2018-2019 Proposed Rule Changes

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2016 18:01:54 GMT SensGM said:

Oct 12, 2016 17:06:20 GMT @mightreturn said:

I'm going to try this again. Again here, because Stephen wanted things moved to the correct place.

So, with respect, you haven't done anything to demonstrate that the system works, or how it works. Instead you have stooped down a little by reacting to my disparaging comments about you and conservatives by resorting ableist insults, which seems uncalled for. My argument was tongue-in-cheek, but I guess you responded pretty much exactly how I would expect a conservative to respond.

Arguing on the internet is akin to arguing with the mentally challenged so if you want to take it as an insult go right ahead as it says more about you then anything else.  You are the one that threw out the insults when you started conservative B.S.

Why on earth do I even need to do anything to demonstrate that the system works. The cap is an upper limit that all teams are subjected to on player salary expenses which in itself proves it is working because only one team is even flirting with the upper limit.  

Change for the sake of change and fixing things that are not broken is not my cup tea and I do think it is beyond silly. If you have ways of improving things that are broken with the league then I will happily discuss solutions.  The BluesGM recommended version 1.15b to generate the draft pools instead of 1.16 because it is better. That was a good idea and I am glad he suggested it because I had forgotten about that little fact. 

Despite what you think of me I am not adverse to change, I am just not in favor of change for the sake of change as you clearly are. 

I am not aggrieved by being called mentally challenged, I am comfortable with who I am, I just think it's low to stoop to using that as an insult. You're right though, I did start it with my dig at conservatism, so my apologies. No one deserves to be linked with that group (tongue firmly in cheek. As an aside, I regularly mock the conservatives at family gatherings, well within earshot of my grandmother and aunt who are staunchly supportive of them. I still love my grandma, so my jokes at the expense of conservatives should not be seen as me hating them or anything)


Anyway, I think someone should be demonstrating that the system works. Some of us have argued that it doesn't, because no one is feeling the pressure to decide between players because the cap hangs over them. Think of Chicago in real life, they've traded Saad, Shaw, Teravainen, Byfuglien, and others, not because they wanted to, but because they couldn't fit them in the cap. That has gifted some poor teams with key players that might help them rebuild in a way that simply wasn't available otherwise. Look at the draft, most teams in this past draft (without trading picks) would be lucky to get 2 NHL players out of it. You can't rebuild if you're only getting 2 each year - and there's likely not much market for your older players, because the good teams don't need to fill holes. So how can you rebuild? 

On the other hand, if teams were forced to make hard choices, to let more players go, then those teams can rebuild quicker and get back into things. It also forces GMs to be more invested - you can't just resign and stick to your guns, you have to make trades, otherwise you lose players for nothing.

So the above is why the cap is currently broken. There have been several arguments by 'lower the cap' people (henceforth referred to as the Dutch  ) for why it's broken, but the only arguments I've seen for why it isn't broken can be summed up as "it's fine as is". No explanation why it's fine - you say it's fine because only one team is flirting with the limit, but how does that make sense? It clearly isn't doing it's job, otherwise more GM's would be forced to make a decision.


One last thing: because of the time frame, I don't think we should be lowering it by much, if at all, at the moment, because it's unfair for GMs to have only a few days to fix their teams. But I think that leaves us with two options: put the rules in place starting in the subsequent season, or grandfather any teams that are currently above the new cap. i.e. those teams wouldn't be able to increase their salaries any further, but would not be forced to drop until the next year. 

[lebas]

In a league were 5 people voiced their opinion I think making the place fun again and not have heated debates all the time would probably help activity. Some people do EHM to relax lol.

[BluesGM]

Oct 12, 2016 8:30:58 GMT -4 atlantagm said:

I won't resort to personal attacks, everyone has formed their opinion one way or another and convincing people otherwise proves difficult in all aspects of life, beyond EHM.



Again, if we held it to a vote for the active GMs and it was changed or unchanged, as long as the league voted on it I wouldn't care. If we are indeed at three vs. five, I'd argue its close enough to still go to vote. And I don't know about you, but if we're concerned about losing or hanging onto GMs by asking them to be active, engage in, and be part of the future of the league, the argument that we should leave people alone is really without merit; I'm more engaged now talking about these rules as a cohesive unit than at any point in the season. My skin is the game, so to speak, because I am affected by this change just like you are. If 25 GMs voted no change, I'd be totally fine with that -- we'd have 25 people who are here today who are considering the future of this league the way we want it. At the same time, we're correlating tinkering of the rules with people leaving, but there isn't any evidence to support that. GMs "leave" because of life. Frankly if anyone wants to hold my attention for more than a few minutes, I need my skin the game. I see the cap as a means of making more teams competitive in the league -- therefore my skin is the game.



My championing of this (and I assume RJ is in this boat, but I can't/won't speak for him) comes from experience -- we have a cap but there is only one team of 30 who we would consider in danger of being too close to. If we want to have a league based on the cap (again, real world experience -- NHL did this so GM's of big market teams could not corner and keep top talent at insurmountable prices, thereby raising league average, etc) then we should make the cap effective, not some arbitrary number that doesn't mean anything to 97% of the league. Might as well just abolish the cap at that point and let people do whatever they want, because there is ZERO penalty in-game for spending more than you have, or not spending at all.



I'll leave it at this, I wasn't here when the cap was put in. But something tells me...somebody, or some people...thought the reasoning behind a cap existed, and put it in place. Either we acknowledge that, or ignore it. Because right now its simply arbitrary -- an imaginary line in the sand that one team is even close to being at. Either way, I'm not looking to get into personal insults (maybe with Dan only, but its all fun), I'm thinking of trying to make the league competitive, which means more active GMs, which means more GMs to receive terrible trade offers from Dan! Circle of life!

Joey pretty much summed up how I feel perfectly with this reply. We have shown through facts backed up buy numbers that the cap is not doing what it is meant to do. If you choose to ignore that, that's your problem. What's the point of having something in place if it's not doing what it's supposed to do? Since the few people that have actually talked about it has shown that it seems to be split, I see no reason why it shouldn't go to a bigger vote involving all the GMs.

In the end, it's up to Stephen. If the Commish decides that it should say the same, I'll respect his decision and do so without using any personal insults because I didn't get my way or because someone didn't agree with my opinion. 

[lebas]

Too much writing someone make a dang poll, give it a time line and if there is only 5 votes majority rules..... That being said 5 votes is really the concern that if we fix will make this league better.

There's too many know it all people here..... I'm the only one who knows it all and if you disagree I can't hear you with my two rings in my ears lol.

Make a poll stop this madness... And on that note I think the commish should be making the poll to avoid biased and options poorly worded to coax cheap votes.

[lebas]

P.S you are all retards.

[atlantagm]

Oct 13, 2016 4:40:11 GMT lebas said:

Too much writing someone make a dang poll, give it a time line and if there is only 5 votes majority rules..... That being said 5 votes is really the concern that if we fix will make this league better.

There's too many know it all people here..... I'm the only one who knows it all and if you disagree I can't hear you with my two rings in my ears lol.

Make a poll stop this madness... And on that note I think the commish should be making the poll to avoid biased and options poorly worded to coax cheap votes.

"I can't hear you with my two rings in my ears"


This made my day Lebas

[BluesGM]

There's no point putting it to a vote this upcoming season. It's too late

[Deleted]

Oct 13, 2016 14:09:21 GMT BluesGM said:

There's no point putting it to a vote this upcoming season. It's too late

There is still the option of grandfathering in teams that are above the cap during the season.