|
|
Post by Jerry on Nov 28, 2008 12:40:25 GMT -5
This poll will close by noon Sunday.
I would like to get a consensus on this so i can process or deny the trade that is pending.
These rules will most likely be set for next season - it's just a matter of whether most of the GMs would like to see it happen now.
|
|
|
|
Post by otters gm on Nov 29, 2008 7:32:19 GMT -5
if we started the season that way ...we should keep it to be fair ..but we should follow the real OHL for sure ...starting next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Nov 30, 2008 12:09:19 GMT -5
So we have 4 votes for A
7 votes for B
3 votes for no change.
So it appears that for now, GMs are willing to go with a no trade on players picked in the first round, until Jan.1 but are allowing the trading of 1st round picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Nov 30, 2008 12:13:08 GMT -5
ROUND 1
POS. Player Chosen
1 John McFarland
2 Erik Gudbranson
3 Steven Shipley
4 Greg McKegg
5 Ryan O'Connor
6 John Carlson
7 Ryan Sthingyer
8 Tyler Toffoli
9 Brandon Saad
10 Brock Beukeboom
11 Austin Watson
12 Devante Smith-Pelly
13 Gregg Sutch
14 Cody MacNaughton
15 Jeff Skinner
16 Freddie Hamilton
17 Sam Carrick
18 Christian Thomas
19 Stephen Silas
20 Kevin Bailie
That would make these 20 players unavailable in trades, until Jan.1/09.
|
|
|
|
Post by spitfires on Nov 30, 2008 12:23:59 GMT -5
To me it looks like the results indicate that 4 (which would be the majority) wanted A & B which would be no trading future 1st round picks and no trading players drafted in the 1st round until Jan.
Just my way of looking at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devils GM on Nov 30, 2008 13:46:31 GMT -5
i agree with windsor. both a and b should be followed based on majority vote.
does that mean that a GM can't even put the movement of a 1st rd dp in "future considerations" to be effective january 2nd say if the deal was agreed to on nov.1st, for example?
|
|
|
|
Post by Devils GM on Nov 30, 2008 13:47:54 GMT -5
also, for those 10 gm's that never even participated in the poll, are you going to do something about their lack of participation or interest?
don't mean to sound harsh, but don't we want 100% participation unless there is a sound reason of one's non-involvement?
just my .02
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Dec 1, 2008 20:28:31 GMT -5
OK - I should have explain.
A vote for A and B is really a vote for each.
So add 4 votes to A which is 4.
Add 4 votes to B which is then 8.
Then 4 votes not to change anything.
So if we go with A and B, that means that 4 votes win and 6 lose - that doesn't seem fair, since more votes were against A then for it.
Where there were 8 votes combined for B, which is more than any against.
hope that makes sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by coltsgm on Dec 2, 2008 1:09:22 GMT -5
I was voting A and B with the impression that if that wont he majority then both A and B would be used. Thats basically throwing our vote away becasue the only votes that made an impact were the ones that voted only A or only B
|
|
|
|
Post by spitfires on Dec 2, 2008 8:19:19 GMT -5
I voted for A & B with that same thinking. Either both rules should apply or neither one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Dec 2, 2008 10:11:04 GMT -5
also, for those 10 gm's that never even participated in the poll, are you going to do something about their lack of participation or interest? don't mean to sound harsh, but don't we want 100% participation unless there is a sound reason of one's non-involvement? just my .02 We seem to have the same 10-12 guys that are into the league and contribute. I agree that we should do something about it. I did get on Mississauga and made a change there. There are a few others that need to consider their commitment. I think some may not even have joined the forum to be able to vote and others rarely set lines. Most do stop by every few days - and that keeps me from getting too strict. This is your league (and Mike's as he started and oversees it all) and if we need to get tough - then I'm good for it. Maybe we'll draw more interest if there are teams available to take NOW. Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Dec 2, 2008 10:16:41 GMT -5
As for the vote....
I also wanted both options but it still appears that only 4 out of 10 wanted both options, and that would have left the majority left out.
In a sense, everyone who votes A and B were given two votes, with the way I did the math. So really your votes weren't wasted, they were doubled.
I am certainly up for changes but I didn't want to pull the rug right out from everyone's feet.
I think maybe a rules committee is in order that could help get us inline with real OHL rules and we could post those rules before the draft and get everyone tuned up for the next season.
With only 6 weeks left to trade, I figured we could live with the rules we started with and ramp up for next season.
Is that acceptable or is this a real thorn in the side of anyone?
I'd go full OHL rules, salaries, farms and the whole deal - if I was starting the league from scratch. But I think we need time to bring everyone up to speed so they can plan and anticipate the changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by BramptonBattalion on Dec 3, 2008 9:58:33 GMT -5
Well everything was supposed to be next season anyways was it not? The changes can't be made now half way through the year. Plus voting A&B means implementing both... and it won, so I don't see how you're trying to do the math, as it is a poll, simple as that.
There is no "farm" in the real OHL so I don' t know how you plan on implementing that next season, but I think its fine the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry on Dec 3, 2008 11:04:58 GMT -5
The farm system in the OHL is called Tier II Jr. A affliliates - all teams have one or more affiliates that they send players to for development and call up from, in emergencies. Sounds like a farm system to me (even though it's not one big organized league, as geography comes into play.) By next season most teams will be building an organization big enough to field a farm team. It'll exist in theory - if not actually. A farm system wouldn't affect anything that goes on in the league and would requre 0 (zero) effort by a GM (if so chose.) So whether there's a farm or not, things would still be fine, the way they are. Regardless, I never said we were starting a farm - read more carefully - "if I was starting the league from scratch" were my exact words.
Reading the poll and associated comments would have provided you with a more thorough understanding of the vote and it's implications and implementations. I will not impose the will of 4 on a majority of 6 - it's not democratic or fair. It's as simple as that. Keep in mind I did vote for A and B, so my actions are not self serving - just respectful to those that didn't vote the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by BramptonBattalion on Dec 4, 2008 10:55:07 GMT -5
Nice to see we're turning into the Canadian government... lol
|
|
