|
Post by ds on Aug 24, 2009 19:50:06 GMT -5
May as well kill two birds with one stone:
A: We should tighten up our stance on trade challenges. We're somewhere in between full regulation and Laissez-Faire at the moment and it's creating some inconsistencies.
My proposal is that we select one or the other:
1. Full Laissez-Faire on all trades regardless of how lopsided GMs believe it is. (If we go this route I have two alternate proposals involving draft picks and extreme cases.) 1a. If a first round draft pick is involved, the team giving up the pick *must* receive at least one pick in return, doesn't matter the round. Reason: To keep some sort of youth pipeline. (So we can avoid cases like the Bruins) 1b. GMs can privately request a trade review in extreme cases, IE: a 4th round draft pick and cash for Sidney Crosby. The sort of fxcked up trade no GM in their right mind would do.
2. We go with a full time five man trade committee. Every trade is voted on. No matter how small. If the trade passes, it passes; if it's rejected, rework the deal or drop it. No debate.
-
As for GM tenure, the proposal is that if a GM leaves his team within 1 month of picking the team up. All trades processed in that time will be reversed.
Maybe a bit extreme, but that's my mindset right now.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by whalersgm on Aug 24, 2009 21:32:04 GMT -5
ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH THE 5 MAN COMMITTEE, WHO WOULD DECIDE ON THE PARTICIPANTS ON THIS COMMITTEE ? THERE ARE A FEW NOTED REAL LIFE ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE GM'S IN THIS LEAGUE AND IT MAY AFFECT SOME OF THE COMMITTEE'S DECISIONS IF WE CHOOSE THAT ROUTE. YOUR THOUGHTS ?
|
|
|
Post by coleman on Aug 25, 2009 1:38:21 GMT -5
I say we avoid having mandatory voting on every trade. I see nothing wrong with trade challenges, perhaps we move them to PM or something. This would assist in prevent unnecessary arguments.
My proposal would be 2 challenges for a review, probably PM'd to either Josh or Kevin (I suppose whoever is simming at the time). Once the trade is reviewed, the trade is taken to a panel of three uninvolved people (in the league or not, I've never really seen a problem with this). Majority rules.
If discussion in the trade sections are causing problems, the best solution would be to remove them from the league. Limit posts in trade threads to the GM's involved and a commish updating on the trades status.
Just an idea, it would be nice to see some discussion on this.
EDIT: Also, can I get Pardy created? I posted it awhile ago.
|
|
blades
Asset GM - 3 player points, 3 million
Posts: 249
|
Post by blades on Aug 25, 2009 1:51:32 GMT -5
I like it the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by coleman on Aug 25, 2009 1:59:50 GMT -5
Also, I don't mind the GM tenure idea, but maybe shorten the time period to one or two weeks? A month is a long time in this league, especially with double sims. It would be really unfortunate if a team in a playoff hunt lost a key veteran piece 15-20 games after the deal was made.
|
|
Nords GM
Asset GM - 3 player points, 3 million
Posts: 202
|
Post by Nords GM on Aug 25, 2009 8:52:51 GMT -5
I think limit discussion to PM's after the challenge. The problem as well is the timeframe. People makes trades and want it done quickly. If we get a forum of 5 guys...say 1 guy is away or doesn't sign in until 2 days after....etc. It will drag these things on. Josh and Kevin, you guys are the Commish's for a reason I am ok with it being left in your hands! You guys talk to people all the time, so you can get others opinions if you want. As for the tenure thing I agree with Coleman and maybe 2 weeks should be good. Then again if they were good trades for the team I don't see why they should be reversed. I think maybe only questionable or risky trades be looked at. Both gray areas ultimately I feel they would be both yours and Kevin's decisions, which in the end everyone should be ok with because this is your league.
|
|
americans
Better Activity 2 Player points, 500k
Posts: 83
|
Post by americans on Aug 26, 2009 14:08:48 GMT -5
It Does suck to see these teams that we need to be taken over with absolutely zero picks, I know the canadiens when matt took them over didn't have any picks in the first two years. so that might be a good idea needing some picks in return... but its kinda hard to enforce a rule like that makes trading more difficult.
But other then that I don't really have a problem with the current trade objection rules!
|
|