i dont like it when people call me buddy, when they are not my buddy, you get my jive? are u messing with me lol "the name's not buddy, its Durant. Robert G. Durant." |
|
|
|
Post by chad on Jul 11, 2012 16:52:15 GMT -5
yes
|
|
