Forums/GM Game 2018-19

2018-19 Gm Game - Messages to the BOG/Commisioner

Apr 17 at 4:55
#926
GM - Avalanche
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,378
Likes: 676
Quoting: ricochetii
Why are people recreating teams now?
I'm wondering if it's better to do it now or wait until RL free agency but I can't decide if it makes a difference since RL things end up reflecting regardless.


If you are in the playoffs, don't.

If you didn't make the playoffs, it doesn't matter. I suggest doing it after Quebec expansion draft.
ricochetii liked this.
Apr 17 at 6:21
#927
Calgary GM v3
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 891
Quoting: ricochetii
Why are people recreating teams now?
I'm wondering if it's better to do it now or wait until RL free agency but I can't decide if it makes a difference since RL things end up reflecting regardless.


We do our free agents (RFA & UFA) before July 1st, so there's no point waiting for RL to happen because we have to decide on new contracts ahead of that.
Plus the sheet that's used as a guideline for contracts usually doesn't get published until the latter part of May.
I've quietly wondered if this is the correct way of doing it based on a few (many) free agent signings back when v3 started compared with what that "real life" player was signed for.
But, that's just me and I understand and follow the rules set forth in our game. It just sucks when you're stuck with a guy whose "in game" contract is so horribly out of whack with what he got in real life.

My other thought on the whole topic is, we are relying on a group of 6-7 people to make the final determination on pretty much every free agent contract in our game.
I know because at this time last year I was one of those 6-7 people, and it wasn't always easy having to go back to someone and tell them they had to increase their offer to one that fit more in line with either some prediction sheet or what "we" felt was right.
What I'd like to see happen, just as an example, if we sign a FA to a certain contract and it turns out the real life number and term is much lower, we're given the option to change it to match. I mean if you've got a guy whose 50% higher in term & cap than what his real life deal is, that's kind of stupid.

Don't take anything I've said the wrong way, the prediction sheet is a pretty good tool and surprisingly comes very close if not bang on with the numbers.
Apr 17 at 6:54
#928
GM - Avalanche
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,378
Likes: 676
Quoting: flamesfan419
We do our free agents (RFA & UFA) before July 1st, so there's no point waiting for RL to happen because we have to decide on new contracts ahead of that.
Plus the sheet that's used as a guideline for contracts usually doesn't get published until the latter part of May.
I've quietly wondered if this is the correct way of doing it based on a few (many) free agent signings back when v3 started compared with what that "real life" player was signed for.
But, that's just me and I understand and follow the rules set forth in our game. It just sucks when you're stuck with a guy whose "in game" contract is so horribly out of whack with what he got in real life.

My other thought on the whole topic is, we are relying on a group of 6-7 people to make the final determination on pretty much every free agent contract in our game.
I know because at this time last year I was one of those 6-7 people, and it wasn't always easy having to go back to someone and tell them they had to increase their offer to one that fit more in line with either some prediction sheet or what "we" felt was right.
What I'd like to see happen, just as an example, if we sign a FA to a certain contract and it turns out the real life number and term is much lower, we're given the option to change it to match. I mean if you've got a guy whose 50% higher in term & cap than what his real life deal is, that's kind of stupid.

Don't take anything I've said the wrong way, the prediction sheet is a pretty good tool and surprisingly comes very close if not bang on with the numbers.


Stupid thing is the Ennis deal in-game is fair value how he played this year.
Apr 17 at 7:29
#929
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,029
Likes: 1,443
Quoting: TMLSage
If you are in the playoffs, don't.

If you didn't make the playoffs, it doesn't matter. I suggest doing it after Quebec expansion draft.


I'll make one now and later and publish the one that is easier to bring in line. smile
Apr 17 at 7:41
#930
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,029
Likes: 1,443
Quoting: flamesfan419
We do our free agents (RFA & UFA) before July 1st, so there's no point waiting for RL to happen because we have to decide on new contracts ahead of that.
Plus the sheet that's used as a guideline for contracts usually doesn't get published until the latter part of May.
I've quietly wondered if this is the correct way of doing it based on a few (many) free agent signings back when v3 started compared with what that "real life" player was signed for.
But, that's just me and I understand and follow the rules set forth in our game. It just sucks when you're stuck with a guy whose "in game" contract is so horribly out of whack with what he got in real life.

My other thought on the whole topic is, we are relying on a group of 6-7 people to make the final determination on pretty much every free agent contract in our game.
I know because at this time last year I was one of those 6-7 people, and it wasn't always easy having to go back to someone and tell them they had to increase their offer to one that fit more in line with either some prediction sheet or what "we" felt was right.
What I'd like to see happen, just as an example, if we sign a FA to a certain contract and it turns out the real life number and term is much lower, we're given the option to change it to match. I mean if you've got a guy whose 50% higher in term & cap than what his real life deal is, that's kind of stupid.

Don't take anything I've said the wrong way, the prediction sheet is a pretty good tool and surprisingly comes very close if not bang on with the numbers.


I understand even though I disagree. If we are matching any contracts though, we have to match them all, not just the ones beneficial to us. I trust myself not to make ridiculous contracts in either direction, but I can't say the same for all other GMs, real and imagined. I don't want either of them making my GM decisions, that's what I'm here for.
The only problem is GMs in our game offering ridiculous contracts. Offer contracts that you think are realistic, not ones that lock every player up long term or structured to win him in free agency. I'd rather be outbid than overpay.
If you trade for one of those ridiculous contracts, that's on you as well.

You should also be able to justify any contract. Use comparables, take into account the length and value players of that kind and/or in that situation may get in real life. If you're significantly wrong, you're bad at your job. Sticking Out Tongue
matt59 and Pross liked this.
Apr 18 at 1:09
#931
@Pointerr21
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,431
Likes: 2,528
Quoting: flamesfan419
Calgary Flames

With the Calgary Hitmen season coming to an end tonight, the Calgary Flames are extremely please to announce the signing of Mark Kastelic (20yr old Center)

Terms of the deal are...
2yrs x $850K


Has to be a 3 year contract due to ELC rules
Apr 18 at 1:12
#932
Calgary GM v3
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 891
Quoting: BoltsPoint21
Has to be a 3 year contract due to ELC rules


No prob, I'll change it to 3yr term
Apr 18 at 5:13
#933
rangersandislesfan
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 26,868
Likes: 2,905
How were the round 2 matchups decided? Does the winner of 1v8 play the winner of 4v5?
Apr 18 at 5:30
#934
Let'sGoBlues | WPGv4
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,259
Likes: 2,422
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
How were the round 2 matchups decided? Does the winner of 1v8 play the winner of 4v5?


yes, it's a static bracket based on the original seeding. home ice is awarded to the better seed (ex. #8 WSH @ #4 BOS). Full playoff bracket is in the scoring sheet on the "Playoffs and Draft" tab.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11kF_rV7vT8q2KNcwX3ClKLzQaQ_Mz9igZUNyAhbkT4w/edit?usp=sharing
rangersandislesfan liked this.
Apr 20 at 2:19
#935
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,932
Likes: 1,337
Post 13 in the UFA Awards outlines some players that got chosen from our NCAA signing binge.

Arizona ended up signing Bobo Carpenter and Chicago signed Joseph Dusdak in that post.

I believe Arizona or NYR have Dusdak and Minnesota has Carpenter. Are the original UFA signings null and void?

Just as an example, Minnesota signed a ton of Free Agents during the UFA signing period but 75% of those players signed are not on their roster or in their description. I remember having a "purge period" but did Minnesota remove those signings during that period?
Apr 20 at 2:26
#936
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,932
Likes: 1,337
Also are you guys able to offer a resolution to the trade that happened between Beanie and Turner?

I was told by a BoG member (I believe Dylan G and A-K) that the trade was null and void, but Turner heard the opposite from other BoG members, if not the same ones.

The trade was

Petr Mrazek (who should be in the loophole contracts, 1M x 7 years)
Minnesota 2nd 2019

For

Jordan Staal
4th (Forget the Team)

Unfortunately I traded the Minnesota 2nd under the assumption that the deal was null and void. Neither roster has Mrazek or Staal, so hopefully we can come to a resolution with the help of the BoG
Apr 20 at 2:29
#937
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,147
Likes: 1,098
Quoting: jmac490
Post 13 in the UFA Awards outlines some players that got chosen from our NCAA signing binge.

Arizona ended up signing Bobo Carpenter and Chicago signed Joseph Dusdak in that post.

I believe Arizona or NYR have Dusdak and Minnesota has Carpenter. Are the original UFA signings null and void?

Just as an example, Minnesota signed a ton of Free Agents during the UFA signing period but 75% of those players signed are not on their roster or in their description. I remember having a "purge period" but did Minnesota remove those signings during that period?


Yes I believe this is the case. As for Carpenter and Duszak we will look into them.

Quoting: jmac490
Also are you guys able to offer a resolution to the trade that happened between Beanie and Turner?

I was told by a BoG member (I believe Dylan G and A-K) that the trade was null and void, but Turner heard the opposite from other BoG members, if not the same ones.

The trade was

Petr Mrazek (who should be in the loophole contracts, 1M x 7 years)
Minnesota 2nd 2019

For

Jordan Staal
4th (Forget the Team)

Unfortunately I traded the Minnesota 2nd under the assumption that the deal was null and void. Neither roster has Mrazek or Staal, so hopefully we can come to a resolution with the help of the BoG


DM me and we'll talk about this further.
Apr 20 at 2:29
#938
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,147
Likes: 1,098
Deleted
Apr 20 at 2:59
#939
Oui non grille-pain
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,790
Likes: 1,216
Quoting: jmac490
Post 13 in the UFA Awards outlines some players that got chosen from our NCAA signing binge.

Arizona ended up signing Bobo Carpenter and Chicago signed Joseph Dusdak in that post.

I believe Arizona or NYR have Dusdak and Minnesota has Carpenter. Are the original UFA signings null and void?

Just as an example, Minnesota signed a ton of Free Agents during the UFA signing period but 75% of those players signed are not on their roster or in their description. I remember having a "purge period" but did Minnesota remove those signings during that period?


Those signings were deemed illegal, if I'm not mistaken. Some of my other signings (basically all of the undrafted guys except Kevin Lankinen) were deemed illegal for that reason as well.

Then there were multiple guys who were terminated irl (Anton Rodin, Jan Kovar, Sergei Shumakov). And others that I traded (Kevin Gravel, Roman Polak). So that's where my UFAs went.
Apr 20 at 6:27
#940
GM - Avalanche
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,378
Likes: 676
Quoting: Icegirl
Those signings were deemed illegal, if I'm not mistaken. Some of my other signings (basically all of the undrafted guys except Kevin Lankinen) were deemed illegal for that reason as well.

Then there were multiple guys who were terminated irl (Anton Rodin, Jan Kovar, Sergei Shumakov). And others that I traded (Kevin Gravel, Roman Polak). So that's where my UFAs went.


I thought we were supposed to get first dibs but who knows.
Apr 21 at 1:29
#941
Oui non grille-pain
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 5,790
Likes: 1,216
Quoting: TMLSage
I thought we were supposed to get first dibs but who knows.


I think that was only for guys who were terminated for not signing irl deals (such as Lee Stempniak). When you signed Duszak (among others), and when I signed a bunch of guys such as Jack Gorniak, those were illegal signings.
Apr 24 at 5:35
#942
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,029
Likes: 1,443
I think we really need to enforce better pick tracking in trades.
Where picks are recorded, they should always be written with the round, team, and year. ie: 2nd (BUF - 2019)
Too often I see people just writing "2019 4rd" or "Arizona's 2nd". Sometimes they just put something ambiguous like "a 3rd".

Trades involving roster players shouldn't be reversed. If it's just prospects and picks involved, that's different, but player stats have been used to determine results and teams with or without players may have had different results. This chain reaction scenario of one pick impacting several trades, should mean the team that started the chain is responsible for making whole the team at the end of the chain.
I didn't quite follow what Bo was trying to explain happened, but as an example:

BUF trades 2nd to CAR - CAR trades 2nd to CGY
If BUF didn't own the 2nd they traded to CAR, then BUF now "owes" CGY a 2nd
Why BUF traded a 2nd they didn't own to CAR, doesn't matter to CAR or CGY
All that matters is that BUF compensates CGY for the initial mistake
As long as those teams reach an agreement, everything is fine.

If BUF was negligent, the BOG can determine appropriate compensation and deliver it to CGY if they are unable to come to an agreement.
If it was an inherited mistake, then the BOG can assist/mediate the parties in coming to an agreement if they are unable to do so independently.

In either case, it's not like BUF is getting ripped off by making whole CGY. They made the initial trade without giving anything up, and believing they had a pick originally doesn't change the fact that it was an asset not owned by BUF.
Bo53Horvat liked this.
Apr 24 at 5:43
#943
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,147
Likes: 1,098
Quoting: ricochetii
I think we really need to enforce better pick tracking in trades.
Where picks are recorded, they should always be written with the round, team, and year. ie: 2nd (BUF - 2019)
Too often I see people just writing "2019 4rd" or "Arizona's 2nd". Sometimes they just put something ambiguous like "a 3rd".

Trades involving roster players shouldn't be reversed. If it's just prospects and picks involved, that's different, but player stats have been used to determine results and teams with or without players may have had different results. This chain reaction scenario of one pick impacting several trades, should mean the team that started the chain is responsible for making whole the team at the end of the chain.
I didn't quite follow what Bo was trying to explain happened, but as an example:

BUF trades 2nd to CAR - CAR trades 2nd to CGY
If BUF didn't own the 2nd they traded to CAR, then BUF now "owes" CGY a 2nd
Why BUF traded a 2nd they didn't own to CAR, doesn't matter to CAR or CGY
All that matters is that BUF compensates CGY for the initial mistake
As long as those teams reach an agreement, everything is fine.

If BUF was negligent, the BOG can determine appropriate compensation and deliver it to CGY if they are unable to come to an agreement.
If it was an inherited mistake, then the BOG can assist/mediate the parties in coming to an agreement if they are unable to do so independently.

In either case, it's not like BUF is getting ripped off by making whole CGY. They made the initial trade without giving anything up, and believing they had a pick originally doesn't change the fact that it was an asset not owned by BUF.


I agree. Some of our past protocols and requirements have been lackadaisical. We plan on having better trade tracking in the future to avoid instances like this.
ricochetii liked this.
Apr 24 at 6:46
#944
Calgary GM v3
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 891
Quoting: Bo53Horvat
@Missouri @jmac490 @flamesfan419 @Turner33 @Daryl

The Raanta trade will be corrected by sending the PHI 2019 2nd which was supposed to be on BUF, rather than the MIN 2019 2nd


Just so this stays out of the News thread I'll put my response here.

I am in favor of the above solution to the draft pick situation regarding the MIN 2nd.
Let me know either here or Twitter if the BOG accepts this and inform me to go ahead and replace the pick on my team page.

Remove MIN 2nd
Replace with PHI 2nd
**maybe as a bonus for not arguing or questioning this, perhaps you'll grant me that 7th rd pick that was forfieted by some team for being non compliant to the rules a while back smile smile
No? Bad idea? Ahh, guys gotta try, am I right
jmac490 and Bo53Horvat liked this.
Apr 24 at 6:49
#945
@Pointerr21
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,431
Likes: 2,528
Quoting: flamesfan419
Just so this stays out of the News thread I'll put my response here.

I am in favor of the above solution to the draft pick situation regarding the MIN 2nd.
Let me know either here or Twitter if the BOG accepts this and inform me to go ahead and replace the pick on my team page.

Remove MIN 2nd
Replace with PHI 2nd
**maybe as a bonus for not arguing or questioning this, perhaps you'll grant me that 7th rd pick that was forfieted by some team for being non compliant to the rules a while back smile smile
No? Bad idea? Ahh, guys gotta try, am I right


ok, this is how it works....

I get the forfeited stuff for free because I'm BOG
Max liked this.
Apr 24 at 6:51
#946
Calgary GM v3
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 891
Quoting: BoltsPoint21
ok, this is how it works....

I get the forfeited stuff for free because I'm BOG


I think you're a little young to get caught with "greasy palms"
Apr 24 at 6:53
#947
@Pointerr21
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,431
Likes: 2,528
Quoting: flamesfan419
I think you're a little young to get caught with "greasy palms"


good thing I'm actually 35
Apr 24 at 6:59
#948
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,147
Likes: 1,098
Quoting: flamesfan419
Just so this stays out of the News thread I'll put my response here.

I am in favor of the above solution to the draft pick situation regarding the MIN 2nd.
Let me know either here or Twitter if the BOG accepts this and inform me to go ahead and replace the pick on my team page.

Remove MIN 2nd
Replace with PHI 2nd
**maybe as a bonus for not arguing or questioning this, perhaps you'll grant me that 7th rd pick that was forfieted by some team for being non compliant to the rules a while back smile smile
No? Bad idea? Ahh, guys gotta try, am I right


Thanks for being so awesome and understanding about this!
flamesfan419, Max and Missouri liked this.
Apr 25 at 4:53
#949
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,107
Likes: 911
Quoting: Bo53Horvat
If you don't leave, we'll have to speak to the MODs. We all agreed if you kept this up there would be no more chances


Where did I harass her in game? Because I’ve been sure not to mention her or anything related to the Zucker incident in game and that’s all you guys have authority over
Apr 25 at 5:47
#950
V3 Canucks GM, BOG
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 652
Quoting: Max
Where did I harass her in game? Because I’ve been sure not to mention her or anything related to the Zucker incident in game and that’s all you guys have authority over


Hmm, let me think,

There was #****Kayla
There was Max: 3, the ****: 0
There was Kayla can go **** herself

Oh and that was after we gave you ONE last chance not three.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll