Everyone should have this in their e-mail box by now, but for sake of ease, here it is on the blog as well. Voting can take place here in the comments or by e-mail.
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
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
8. Proposed:
Removal of the last place lottery bonus.
Chips based on final finishing order as follows:
First place - 12 chips, through to Last place - 1 chip
9. Proposed:
All teams get one chip in the lottery. (can't work in concert with #9)
If anyone notices any errors, etc. please let me know ASAP.
9 comments:
1. No
2. No (never, ever, never)
3. No
4. No
5. Abstain
6. Yes
7. No
8. Yes
9. No
I'll rule that Mike's votes outweigh my own... and he can cast his ballot however he sees fit... but this way if someone forgets to vote, you have an extra set to call on.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Heh... why not (Yes.) I can't imagine any system keeping me out of 8th place.
4. No
5. Yes
6. No
7. No
8. Appears to be the same proposal as #3, but better. Yes!
9. Yes. Also, notable typo... this rule can't work in concert with itself? That makes it all the more appealling to me. Double yes.
Well if we are doing this publicly, then:
1. YES
2. NO
3. NO
4. NO
5. NO
6. NO
7. YES
8. YES
9. YES
Mike G's SSP proposal - NO
1 no
2 yes
3 no
4 no
5 no
6 no
7 yes
8 yes
9 no
M.G (prop10) no
If you do NOT wish to vote publicly, please cameron or myself (bob)
OK, here goes (without commentary on some of the edits which others are taking credit for without having been the ones who first proposed them :-)
I have listed my votes at the end, but have to put in some commentary first. For those tallying votes, feel free to skip to the end. My apologies for not having 'net access to submit all these thoughts sooner...
Both 1 and 7 seem aimed at the same "problem", which is what to do with an anchor/deadweight player of status (primarily FP) and not have to drag them around on your team. As such, adopting both seems a little silly, and it would have been nice to sort it out on principle first, then vote on how to achieve it (same applies to multiple variations to the lottery).
The other big problem I see is in the case of rule 7, what happens to the trade-eligibility of that non-recall longterm IR player? Can they be traded? If so I assume they would be equally non-recall-able to the new owner, or it becomes a way to end-run around the WD pick cost.
Votes:
1. Yes (Simplicity wins me over in preference to the dogmatic principle of "must have" 2 FPs)
2. No
3. No (actually favour other option!)
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No (redundant to support of #1)
8. Yes
9. No
10. (SSP) While I want to value in-season achievement, I don't want to lose the lottery element, so with thanks to Mike for his efforts, my vote is No.
Best of luck to those tallying, especially with proposals which overlap in concept but not in specifics!
My votes since we seem to be making them public:
1. No
2. Yes cool idea Corey
3. Yes
4. No
5. No
6. Yes Cam, this might be 10-2 ;-)
7. No
8. Yes
9. No
10. Yes (SSP) mainly b/c Mike did all that work ;-)
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
8. No.
9. No
10. Yes
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. Yes
8. Yes
9. No
10. No
Post a Comment