|
Post by zigzag (Zagreb) on Jun 26, 2014 14:26:36 GMT -5
I voted for option 4, but I would like to modify it... So far I understood from previous posts most of us would like quick, transparent and fair process of making trades. Option "all GMs vote" is to slow and in would take at least days that majority of us approve the trade... Option "no voting" has potential for lot of bad deals so it should also be out of question. What we could do is have a trade panel (of 3,5,7... GMs - we can vote for members before the season) and one GM who could question the trades. Members of trade panel should rotate on the position of GM who can question the trades (weekly? monthly?) So, most of the trades should go quick without panel, but if trade is questionable it should also be solved during one day... Rotating GMs solve problem that one GM could always question some kind of trades... I am sure someone could further improve this idea...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 14:48:50 GMT -5
I voted for option 4, but I would like to modify it... So far I understood from previous posts most of us would like quick, transparent and fair process of making trades. Option "all GMs vote" is to slow and in would take at least days that majority of us approve the trade... Option "no voting" has potential for lot of bad deals so it should also be out of question. What we could do is have a trade panel (of 3,5,7... GMs - we can vote for members before the season) and one GM who could question the trades. Members of trade panel should rotate on the position of GM who can question the trades (weekly? monthly?) So, most of the trades should go quick without panel, but if trade is questionable it should also be solved during one day... Rotating GMs solve problem that one GM could always question some kind of trades... I am sure someone could further improve this idea... I like your input but I think this poll is to close the pandora box for ever or unless we see it's not working. Why change something that isn't broken ? By the end of tommorow we will have a winner and we will run with it. So please guy's be content with the option that win and respect all the facet of that option.
|
|
|
Post by zigzag (Zagreb) on Jun 26, 2014 14:53:51 GMT -5
You know I will respect whatever option wins... I just wanted to post my opinion about the process.
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 26, 2014 15:02:04 GMT -5
Part of the issue is going to be that (8 of 18 or 44%) of the league owners voted against the current set up. So it is easy for you to say accept what is voted on but you are part of the very small majority.
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jun 26, 2014 15:19:47 GMT -5
Part of the issue is going to be that (8 of 18 or 44%) of the league owners voted against the current set up. So it is easy for you to say accept what is voted on but you are part of the very small majority. It's clear there is no option that pleases all parties. The 2nd leading option would have (13 of 18 or 72%) of the league owners against it so I'm not sure what you are getting at since having 100% agree isn't very practical. We are attempting to find a solution that appeases the largest number of GMs and obviously there will be a few that don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 26, 2014 15:23:40 GMT -5
I was responding to Nudges comment "close Pandora's box forever"
|
|