RULE PROPOSALS AND VOTING PROCESS FOR 2009-10 SEASON
Deadline for Rule Proposals: Wednesday, September 9 (midnight MST) *
Final Rule proposals then officially posted on Thursday, September 10
Voting deadline: Wednesday, September 16 (midnight MST) **
Results then posted on Thursday, September 17
* note – please post your proposals and/or send them to Brian
** note – votes to be submitted to Brian (he will submit his votes to Rob + Bob) - please do NOT send in your votes until AFTER proposals posted on Thur, Sept 10.
RULE PROPOSAL #1 (proposed by Richard; see May 27 on blog)
Reduce the number of waiver drafts to one a year.
RULE PROPOSAL #2 (proposed by Richard; see May 27 on blog)
Waived players remain on waiver wire for the remainder of the season.
RULE PROPOSAL #3 (proposed by Rob; see May 27 on blog)
Reduce the number of prospects to 6 effective for the 2010-11 season.
RULE PROPOSAL #4 (proposed by Chris; see May 27 on blog)
Prospects must be 18 years of age or older when drafted.
Brian you did not post the correct ones...you missed 1a and number 5
ReplyDeleteI propose;
ReplyDelete- that we accept no more rule proposals for five years
So is this post a heads up, or a forum for discussion, or what exactly? Since we aren't to vote till the 10th...
ReplyDeleteOr is it "here's the proposals so far..."?
This is the 'proposals so far' AND a forum for discussion. Further proposals can still be submitted up to next Wed and then still another week for discussion and voting.
ReplyDeleteRob - I deleted 1a and 5 after talking to Bob as he wasn't in agreement with that. Both topics will likely come up in 'discussion'. I'll talk to you this weekend further about.
I second Cam's proposal...
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts...
ReplyDelete1) This proposal has ties to #2, and in my mind makes more sense if #2 is implemented, not to mention the practical realities of reducing to one WD
2) Keeping waived players on the wire depends in large part on the willingness of ?the statistician to maintain an ever growing list. Also I would add an addendum that any players with status (eg RFAs) who are not picked up immediately ie in the 1st week available, lose their status
3) Not going to dignify that one with appropriate expletives :-)
4) Havng adopted the age rule for the ED, it makes no sense to me to apply it to the PrD as that is exactly the kind of thing the PrD is FOR...
I agree with Dan...Insofar as waived players hanging around, I believe they are needed for that statsguy todo the omnivore...but after one week on the wire without a bid, lose status...
ReplyDeleteProposals 3 and 4 are silly IMHO
Did Cam officially make a proposal on no new rule changes for 5 years, seconded by Brian after this ED? If so, count me in support of Proposal #5
I support Proposals 1 and 2.
I am VERY OPPOSED to Proposals 3 and 4.
Cheers,
Captain Jack Harkness for the Shadow...
My thoughts of the moment on the proposals:
ReplyDelete#1. Against this but won't cry myself to sleep if others want only one WD - I think WD2 helps retool somewhat (both in terms of drafting and trade opportunities before + after) AND because I think two WDS keep the FUNHL cohesive.
#2. Mixed - neat idea and might keep struggling teams more involved; wonder how much work it will be to keep track but that isn't end of the world; I also like Dan's idea of RFA status being lost if player not bid on in the week after being waived
#3. Well Rob, I voted against going to 8 prospects in the first place but its hard to reverse something that's now a fixture of the pool
#4. Chris - I think you need to argue your point some more (not as hard as Rob would have to for #3 but its kind of a fixture now to be able to pick prospects younger than 18)
#5. I 'think' this was kind of a facetious rule proposal as was my seconding of it... but if its serious, hey - cool. What about for every rule we add, we delete one somewhere else? ;-)
Yes to 1 and 2
ReplyDeleteNO to 3 and 4
If we have only one wavier draft when does it occur...Week 9 or week 13 which are the one third and halfway points in the season.
ReplyDeleteLike dans ammendment to clear the wavier wire at the draft/s
Dan's idea is a good one about 'IF' we implement an ongoing waiver wirte system - then clear the slate of waived players at the Waiver drafts (or draft). Richard's rule proposal states waived players remain on the wire throughout the season. So...what do people think?
ReplyDeleteAnd Rob raises an excellent point as well - 'IF' we move to just one WD,when do we have it (1/3 or 1/2 way through season?) Thoughts?
Highlanders support Proposal #1, suggest that we make this earlier rather than later so 1/3 of the way through the year, say the first weekend of December.
ReplyDeleteHighlanders support Proposal #2, with the understanding that the waiver wire is cleared at the conclusion of the Waiver Draft(s).
Highlanders oppose Proposal #3.
Highlanders oppose Proposal #4, not strenuously oppose but still oppose.
Highlanders support Proposal #5, which I take as serious, so long as it includes a friendly ammendment that any unanimously supported rule changes are still allowed. Closing down the rule factory that is the FunHL for a while makes sense but with the possibility of NHL dispersal drafts; CBA lockouts; KHL transfer fights; and simple hockey-gods goofiness, I think it wise to not completely tie our hands to try and fix whatever mess Bettman and Co. get us into.
It will be hard to vote on 1 and 2 independently as there are definite links.
ReplyDeleteThere is less need for 2 WDs with an unending WW, as the WD would be to pick up the undrafted rather than the dropped (for the most part)
As for the WW, I would propose adding the following two caveats:
1) If a player with status ie RFA is dropped to the WW and NOT selected in the first week he is available, he can remain on the WW but loses any RFA status
2) All players on the WW become available at the WD(s) hence the WW is in effect dissolved after any claims for the week ending just prior to the week of the WD
Just to clarify in light of proposal 4, it is still allowable for one to draft an underage player in the ED if it is as an FP, correct?
ReplyDeleteYes - even if proposal 4 is voted in, you can still draft an underage FP.
ReplyDeleteDAN / RICHARD / OTHER.... I have to officially print the proposals as I received them, so any modifications either 1) need to be agreed to by original author of the proposal or 2) a further proposal needs to be made or 3) we can have secondary voting on specifics of a rule (majority rules on secondary voting
Well I will officially tender a new proposal if Richard does not confirm an amendment.
ReplyDeleteContinuous waiver wire, players lose RFA status if not claimed in first week on wire, WW dissolved at end of week ending prior to the WD (or WDs) so that waived players are available for the WD(s), and the WW starts fresh after the WD(s).
Thanks Dan. Richard has contacted me saying he will review his proposal and Dan's proposal today then get back to me.
ReplyDeleteNote - Bob has proposed that any players that were on the waiver wire and not drafted at WD(s) still continue on the waiver wire after the WD(s) AND also that the waiver wire ends at the trade deadline.
Richard and Dan - are you for or against Bob's thoughts??
I have missed the deadline on this one--but with regards to the ongoing waiver-wire issue, I am in favour of passing the rule variant with the most support.
ReplyDeleteMy goal with the continuous waiver-wire is to discourage predatory trades because of injuries, and to encourage people to pay attention.
It seems that the following has the most support:
That the waiver wire comes to an end with a WD, and is cleared of all players and that players lose their RFA/FP/Prospect status after being on the Wire for a week. (Uh... for clarity I'll call this "the Dan variant".)
Being said, if at the table, the Dan variant has 10 votes worth of support, but say, keeping the players status has 11, I'd much rather see the 11 vote variant pass.
I am likely to be in favour of #3, I'm undecided on #4, and I am adamantly opposed to #5.
I agree with freezing the WW at the trade deadline, absolutely. I DO NOT agree that the unclaimed WW players are still there after the WD - if unclaimed, they're gone...
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with Dan's "variant"...
ReplyDelete