The Final Vote Tally - Only Prop#8 passes

Rule Proposal Voting

FOR A PROPOSAL TO PASS IT WOULD NEED 9YEAS OUT OF 12 RESPONSES. IF IMPLEMENTATION IS FOR THIS UPCOMING YEAR IT MUST BE UNAMINOUS.

AN ABSTAINING VOTE IS CONSIDERED A NO VOTE.

THANKS TO ALL 12 Gms WHO TOOK PART IN THE DEBATES AND THE VOTING!

FOR THE RECORD, ONLY PROPOSAL #8 PASSED. HERE ARE ALL THE RESULTS:

#1. Proposed

That GMs be granted the right to waive their team's Franchise Players. This shall include use of both waiver wire and waiver draft. Upon being waived the former FP loses all status. Further to this, I propose that the requirement that a team always have 2 Franchise Players be amended to be a limit of 2 Franchise Players instead.

Implementation:
To start 2010-2011 season

DEFEATED: 4N; 1A; 7Y

#2. Proposal:

That limited Entry Draft trading be allowed. It is restricted to an exchange that takes place post-slot-selection draft between only two GMs, who agree to swap BOTH their 1st and 2nd round ED picks for the current year in exchange for some other consideration in the form of other traded assets like prospects, RFAs, FPs, and/or PrD picks being exchanged.

Trading of other ED picks, or single picks, would not be permitted

Implementation:
2011-2012 season

DEFEATED: 6N; 1A; 5Y

#3. Proposed:

Initial lottery chips (baseline) based on final finishing order as follows:
First place - 12 chips, through to Last place - 1 chip

Earned chips - over the course of the season, a team earns an extra chip for every H2H win in the H2H regular season (Playoffs are rewarded with the Challenge Cup, and only include partial teams hence they are excluded)

DEFEATED: 10N; 1A; 1Y

#4. Proposed:

That a GM holding rights to an RFA at the Entry Draft be allowed to match with any available FP replacement pick or the first available non-FP replacement pick, at his or her discretion.

Implementation:
To start 2010-2011 season

DEFEATED: 9N; 1A; 2Y

#5. Proposed:

- Teams that announce they are intending to select a new FP are seeded at the front of the draft.

- If more than one team is intent on selecting a new FP they are seeded 1st and 2nd (etc.) based on their lottery rankings.

- Teams that are re-seeded are also re-seeded at the end of the 2nd to reflect the snake draft. So if Corey is moved up to pick #1, he is also moved to pick #24 for the purposes of the 2nd round. After the 2nd round lottery placement is in effect.

- Only unrestricted free agents may be drafted by reseeding. No RFAs (even ones own), or prospects may be selected. If a team is going to be re-seeded it must be with the express purpose of selecting an otherwise unrestricted free agent.

DEFEATED: 8N; 2A; 2Y

#6. Proposed:

Be it resolved that the rules are acceptable as they are and that a moratorium on changing the rules be implemented for the next five years barring unanimous decision that there is an emergency need for change.

DEFEATED: 9N; 1A; 2Y

#7. Proposed:

that we modify the current Injury Replacement rules to create two categories of IR: the current form of IR would be Re-callable IR in that the injured player can be brought back up by the GM should they return to health but the cost is, as it is now, your first (or subsequent) WD pick in the upcoming WD; the new category of IR would be Long-term IR in which the player (presumably an FP or valued and promoted Prospect) is placed on IR for the remainder of the FunHL season and can NOT be recalled by the GM until the following season. Long-term IR would not "cost" the GM anything other than the player on Long-term IR would not be available to the GM again that season.

DEFEATED: 5N; 2A; 5Y


#8 Proposed:

Removal of the last place ENTRY-DRAFT lottery bonus.

Chips based on final finishing order as follows:
First place - 12 chips, through to Last place - 1 chip

PASSED 9Y; 1A; 2N

#9. Proposed:

All teams get one chip in the lottery. (can't work in concert with #9)

DEFEATED: 8N; 1A; 3Y

#10. Mike Getta's SSP lottery proposal

DEFEATED: 7N; 2A; 3Y


Thoughts, Comments?

Lost Boys Status update

Hello all,

It would be wrong to start this post with anything other than a hearty thank-you to Bob for essentially running my team for the past season. My life is busy on the other side of the covenant, and whether or not I would continue with running the Lost Boys for another season has been on my mind for months now. I told Bob I'd have an answer to the league before the playoffs were done; and here's it is.

Yes, I'll be back for 2009-2010. I'll be changing my ideal for how I want to run the team, to something much closer to how I can run the team, and I'll be coming to Calgary for the entry draft, since that seems to be key to my participation.

And, although I'm not going to hold the league hostage to my requests, there are some changes that I really do need to see put into the covenant (i.e. whether or not these pass, I'll be in next season.)

Change #1: Let's reduce the number of waiver drafts to one a year. I find these very stressful, for a variety of reasons, and I don't see them as helping my team: one waiver draft will give us all the advantages we can hope to get from the exercise.

Change #2: Let's make waived players from a line up stay around for the remainder of the season. They can be picked up by any team, at any time, once they are off someone's line up. They shouldn't disappear after one week.

These aren't yet formally phrased to fit in the covenant: someone will have a better talent for that than myself; I'd be keen to see these changes implemented for this coming season if that's possible.

I hope all of you have a good summer.

Richard.
(Still) GM Lost Boys.

Proposed Rules Changes for Draft Day

Hello!

Per Brian's excellent suggestion that any proposed rules changes need a month of discussion before draft day, I'm going to put the following suggested changes to the league:

As has been stressed by Doug and Brian, I don't want to see anyone quit because of a proposed rule change, so please be good enough to note now if you strenuously objecty

Rule Change #1: Goalie Points

(Presented by Mike, GM Knights Templar; seconded by Richard, GM Lost Boys)

From the 2008-09 season onwards, the goalie in a team's weekly lineup will be awarded 2 points for every win, with 1 additional point for a shutout (making shutouts worth 3 points), and 1 point for every over-time loss. The statistics source for the FUNHL will inform the league what goalie was assigned the win/loss/SO/OTL.

As statistically demonstrated on the blog: this formula generates a statistical value for goalies putting them at about the same value as forwards, without a need for annual re-evaluation--a situation a majority of GMs have recognized as being ideal. This formula also generates the same approximate value for most goalies as the system used in 2007. Finally, this formula also encourages GMs to always play a viable goalie, since it recognizes wins, instead of goals against, encouraging GMs to draft their backup goalie sensibly.


Rule Change #2 Goalie negative points

(Presented by Richard, GM Lost Boys; seconded by Bob, GM Shadowmen)
(This rule change will be withdrawn if Rule Change #1 passes)

A goalie cannot receive less than 0 points in any game.


---

Discuss!

Richard,
GM Lost Boys

What does it take?

Can someone look through the vast tome of rules and provide an answer to these:
(Then can they, and everyone else offer free opinions?)

What does it take to adjust the baseline in the current system to 3.5 at draft this year? (And is there any opposition to this move?)

What does it take to implement Mike's proposed overhaul of goaltending?

And, the important question:

There's a lot of focus on enforcing the "goalie average" no matter what system we have (I believe it was Thrasymachus who suggested that "justice" was a way for weak people to bring down successful people); what do people think of adding a third goalie to our rosters, and requiring every team in the FUNHL to play 2 goalies each week.

(At this time I have no suggestion for whether we reduce the total number of players in another position--ie I don't think D would suffer all that much if we reduced to playing 5/7--or if we just add another round to the draft, and whether that would be an RFA or FA round.

Richard,
GM Lost Boys

Lottery Debate

Richard brought the notion up that our current system is not 'the best of all possible worlds', and he may be right.

Fortunately, any debate that occurs now for changing the lottery will be for next year.

So here are some thoughts to get this debate rolling;

Currently we use a weighted formula to give the last place team 12 ballots, followed by the 1st place team with 11, and the 2nd with 10 and so on.

This has two effects that are potentially objectionable;

- Teams finishing last have an incentive to finish last as it increases their chances of landing a better lottery pick

- Teams finishing high in the standings will be rewarded for doing so, while teams (aside from the one in last place) that finish low will be punished.

The fact is that these two objections are actually mutually exclusive!

If we are weighting the lottery to reward teams it will presumably be to reward either low finishers (creating an incentive to have your team suck down the stretch) or high finishers (giving to the 'haves' and punishing the 'have-nots').

The only way I can see out of this quandry is to cut the Gordian Knot all together, and go to an unweighted lottery, where everybody has an equal chance to win, and where you finish plays no role in how many ballots you have.

Some will argue that having no punishment for finishing low will encourage teams to 'tank'. I reply; that is what the Herbivore Award was specifically meant to deter.

Some may argue that teams that suck deserve to have some love at the Entry Draft or they risk having horrible FPs forever, and being stuck in a perpetuity of mediocrity as better finishing teams continue to get the better part of the deal.

To which I reply; finishing last will give you an advantage in the one area it should - prospects, but the one place it absolutely shouldn't give you an advantage at the draft table - that would be to reward failure, and punish excellence.

Thoughts?

Things before the ED

Things I'd like to discuss:

- Can we file lineups for this coming year on the Blog?
- Can we review and if needed come up with a better system for the ED Lottery? (Doesn't need to be solved then and there, just before the next ED Lottery.)

Clarify: When does a GM have to announce prospect drops? FP drops?

And, Lundqvist for FP is hardly easy trading material. Bob doesn't get FPs for their investment appreciation.

Proposal to consider for ED 2008

I read Steven Brunt's column in the Globe this morning, about how the new salary-cap economics are being used by some teams, but no-one in management seems to have mastered the art of the calculator quite yet. That's where this thought is coming from.

My impression is that the FUNHL attempts to mimic the NHL to the greatest extent possible. (see: RFAs, waivers, IRs, and prospects.) Has there been any consideration of introducing a mimic of the salary-cap system to our entry draft?

My father's baseball pool uses a bidding system on each player. The league-fees for them are $20, so they all have a salary pool of 20$, with which to go after their 24 players. As each player is drafted, every team gets a chance to bid on them. Every player on the roster gets a salary of at least a dime, so it's possible to take yourself out of bidding early by reducing yourself to a dime for the remaining slots on your roster. (Nothing sadder than having 3$ left, and no outfielders and just 1 pitcher as I recall from the one draft I participated in.)

What might it look like in the FUNHL?

Trading for players then recieves an extra-dimension, as you begin to consider their worth not only for points but also their impact on your bottom line. Prospects, at a dime apiece for 5 years become wildly valuable. RFA contracts also become interesting, if, for example, I can renew Brindamour for another year at $0.60, or whatever he would have been drafted for, might make him much more valuable.

To accomodate WDs, and give Bob/Brian/Dan and the other monster-traders some flexibility, I'd suggest that the cap grow through the season. So, going into the ED your total salary cap might be $20.80 (including 8 prospects); after the ED through to WD1 total salary cap goes to 23$; after WD1 through to the end of the season you'd get a 25$ salary-cap.

Bidding on just waived-players means you'd have to match their contract in a WD. This would make WDs a chance to slough over-priced deadweight from your roster.

I suspect FPs would have to go. You want Brodeur, you bid for Brodeur; he's not magically in the same equivalent class as Jovanovski "just 'cause."

An immediate downside is that this makes the FUNHL very much a spreadsheet & number crunching league... that may not appeal to a lot of GMs. But, it does get that touch of realism.

Anyway, throwing it out there for thoughts... because I like my number-crunching and spreadsheets.

Richard.

"Ties" for the Challenge Cup

Perhaps we should add ties or rather OTLs to the Challenge Cup contests

eg 1A tie only occurs with a mathmatical tie between to teams at the end of one week of play, each team receives 1 point each.
eg 2An OT is declared when there is a 3 point difference between two teams and a Win to the mathematical winner, for 2 points and the other team gets an OTL receives 1 point.

This would have the FUNHL and NHL have similar models.

That would be a Rule Proposal for the Challenge Cup.

Covenant changes for next year

Since Chris seems to have declared the bar open for rules changes we'd like to see implemented.

My suggestion:

Can we have an official roster keeper, who tracks "for the record" who drafts whom, and who is traded when, and then circulates it on something like a weekly basis. Brian's good enough to pass around his version whenever I give a squeak, but it seems like something the league could use in general as an official thing. Kind of like the way week to week stats are done now by Darryl and Doug.

I'd wouldn't be opposed to offering compensation for this in the form of something like two extra ballots in the entry draft lottery for service to the league.

On that note, is there any reward for the stats jobs Doug and Darryl do? Should there be?

Richard.