|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 19, 2014 15:59:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 16:24:30 GMT -5
Before voting, I would like to know who will be on the trading panel? If there's like 6 people on it, I think option 2 becomes useless. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jun 19, 2014 17:38:11 GMT -5
7 members (Kelowna, Canners, Niagara, Eric, Frank, Dave and myself.)
I think some clarification on the trade to go through for next lock-in option is needed. What were your thought on this Dave, is there a time limit and what will be done for trades that happen a few hours before 7PM on a Monday? They won't be processed until the following Monday?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 19, 2014 18:11:21 GMT -5
Trades would require a minimum number of votes re option 2...for trade to go through if posted on a Monday, for that lock-in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 18:48:13 GMT -5
Do it the same as when league first started - (3 votes for/against) - Yes: If it ain't broke, why fix it.
Let everyone vote (trade to go through for next lock-in) - Yes: Not my favourite, but I would do this if majority votes. My biggest concern with this is it takes too much time to process trades; waiting on votes is not that fun. Also, may be hard feelings if trade is not processed in time for next lock-in.
Abolish Approval/Veto Completely - No: This would change the very fabric as to why I joined this league in the first place. It is to big a pill for me swallow. I would seriously reconsider my participation here if this happens. Sorry not threatening to quit, just being honest with my thoughts. I hope I don't have to cross this road.
Appoint one person have the ability to question a trade and then take it to a panel - Yes: Interesting idea. I wonder if this person is appointed or elected?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Jun 20, 2014 9:35:17 GMT -5
Had a change of heart (or maybe being nostalgic), but after seeing things work for a year, believe the best thing for our particular league is to revert back to the original 3 votes for/against. Rebels is right that waiting for trade approval is not that fun. Particularly near the trade deadline when subsequent trades may be highly dependent on previous trade approval. Participants are usually excited when they agree on a trade and getting a quick finality to it is way more satisfying then letting it drag on. Same with during the draft when picks OTC are usually traded - getting quick turnaround would be helpful, so best to keep it simple and consistent. Though may be good to have some rotating members in/out of the panel on an annual basis - perhaps the Admins or a certain core stay, but others can volunteer to give everybody a chance to be on the panel if they so choose - to get a bit of new perspectives and fresh views.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 15:56:02 GMT -5
Let everyone have the option to vote, majority wins by the day prior to lock in period. A simple yay or nay will do..obviously a debate will occur if there is discrepancy or obvious collusion. Nevertheless opinions are opinions, needs are needs of individual teams. By the deadline day..yay or nay..majority wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jun 20, 2014 16:23:18 GMT -5
I like the point Kelowna raised about trading draft picks. If every time a draft pick is traded in the upcoming entry draft we have to wait 24 hours or even 12 hours it is going to make the draft drag on way longer than it should. I prefer passing a trade in minutes or a few hours and keeping things moving personally. Like all major changes in this league, majority will rule and I'm cool with it, but still a little confused why the league feels change is necessary when no trades have been vetoed in over a year and I don't think anyone is advocating for more vetoes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 18:37:43 GMT -5
I like it the way it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2014 15:37:42 GMT -5
I'm the lone vote so I'll explain my position, but I took the position that we should abolish the approval/veto vote completely. I understand the need to veto in terms of collusion, but I don't understand why a vote should be vetoed because a few people think it's a bad trade. Like the Vancouver/Surrey deal from a couple of months back. In my mind, there was no need to veto it. If it's a bad trade, then the owner needs to learn from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltcompton (Red Army) on Jun 23, 2014 0:28:52 GMT -5
I think we need a trade panel, its just that its incumbent upon the panel to use their authority seldomly and wisely, there is no magic bullet here, any system can go off the rails but we have had very few trades (1?) rejected since the league was formed so I think that speaks pretty highly of the system/group that we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 23, 2014 9:48:21 GMT -5
Calgary, Chicago, Edmonton, Niagara. Toronto
still to vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 10:03:33 GMT -5
Is Hrvoje still in flood relief in Croatia?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 23, 2014 11:03:10 GMT -5
he pmed me a while back and said all was pretty much back to normal....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 11:44:26 GMT -5
Buffalo, Calgary, Chicago, Edmonton, Medvescak, Niagara. Toronto still to vote. It's funny how Buffalo will give his 2 cent on everything but will rarely vote in pools where it matter. He reminds me of someone I knew, he would always cry about the government and how unfair they are but would never vote. If you can't take the time to vote then please keep your words to yourself. |
|
