Hi all,
Sorry for the delay, but I am back in the "real" world, and wrapping up talks with Rob and Bob. Here's what you can expect:
1) A decision on the formula for goalie stats for the current year
2) A concise summary of proposals for consideration, which we would like to narrow to the most popular 1 (or 2) for a formal vote on draft day (or before if we can manage it) to see if we have the requisite 75% support for any changes that would take effect Fall 09
On a personal note, having just read 2 months worth of blog debate, I am yet again saddened by the fact that we cannot go a single year without discussions being unnecessarily harsh, personal, and negative. Perhaps we need a rule change on what constitutes appropriate GM conduct in a public forum?
:-)
Dan
6 comments:
Actually, the covenant says rules can be changed for CURRENT year with a 75% majority - thus fall 2008. We made this rule change a couple/few years back (ie the year we immediately implemented rule that you can only use ED to choose players who had played in at least 1 NHL game).
Then I submit that the covenant (as written) is incorrect in this regard. We require unanimity for THIS year, but only 75% for NEXT year.
The exception is for the adjustment of goaltender stats which is done by the DC and expected (as 50% of noted) to be done in .5 increments.
Well, I know I voted "No" against the rule change re. prospects that was implemented in the same year, while a couple/few GMs abstained and Bill did not get back to us with a vote but would have voted no. Hmm. This would probably be a good rule to review. The rule about changing rules.
Actually the rules are already clear. Changes for the impending year (ie a change for 08) require unanimity. Changes for future years require 75% (9 of 12) support. If we didn't follow our own rules in the past, shame on us I guess...
Bill and Brian did indeed vote 'no' to the proposal on changing prospects - but it passed with greater than 75% and was implemented for the FOLLOWING year as per our rules.
So there is no 'shame on us', we followed the rules as constructed.
Actually, it passed in the exact same year - I remember like it was yesterday. I traded 2 first round picks in the last year I won, 1 each to Cam and to Doug. In that next ED, we changed the prospect rules enabling Cam to pick Backstrom and Doug to pick Kessel. I would probably have asked for more back if I had known the rule was goign to change - which was Bill's exact argument as well and what led him to leave the pool. I was a tad more mollified than Bill because I had won but it was still quite annoying.
Post a Comment