|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Feb 7, 2004 16:10:40 GMT -5
Only vote once each please.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 7, 2004 18:38:33 GMT -5
LOL.. err... just to be a technical asswipe lawyer. Only one vote PER GM... ;D
|
|
|
Post by CrismonCapitalsGM on Feb 8, 2004 19:29:46 GMT -5
What's going to happen if priority list wins, but there's more votes total for the e-bay style system? Since the vote is split into two e-bay styles versus one priority list, the results could be difficult to tabulate correctly... more people could prefer e-bay style, but since their votes are divided, priority list could technically come out on top.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Feb 8, 2004 21:16:12 GMT -5
What worries me more is that only a handful of GMs have chimed in on the issue and only 8 of 30 have voted.
|
|
|
Post by bruinsgm on Feb 9, 2004 12:04:06 GMT -5
One thing that needs to be considered is the length of time that this ebay system will need to run its course. If you are talking 48 hour bidding times with increments of 100k or so it could be a long couple of months.
|
|
|
Post by AVSGM on Feb 9, 2004 14:02:36 GMT -5
I did vote and i didn't elect to get into this what seems as almost a power struggle. I like the vote idea and majority rules and let the Majority decide. But with 20 GM's out of the loop at this time of the year. Think those who are right out of the playoffs and have no need to look at the games everyday. No trades are on which i think at playoff time allow the non-playoff teams to trade. Keep interest levels up i think.
As for the UFA system i voted the old way but. All in all change would be good here i've went through one UFA in the BRHL and didn't get anything really i wanted a rule change i think will put everyone on the same playing field. Isn't it all about "Showing Me the Money" when it comes to the UFA's.
One thing i hate and hate alot is allowing GM's to look after player contracts. This is the makings a huge gong show. You can just see how cheating will take place. I think some are also making this way more complicated then it has to be. But i like GM's that care about league policy and not ones who try and muzzle people.
Oh and the Cap should be around 48-50mil a year. Why do we enjoy star players holding out. Good rule for teams that if they go over the cap that they lose the player. I like that alot, but the cap is keeping a lid on teams from doing anything they want. Free up cap space and watch the activity rise.
AVS GM
|
|
|
Post by habsgm on Feb 9, 2004 15:51:11 GMT -5
In response to AVS post, I find myself in agreement on many points. I went in favour of a new system but liked the incentives of the old.
However, upping the cap by 6-8 million, say 7, will just put every player's salary up by: (7/42)* 100% = 16.7% in the long run (several seasons). Clubs will find themselves in the same way (running too close to a cap) and losing players eventually. IF IF IF the cap is to be tinkered with, I think a much smaller increment should be used until the league finds the point where a critical mass of clubs have finances as the big limiting factor and not the salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Feb 9, 2004 18:44:55 GMT -5
IF people would look at the rules page like they are advised to on the main page, they would see that the cap is staying at 42 million next season, BUT that is now going to be pro salary not including coaches/farm team, which in effect raises the cap between 1-2 million per team.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by DucksGM on Feb 9, 2004 19:10:59 GMT -5
We have room for a longer off-season. We're almost finished the regular season, and the NHL is only 55 games through the season or so.
|
|
|
Post by Garrett FLA GM on Feb 11, 2004 18:45:56 GMT -5
I don't mind the ebay style, but having issues voting.
|
|