Suggestion Box (general comments)

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

You said if value just kills one team it gets vetoed. That means there is some sort of mechanism to disallow trades. We have the same thing here, a panel is just a smaller group of GMs so we don't need to wait on the whole league to weigh in on every trade.

I don't get the "it's no big deal" part though, I agree vetoing when it isn't overwhelming unfair sets dangerous precedents since then you get GMs whining about why did trade A get passed and trade B vetoed. I didn't think anyone was treating vetoes as no big deal.

[Deleted]

I think the proposal was a trade would only be reviewed by this panel if 2 people objected to it (or one panel member) in a 24 hour period. If this doesn't happen, the trade goes through without any review. Seems like a good idea to me.

[Bruyns (Barrie)]

It also means all trades must be in by Sunday before 7 if you want a chance to have them in your weekly lineup on Monday. It eliminates 3 quick yes votes putting through a no brainer trade. If it will stop arguing I'm all for it, but it seems like in the last trade nothing would have changed since if one of the GMs who vetoed objected to it then we would still have to discuss it just like we did.

I like the spirit of the rule, but to me it will slow things down and lacks practicality. If we were to get rid of the panel voting yes and approving trades in a timely manner I would have preferred getting rid of the panel altogether and only protecting new GMs by having an experienced GM act as their mentor for a certain period of time until they are more familiar with league value. At this point any trade involving original members shouldn't need review as we have all been here long enough to see what player and picks have gone for and should be able to build our teams accordingly.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2014 21:08:04 GMT -5 @zaphod said:

May 2, 2014 14:39:45 GMT -5 Bruyns (Barrie) said:

I think this is a good idea, the issue though is timing. Lets say 2 teams make a trade Monday morning, they are going to want it approved before game time which may not be possible if we have to wait for 2 vetoes and then wait on a poll.

The problem I see with abolishing the panel is we have no recourse if a new GM comes in and gets badly taken advantage of hurting their team and the leagues chance of finding a replacement should they quit.

I dont see any disadvantages of having a panel other than hurting someone's feeling and is that really a reason to get rid of it?

I have been in leagues that have lasted 8 years without a panel. if a deal is flat out cheating or the value just kills one team, that gets veto'd.

It isn't important if 99% of the trades get passed, this latest example of a veto'd trade had no reason to be veto'd.

it sets a precident that if any deal is slightly in the favor of one GM over another, it needs to be veto'd as well to maintain "fairness"

that is the real problem with the veto because should a GM even mildly get an advantage in a deal in a few months time, or during the seasons when the trade panel aren't hyper aware of deals...how do you justify that to the GM's you told "no" in this deal.

you can't treat any veto as "it's no big deal" because it is. it's a huge precident to set.

Blues you are spliting hairs here. One trade is almost vetoed and we get an eruption of posts. Dave changes the rules and still you are wanting more change.

Its is good to have a wide variety of opinions. that is what makes a great league. What also makes a great league is willingness to do things for the betterment of the league as a whole. You have clearly made you piece. Dave changed the rules. Now lets move on. At least be willing to give the new trade system a try.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards

[Dave (PLK)]

Dave didn't change the rules at all!!

I just went back through old posts and re-read them and summarized what the process is.

The only thing I changed was making trade panel discussions private.

[Deleted]

OK new topic: Salary Cap adjustment?

My rationale is mathematics. We have a 24 GM League compared to NHL 30 team league.

So 30/24 = 1.25

If the cap in the NHL ends up being $70M next season:

70 x 1.25 = $87.5M IFFHL cap

Advantages:
- more flexibility in trades
- prevents teams from tanking (salary required to reach cap floor)
- Avoids burrying high salary players in the minors making them useless to the entire league

Disadvantages:
- Advantages given to cap ceiling teams
- Changes player values too much
- gives overpiad players too much value

Thoughts?

[Dave (PLK)]

I see your point with the 1.25, but do we increase it immediately, or in 5 pt increments over 3 years, or perhaps 7.5 for 2 years.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

Thought the rules already stated NHL Cap + 10% (so 70M x1.1 = 77M) - this sounds reasonable enough already. Don't think we should change this. Note a large change may actually decrease player movement, instead of forcing teams to make the necessary adjustments to fit next year's cap.

[Deleted]

I'm with T-bone. As a team near the cap, I think I'd benefit greatly from such a change. However, my concern is that there may be a correlation between team cap hits and standings (i.e., I suspect the better teams are more likely to be close to the cap). So my fear is that this change would have the most benefit to the best teams, at the expense of weaker teams.

I was going to do some analysis on this looking at a section of the top and bottom teams, but it appears that quite a few teams aren't keeping updated team pages, so I just don't have time to do anything like that.

But moving from 10% to 25% seems way to much, for a cap league.

I'd consider a small increase to the cap, but only if I could be convinced that it would make trading easier, and wouldn't disproportionately hurt league parity.

[Deleted]

I think a 10% raise from the NHL cap is sufficient.

[Dave (PLK)]

May 3, 2014 11:03:31 GMT -5 @alsrevenge said:

I'm with T-bone. As a team near the cap, I think I'd benefit greatly from such a change. However, my concern is that there may be a correlation between team cap hits and standings (i.e., I suspect the better teams are more likely to be close to the cap). So my fear is that this change would have the most benefit to the best teams, at the expense of weaker teams.

I was going to do some analysis on this looking at a section of the top and bottom teams, but it appears that quite a few teams aren't keeping updated team pages, so I just don't have time to do anything like that.

But moving from 10% to 25% seems way to much, for a cap league.

I'd consider a small increase to the cap, but only if I could be convinced that it would make trading easier, and wouldn't disproportionately hurt league parity.

If you look here iffhl.proboards.com/thread/265/complete-player-list-team you can see all the salaries..not totally up to date, but gives you an idea

[Dave (PLK)]

I will post updated one Monday from work

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

This thread is becoming pretty long.. how about we start creating a new thread for each new suggestion, so we can track separately.