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
8 comments:
Hi Richard,
As for adjusting calculated stats, like the goalie baseline, the DC is charged with looking at it over the offseason and adjusting as they see fit. They then have to let everyone know before the draft. Cam has argued that they are limited to making adjustments in .5pt amounts (and given the number of GMs who feel that the .5pt tradition is the standard, I think he is right).
Rule changes, like Mike's proposal, need to be voted on before the ED and need a 3/4 majority to be implemented (that would be 9 GMs). We have tried to not make major changes to the rules effective starting the upcoming season to allow GMs to make trades and adjustments with some confidence that they know what is happening - the year you entered the pool we made what most saw as a minor change to the drafting of prospects that led a GM to resign in protest. We really do NOT want that to happen again so I trust that, barring unanimity, we are not going to be making any changes to the rules effective for this upcoming season.
As for the extra goalie suggestion, not sure I like it either. Odd to find myself in the "traditionalist" seat.
Hmm...
Thanks Doug, obviously a push to get a rule change that will drive away GMs isn't worth it.
Is there any precedent for opening up "the Mike system" as an optional rule change? i.e. let GMs choose how they want to play their goalies, much like a player can be played for points, or +/-. Since the Mike system generates roughly the same number of points, but uses different stats to calculate them, people could then choose how they wanted to play their goalies.
I guess the real question is: "is anyone going to quit or be cranky if this becomes an option?"
Richard
GM, Lost Boys
Umm, wow. Let nobody accuse you of not being creative. I don't think we had ever had anyone suggest playing goalies in one of two ways.
I do not think that would be a good idea, since the weekly total for goalies will most definitly be different from each system.
The word of the day is 'ossification'.
Its funny how quickly some forget what Doug mentioned about how we revised the rules a few years back to allow for a change to a current rule(s)for upcoming season with a 75% vote. That said, this led to a lot of controversy over the so called 'minor' prospect change being voted on and implemented in the same season with a GM leaving in protest, myself being against the rule change (and vehemently opposed to implementing that year instead of the following) and I believe the caveman also being against the change. But that only made 3 against so the rule went through.
Now that we all know that 9 GMs can bring through a change for this season, then that's fine but it would of course be a shame to implement such change if anybody vehemently opposed.
Also, perhaps there should be a deadline for rule proposals for an upcoming season and then also time for discussion then a date for a vote. I think that's we did the last time around with rule proposal?? i.e. deadline to proposed rule change for 08-09 is August 31 and then vote on September xx (leaving enough time for discussion / the proposer to try and sway people's minds etc.)
Post a Comment