Only GMs will vote, no AGMs. And GMs of the teams involved AND GMs of the teams that own 1st round picks of the teams involved will not be able to vote on those series.
So what's all the discussion about unfair voting for? If teams with 1sts from that team can't vote, i think that solves the problem. I don't think the 2nds, 3rds, etc will cause unfair voting. Also, just to confirm, it's only if another team owns their 2019 1st that they can't vote, right? (Example: Dallas owns Tampa Bay's 2020 1st round pick. Tampa Bay is playing Columbus in the playoffs. Tampa Bay and Columbus each still have their own 1st round picks in 2019. Am i correct that Dallas could vote on the series?)
I guess so. Like I said, I just thought it brought a nice balance when you look at who has the better top-end guys and who has the better all-around depth... but I said we can let other opinions be heard and TonyStrecher seems to agree with you so I'm in the minority right now. Looks like we're going to re-structure the point totals anyway so I'll probably end up cutting that category when we do.
What if we have 2 forward categories but no "offence" category? Just an idea, but that could work if we go "top 9 forwards" and "depth forwards". On defence we could do "top 4 defence" and "defence depth". Just throwing an idea out there.
So what's all the discussion about unfair voting for? If teams with 1sts from that team can't vote, i think that solves the problem. I don't think the 2nds, 3rds, etc will cause unfair voting. Also, just to confirm, it's only if another team owns their 2019 1st that they can't vote, right? (Example: Dallas owns Tampa Bay's 2020 1st round pick. Tampa Bay is playing Columbus in the playoffs. Tampa Bay and Columbus each still have their own 1st round picks in 2019. Am i correct that Dallas could vote on the series?)
Yeah, the discussion triggered some of these changes. I think voting transparency should help too, if you have to defend your decisions. And yes, only the 2019 1sts are implicated.
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
What if we have 2 forward categories but no "offence" category? Just an idea, but that could work if we go "top 9 forwards" and "depth forwards". On defence we could do "top 4 defence" and "defence depth". Just throwing an idea out there.
Interesting, but I think using an overall category for offense and defense might get people to think about these same things while also accounting for forwards that excel on defense and offensive d-men.
One thing we've been discussing is using the final standings (which rank Forwards and Defensemen) to define a sort of "pre-matchup advantage". Would be similar to home-ice advantage but something that we can directly quantify thanks to our standings...
Yeah, the discussion triggered some of these changes. I think voting transparency should help too, if you have to defend your decisions. And yes, only the 2019 1sts are implicated.
Interesting, but I think using an overall category for offense and defense might get people to think about these same things while also accounting for forwards that excel on defense and offensive d-men.
One thing we've been discussing is using the final standings (which rank Forwards and Defensemen) to define a sort of "pre-matchup advantage". Would be similar to home-ice advantage but something that we can directly quantify thanks to our standings...
"Defence" as in official position of defence or how well the whole team is defensively? Same with offence. I didn't think of that.
Obviously yeah, but I wanted to be abke to fit it all on 1 line
If you have a full offer send it to me on twitter. MacKinnon is definitely the least likely to be moved but I will hear out offers, mainly because I'm bored and nobody seems to like the other players on my team.