|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jan 20, 2007 20:02:14 GMT -5
*THINGS TO TAKE NOTE OF* for next year; (rules not highlighted in former rulebook)
*10 Keeper slots (instead of 12) Entire Farm is kept.
*2/3 Vote of 10 to veto (7/10)
*Status changes throughout the year ( ie, age and games played)
Prospect Draft will be Standard (1-12, 1-12, 1-12)
Order:
#1 - Last place
#2 - 11th overall in the standings
#3 - 10th overall
#4 - 9th overall
#5 - 8th overall
#6 - 7th overall
#7 - 6th overall
#8 - 5th overall
#9 - 4th overall
#10 - 3rd overall
#11 - 2nd overall
#12 - Regular Season Champion
Waiver Draft will be Serpentine (1-12, 12-1)
Order:
#1 - Winner of the Consolation Bracket
#2 - Runner-Up Consolation Bracket
#3 - 3rd Place Consolation Bracket
#4 - 4th Place Consolation Bracket
#5 - 5th Place Consolation Bracket
#6 - Last Place Consolation Bracket
#7 - League Champion
#8 - League Runner-Up
#9 - 3rd Place Winner's Bracket
#10 - 4th Place Winner's Bracket
#11- 5th Place Winner's Bracket
#12 - 6th Place Winner's Bracket
League Calender
(all dates are approximate)
Trade Deadline: March 8th
End of Season: April 8th
Keeper Submission: June 1st
Prospect Draft: July 1st
Waiver Draft: August 1st
Free Agent Signing: September 1st
Final Roster Submission: September 19th
Start of Season: October 4th
April 8th - June 1st
2007-2008 League Organization Period
June 1st - September 1st
Open Transaction Period
If any are oppose to any of these rules/modifications start a poll and the league will try and conduct a vote (one poll per rule). Site plans/updates to come later as well as talks of "fees" and distribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jan 20, 2007 22:42:36 GMT -5
Looks good to me. Except one thing, why is it "regular season champion"? As far as I'm concerned, there's only one champion of the league, and that's the person who makes it through the regular season and the playoffs. Just as it is in real life.
EDIT: Also, will we be able to make transactions after September 1st? I'd like to think so, trades, and other stuff as usual. I assume that's right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Jan 20, 2007 23:34:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jan 20, 2007 23:36:15 GMT -5
"regular season champion" is who is atop the standings once the playoffs start. nothing is awarded , the only reason this is documented is to simulate real life in determining the prospect draft order. the worst team gets first pick, second worst gets second pick, etc.
the true documented champion will of course be the winner of the playoffs.
as far as transactions after September 1st, yes they are allowed. the "open transaction period" speaks strictly of when you can move minor leaguers to and from the farm without having them clear waivers. anytime after June 1st (after keepers have been submitted) you are free to move players to and from the farm freely. before June 1st and after September 1st (or whenever free agent signing starts) players will have to clear waivers.
|
|
Andrew
Second Liner
25%
Posts: 320
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 21, 2007 2:01:20 GMT -5
I'm going to again protest this 7/10 thing. If it is desired that the rule be changed from 8 votes required for veto to 7, that is fine. Start a poll where a 2/3 majority is needed to change the rule. Along those same lines, I address the drafts. Rules are already in place. The 2/3 majority vote should be interpreted as "2/3 of the league not involved in the transaction" as far as I'm concerned. The people making the trade want it to happen, that can be assumed with every trade. So we need 8/10 of the league members to vote against the trade then? Correct me if I'm wrong, but 8/10 does not equate to 2/3. I hear what you're saying, but the people involved with the trade really don't need any say in whether or not it should be vetoed.. their opinion is always going to be assumed no veto. We're talking about a difference of one person's vote which isn't a huge deal in my opinion. This isn't a veto-happy league from what I've seen. Possibly a little quick to veto at times, but for the most part reasonable. 7 vetos, 8 vetos, whatever.. the trade deserves to be vetoed. If we need a vote to change the number of vetos to veto a trade, then I'm up for that, but I think with the inactivity of the league it would be difficult to do. 3 members haven't even visited this forum since the Luongo deal so they are totally in the dark. Also, you realize that if we vote on whether the number of vetos should be changed from 8 to 7, anyone that is voting "veto" on the Luongo trade will opt for 7, and anyone that is voting "no veto" on the Luongo trade will opt for 8 so that their desired outcome of the Luongo deal will occur. I think the veto number of 7 is logical and the change was a good call. I don't see the need in creating polls etc. in debating that point but if it happens I'm game. As for the rest of the rulebook, I think it looks fine. I know I argued with a lot of the proposed draft changes before, but this seems to work. With a large number of keepers, the strong teams aren't going to collapse because of getting crap picks and the weaker teams should have ample opportunity to make improvements. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jan 22, 2007 20:35:53 GMT -5
Cool, it all sounds pretty perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Jan 22, 2007 23:51:48 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, everything seems a-okay, except one thing. I think we should add an age limit to "minor league" players.
Since a player should be in their prime around 27, perhaps that would be a good age limit (official prospect status ends at 24) for minor leaguers? It makes a waiver wire / FA pool actually a little more interesting and the whole process more logical. For example, older goalies (overseas or undrafted NHL guys that come out of nowhere like Thomas, Holmqvist, Huet, etc) generally don't need a minor league status considering they are usually no. 1 or 1a goalies to begin with and capable of playing 40+ games a year (thus, they don't need to 'develop' like other youngsters).
::EDIT::
I agree on the whole 7/10 veto thing. Voting on a veto case should be an impartial decision and the only logical thing to do would be to exclude the two teams involved. 12 - 2 = 10. 2/3 * 10 = 6.67 (round to 7). Therefore veto should require 7 votes. Q.E.D. The proof is in the pudding. Thats all she wrote. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building and been ubducted by aliens. Etc.
In jury trials, is the defendant allowed to have a vote in the verdict along with the jury? Unless my American government class failed me (if it did, then damn you public education!!!), the answer is no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Jan 23, 2007 1:55:38 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, everything seems a-okay, except one thing. I think we should add an age limit to "minor league" players. Since a player should be in their prime around 27, perhaps that would be a good age limit (official prospect status ends at 24) for minor leaguers? It makes a waiver wire / FA pool actually a little more interesting and the whole process more logical. For example, older goalies (overseas or undrafted NHL guys that come out of nowhere like Thomas, Holmqvist, Huet, etc) generally don't need a minor league status considering they are usually no. 1 or 1a goalies to begin with and capable of playing 40+ games a year (thus, they don't need to 'develop' like other youngsters). ::EDIT:: I agree on the whole 7/10 veto thing. Voting on a veto case should be an impartial decision and the only logical thing to do would be to exclude the two teams involved. 12 - 2 = 10. 2/3 * 10 = 6.67 (round to 7). Therefore veto should require 7 votes. Q.E.D. The proof is in the pudding. Thats all she wrote. The fat lady has sung. Elvis has left the building and been ubducted by aliens. Etc. In jury trials, is the defendant allowed to have a vote in the verdict along with the jury? Unless my American government class failed me (if it did, then damn you public education!!!), the answer is no. This is the worst analogy I have ever heard. On trial? give me a break. Let's say you're in the U.S. Senate, hypothetically. EVERY SENATOR gets a vote. Now, if you introduce legislation, should your vote be discounted simply because its your bill? That is a much better analogy. Defenders in criminal cases don't get a vote because they aren't part of the jury you ninny. Each of us, however, are a part of this league. If you propose a rule change in this league, should you not get to vote? "12-2=10.......," Total nonsense. Like I have tried to say what seems like a million times, IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THE TRADERS VOTE. The responsibility for veto falls on those who wish to veto. The people in the trade don't have to provide enough votes for the trade not to get vetoed. Its the other way around. The poll is at 4 votes now. What if Winnepeg and I voted to not veto. How would that change things? The same number of votes is required to veto the trade whether we vote or not. Finally, as a footnote, A manager in a trade can not, after he accepts a trade, say "my bad" or "oops, veto it." It is the responsibility of every manager to be sure of a deal before he accepts it in a messenger convo let alone on the fucking board with an exclamation point no less. This entire experience has soured my taste for the league: non-active ninnys, random and arbitrary rule changes, casual reversal of opinion of trades after the fact, a mysterious -208 karma, Nos. The list goes on. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Jan 23, 2007 13:38:40 GMT -5
This is the worst analogy I have ever heard. On trial? give me a break. Let's say you're in the U.S. Senate, hypothetically. EVERY SENATOR gets a vote. Now, if you introduce legislation, should your vote be discounted simply because its your bill? That is a much better analogy. Defenders in criminal cases don't get a vote because they aren't part of the jury you ninny. Each of us, however, are a part of this league. If you propose a rule change in this league, should you not get to vote? "12-2=10.......," Total nonsense. Like I have tried to say what seems like a million times, IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THE TRADERS VOTE. The responsibility for veto falls on those who wish to veto. The people in the trade don't have to provide enough votes for the trade not to get vetoed. Its the other way around. The poll is at 4 votes now. What if Winnepeg and I voted to not veto. How would that change things? The same number of votes is required to veto the trade whether we vote or not. Finally, as a footnote, A manager in a trade can not, after he accepts a trade, say "my bad" or "oops, veto it." It is the responsibility of every manager to be sure of a deal before he accepts it in a messenger convo let alone on the fucking board with an exclamation point no less. This entire experience has soured my taste for the league: non-active ninnys, random and arbitrary rule changes, casual reversal of opinion of trades after the fact, a mysterious -208 karma, Nos. The list goes on. You're right, defendants don't get a vote because the jury is made of their peers. Managers involved in the trade shouldn't get a vote because the trade is like the defendant and the two managers are emotionally invested in this trade. Thus, they are no longer impartial to the case. How these managers vote is irrevelant, the question we are arguing is whether or not they should be included in the vote at all. This determine the # required for 2/3 veto power. The problem with this system is that inactive managers screw it up completely, so we are trying to remedy the situation. Whats the point of having a veto system that requires 8 people to veto a trade if 2 people are involved in the deal and at least 2-3 people are always inactive? Do you think see the logic in that veto system? Do you think that works? Also, a jury trial is a better analogy than passing legislation. The point of a jury trial is to decide a resolution between an argument of two parties. Problem: Veto trade? Defendant: the trade in question. Jury: League managers not involved in deal. The league is debating whether or not to use a veto on a deal. Voting a bill in the Senate is like deciding whether or not a new rule is approved. Bills are just rules. At its core, that is all legislation is, it doesn't resolve any argument or any question at hand. It's a simple 'yes or no' regarding a rule. Unless of course you are referring to the process of reforming a bill (which is part of the legislative process, as is an oversight committee to oversee the possible changes to be made), which is the equivalent to if the league doesn't like the trade (bill), it can change the players involved in the trade for you (which I doubt is what you were meaning to say). |
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Jan 23, 2007 14:51:11 GMT -5
This is the worst analogy I have ever heard. On trial? give me a break. Let's say you're in the U.S. Senate, hypothetically. EVERY SENATOR gets a vote. Now, if you introduce legislation, should your vote be discounted simply because its your bill? That is a much better analogy. Defenders in criminal cases don't get a vote because they aren't part of the jury you ninny. Each of us, however, are a part of this league. If you propose a rule change in this league, should you not get to vote? "12-2=10.......," Total nonsense. Like I have tried to say what seems like a million times, IT DOESNT MATTER HOW THE TRADERS VOTE. The responsibility for veto falls on those who wish to veto. The people in the trade don't have to provide enough votes for the trade not to get vetoed. Its the other way around. The poll is at 4 votes now. What if Winnepeg and I voted to not veto. How would that change things? The same number of votes is required to veto the trade whether we vote or not. Finally, as a footnote, A manager in a trade can not, after he accepts a trade, say "my bad" or "oops, veto it." It is the responsibility of every manager to be sure of a deal before he accepts it in a messenger convo let alone on the fucking board with an exclamation point no less. This entire experience has soured my taste for the league: non-active ninnys, random and arbitrary rule changes, casual reversal of opinion of trades after the fact, a mysterious -208 karma, Nos. The list goes on. You're right, defendants don't get a vote because the jury is made of their peers. Managers involved in the trade shouldn't get a vote because the trade is like the defendant and the two managers are emotionally invested in this trade. Thus, they are no longer impartial to the case. How these managers vote is irrevelant, the question we are arguing is whether or not they should be included in the vote at all. This determine the # required for 2/3 veto power. The problem with this system is that inactive managers screw it up completely, so we are trying to remedy the situation. Whats the point of having a veto system that requires 8 people to veto a trade if 2 people are involved in the deal and at least 2-3 people are always inactive? Do you think see the logic in that veto system? Do you think that works? Also, a jury trial is a better analogy than passing legislation. The point of a jury trial is to decide a resolution between an argument of two parties. Problem: Veto trade? Defendant: the trade in question. Jury: League managers not involved in deal. The league is debating whether or not to use a veto on a deal. Voting a bill in the Senate is like deciding whether or not a new rule is approved. Bills are just rules. At its core, that is all legislation is, it doesn't resolve any argument or any question at hand. It's a simple 'yes or no' regarding a rule. Unless of course you are referring to the process of reforming a bill (which is part of the legislative process, as is an oversight committee to oversee the possible changes to be made), which is the equivalent to if the league doesn't like the trade (bill), it can change the players involved in the trade for you (which I doubt is what you were meaning to say). This is the best post regarding the 7 to 8 change that I have read. Although I still disagree with you, but its not because of the wording of your post. This is the first post that doesn't say anything like "if the trading managers vote, it gives them an unfair advantage." You still say something to the effect of "the 2/3 should be out of 10," but that's ok. The original rule says a 2/3 majority of the league is required to veto a trade. Since there are 12 members of the league, that number is 8. Put in another way, it says 80% of the "rest of the league" is required to veto a trade. Is that too mcuh? Maybe, Maybe not. That was the intention of the rule. That was also the number Derrick stated was the amount required to veto his Thornton deal. In the case of trades, 7/10 and 7/12 is the same exact thing. The difference, and my only objection to posts of this nature, is the wording. When the league discounts anyone's votes in this manner, it sets a terrible precedent. In no situation should a league member's vote be cancelled or disallowed. That is my real objection. The merits of making the rule change can be discussed in a seperate thread with a poll. My goal in my previous posts concerning this topic has been to stop the exclusion of managers in the voting process. You said that the manager's in the trade are emotionally invested in the trade's outcome, implying some bias that would justify them being excluded from the vote. But who is to say that isnt true for any other manager not involved in the trade. Think about it. There are a lot of reasons to veto a trade and most of them are biased in one way or another. I have thought about it and would support changing the number of votes required for veto from 8 to 7. But please, do not use the exclusion of managers in support of any future claims. |
|
Andrew
Second Liner
25%
Posts: 320
|
Post by Andrew on Apr 18, 2007 22:29:36 GMT -5
Just looking at the rules, I have a couple of suggestions for the next draft (2008).
Regarding the waiver draft, I like how the first 6 picks are set up so that the consolation bracket actually means something. I don't like how the next 6 picks are laid out (but I wouldn't recommend changing them now since I'd seem very biased and never mentioned anything before). The back 6 picks would look better as:
7th: 5th place winner
8th: 6th place winner
9th: 4th place winner
10th: 3rd place winner
11th: League runner-up
12th: League champion
The 5th and 6th place teams really got the short end of the stick the way things stand now. That is the only playoff matchup that means nothing at all, and since the 5th and 6th place teams are weaker, I think it would be only logical that the 5th and 6th place teams deserve better picks than the league champions. The way I see it: the consolation teams all compete for top pick, the 5th/6th place matchup should compete for the next highest pick (the difference between a 7th overall and 8th overall would be greater than the difference of an 11th and 12th overall pick), the 3rd/4th place matchup competes for a bronze and the loser of the matchup gets compensated with a higher pick, and the league champion should simply compete for the gold.. don't really need any other incentives.
Again, this just seems logical to me so maybe we could discuss it for next season (2008).
edit- moving the 4th place winner to the 7th overall draft pick could make sense as well.
|
|
Ryan
First Liner
100%
104-139-33
Posts: 726
|
Post by Ryan on Apr 23, 2007 18:48:37 GMT -5
hey am i the only one that wants to keep 12 and not 10?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 24, 2007 21:03:19 GMT -5
ill gladly keep 12....AND trade before June 1st so that we can ruin the entire off-season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Apr 24, 2007 23:42:48 GMT -5
hey am i the only one that wants to keep 12 and not 10? I'm pretty sure we already ruled on this, in a lengthy discussion in one of the other boards, that there are 10 keepers. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Apr 26, 2007 15:41:36 GMT -5
Since the controversy around making trades before the June 1st seems pretty even, why not make a concession on both sides? What about trading is allowed, but only farm team players, draft picks, waiver picks, and keeper slots can be traded (basically no roster players)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Apr 28, 2007 11:52:29 GMT -5
Since the controversy around making trades before the June 1st seems pretty even, why not make a concession on both sides? What about trading is allowed, but only farm team players, draft picks, waiver picks, and keeper slots can be traded (basically no roster players)? I cant help but think this suggestion is solely based around the betterment of your team since your farm is actually better than your big club, haha. With that said, i cant be the only one giving input on the matter. There need to be voices speaking up, otherwise your (or anyones) suggestions are just another set of meaningless posts. Anyway, just so there isnt any confusion, as of right now, there will be NO TRADING ALLOWED UNTIL JUNE 1ST. HOWEVER, ALL PROSPECTS MAY BE MOVED TO AND FROM THE FARM FREELY. It kind of makes it hard when several of the league members wont vote on the polls that are up so that we can establish some sort of ruling. Another HUGE rule that needs to be clarified is whether or not prospects and minor leaguers status changes during the year (age, games played) or if they retain their status yearly until a certain date in the off season. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Apr 29, 2007 21:05:36 GMT -5
I think it the players should retain there status till the offseason probably a date before the keeper selections so that we know what we can and cant send down
Thats my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Apr 30, 2007 3:41:13 GMT -5
I think the status should change throughout the year, real time effect. This adds another dimension to managing your team as was showcased with Derrick sending Ovechkin down before his status changed and also with myself sending Michalek down. Since we were seemingly operating under that rule during the season/playoffs I think it's only fair to keep it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Apr 30, 2007 17:20:23 GMT -5
I think the status should change throughout the year, real time effect. This adds another dimension to managing your team as was showcased with Derrick sending Ovechkin down before his status changed and also with myself sending Michalek down. Since we were seemingly operating under that rule during the season/playoffs I think it's only fair to keep it that way. I think I'm the only one that has read the curent rules, honestly. You and Derrick sent Michalek and Ovechkin down because of a GAME restriction, not one of age. That is what derrick is suggesting be changed. Section 8 subsection K states: K) Prospects are players with less than 150 NHL games experience and the age is 24 or under 24 (as at July 1 each year). Subsection B states: B) Once a player reached 150 games played, he is no longer considered a prospect. The only variable prospect qualifiction is the amount of games he has played. His age restriction is derived from his age as of July 1st. The point is that the league didn't just conduct itself this way because thats just how it happened to turn out. This way is fine with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on May 1, 2007 1:43:01 GMT -5
I think I'm the only one that has read the curent rules, honestly. You and Derrick sent Michalek and Ovechkin down because of a GAME restriction, not one of age. That is what derrick is suggesting be changed. Get a life, seriously... Another HUGE rule that needs to be clarified is whether or not prospects and minor leaguers status changes during the year (age, games played) or if they retain their status yearly until a certain date in the off season. Anyway, since he asked for both my comments are quite valid. What Derrick and I did was simply an example of real time effect being played out during the regular season. Both (age, games played) should follow real time effect in my opinion. I was under the impression that open talk was to be had about these particular rules brought up by the commissioner of the league. Asking such a question would imply that the current rulebook is not set in stone and needs to be tweaked under the discretion of the league. |
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.