Forums/GM Game 2019-20

2019-20 GM Game - Messages to the BOG

May 5 at 9:15
#1
TBL GM and BOG v4
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,342
Likes: 430
Use this thread to inform the BOG about any concerns, questions, ideas, etc that you may have. Use this thread only for that purpose please.

BOG:

@TonyStrecher
@Bo53Horvat
@TabooPenguo
@l9guysports
@Gronk
@A_K
May 11 at 1:01
#2
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,979
Likes: 1,063
Who do I talk to for my rfa extensions?
May 11 at 1:27
#3
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 6,925
Likes: 1,332
Quoting: Turner33
Who do I talk to for my rfa extensions?


@TabooPenguo for Metro Discussions
Turner33 liked this.
May 12 at 11:40
#4
Calgary GM v3
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 880
Quoting: flamesfan419
According to the schedule, May 10 - June 18 is blocked off for RFA extensions.
Does that mean we can do ALL our RFAs now? It'd be nice to get them over with if so.
May 12 at 11:59
#5
I'm the Captain now
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 695
Quoting: flamesfan419


Responded in GD thread
May 12 at 12:08
#6
Blues GM v4
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,001
Likes: 2,383
Whomst would I go to for Central Division RFAs?
l9guysports and Zwui21 liked this.
May 12 at 12:10
#7
I'm the Captain now
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 695
Quoting: krakowitz
Whomst would I go to for Central Division RFAs?


Whomst've'st by the name of @l9guysports
krakowitz and l9guysports liked this.
May 13 at 2:48
#8
Calgary GM v3
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 880
Lost in all the excitement over the pending expansion draft, The BOG should remind everyone to check their "Reserve Lists" and deal with any players who need to either be signed or released by June 1st 2019.
I had 2 who fit that. Signed 1 and will be releasing the other to free agency.
Max and rangersandislesfan liked this.
May 14 at 9:57
#9
GM - Avalanche
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,270
Likes: 648
Who does central Rfa extensions?
We are still using v3 schedule for the draft right?
May 14 at 10:00
#10
Let'sGoBlues | WPGv4
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2,360
Quoting: TMLSage
Who does central Rfa extensions?
We are still using v3 schedule for the draft right?


@L9guysports does the central

Quoting: A_K
v4 Schedule

This schedule is subject to change. Always follow the News and Info Thread for specific deadlines provided by the BOG.
May 14 at 10:09
#11
GM - Avalanche
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 3,270
Likes: 648
Quoting: A_K
@L9guysports does the central


Petition to move back the entry draft back 1 or a few days so there it isn't all rushed.
May 14 at 10:21
#12
Let'sGoBlues | WPGv4
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2,360
Quoting: TMLSage
Petition to move back the entry draft back 1 or a few days so there it isn't all rushed.


It will likely fall back a day or two, schedule is tentative.
May 15 at 5:17
#13
V3 Canucks GM, BOG
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 651
Quoting: A_K
This is forever a hot topic - please see our latest rule adjustments to the trade revision/reversal process in the rules doc

tl;dr BOG votes on flagged trades. It takes a majority vote to reverse. Reversed trades still count against trade limits for each team. If GMs want to revise a reversed deal, it will be done as a separate trade, posted in the Official Trades thread, and subject to BOG further review/reversal. BOG can advise, but will not re-create revised deals - it must be done by the GMs.

Use the Msg to BOG thread for any questions on this ruling.

***do not post in this thread, Mike***


I want to start off by mentioning that all you guys on the BOG are awesome and I really appreciate all the hard work you guys put into the game.

Before I get to how horrible this rule is, do you honestly think it's fair to apply it to trades that happened before it was actually a rule? You can't make up a new rule and then apply it to trades that happened in the past. If there was anything left that I could resign from in protest I would. This is a horrible misuse of power.

Now let's start with changing the rules to only a majority being needed to reverse a trade. Before I was kicked from the BOG chat yesterday, I helpfully mentioned that I thought this was a horrible idea and now I'll elaborate on why that is.

First off I urge you guys to look over the trade votes from V3, every one of the BOG members voted to keep a trade that was eventually kept, but would have been reversed if we only needed a majority to reverse.

27 trades were brought up for revision in V3 and 12 of them received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was voted on for revision, there was a 55.6% chance that it would need to be revised.

Looking at those 27 trades, if we changed the rules to only needing a majority of votes for revisions, only 6 of them would have received enough votes to be kept. That increases the likelihood of a trade voted on for revision actually needing revision to 77.8%.

If you look at trades that weren't unanimous, meaning that at least one BOG member voted for both keep and revise, there are 13 trades where BOG members disagreed. Of those 13 trades, 7 received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was brought up for revision and just one BOG member thought your trade was fine, it would only have a 46.2% chance of needing to be revised.

Make it so only a majority of votes are needed for revision and only ONE of those 13 trades would have received enough votes to be kept. That changes the chance of a trade where BOG members disagree amongst themselves being reversed to 92.3%.

So to recap using the trades from V3 as a sample size, you're increasing the chances of a trade where BOG members have disagreement about whether it's fair or not getting enough votes to be reversed from 46.2% to 92.3%. Basically you are eliminating the power of any disagreement within the BOG. As soon as one BOG member votes for revision, the chances of it being reversed, using V3 as a sample size, would be 96.3%.

What really interests me about this rule is why the hell you guys actually want to do it, I honestly don't see a single good reason why it is a good idea. I would highly reccomend that you guys go back to the V3 rules that any trade that gets more than one keep vote will be kept, especially considering that you are now harshly punishing GMs who have their trades revised.


That brings me to the second part of the rule, you have decided to punish GMs who have their trade reversed by counting reversed trades towards the offseason limit.

First off I'd like to point out that this rules will not only effect GMs who make good trades, it will also have the exact same effect on teams who are taken advantage of and make bad trades. Punishing GMs who get taken advantage of simply makes no sense.

Even just punishing GMs who make good trades and maybe take advantage of other GMs by counting their reversed trades towards the limits makes no sense. I have always been strongly against the trade limits, because they only lead to two things, increased inactivity and boredom with the game and teams making trades that count towards future months limits weeks in advance (something that led to a number of issues in V3). If you want to punish GMs who may take advantage of other GMs, fine them draft picks or something, don't reduce their trade limit. If you're really set on this rule, I would reccomend at least increasing all teams offseason trade limits. All you're asking for with this rule is increased inactivity and confusion over future months trades. If you want to make this game better, the absolute last thing that you want to do is limit trades any more than they already are.

Thanks again for all your hard work
MrBooth, TMLSage, alwaysnextyear and 5 others liked this.
May 15 at 5:43
#14
Let'sGoBlues | WPGv4
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2,360
Quoting: TonyStrecher
I want to start off by mentioning that all you guys on the BOG are awesome and I really appreciate all the hard work you guys put into the game.

Before I get to how horrible this rule is, do you honestly think it's fair to apply it to trades that happened before it was actually a rule? You can't make up a new rule and then apply it to trades that happened in the past. If there was anything left that I could resign from in protest I would. This is a horrible misuse of power.

Now let's start with changing the rules to only a majority being needed to reverse a trade. Before I was kicked from the BOG chat yesterday, I helpfully mentioned that I thought this was a horrible idea and now I'll elaborate on why that is.

First off I urge you guys to look over the trade votes from V3, every one of the BOG members voted to keep a trade that was eventually kept, but would have been reversed if we only needed a majority to reverse.

27 trades were brought up for revision in V3 and 12 of them received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was voted on for revision, there was a 55.6% chance that it would need to be revised.

Looking at those 27 trades, if we changed the rules to only needing a majority of votes for revisions, only 6 of them would have received enough votes to be kept. That increases the likelihood of a trade voted on for revision actually needing revision to 77.8%.

If you look at trades that weren't unanimous, meaning that at least one BOG member voted for both keep and revise, there are 13 trades where BOG members disagreed. Of those 13 trades, 7 received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was brought up for revision and just one BOG member thought your trade was fine, it would only have a 46.2% chance of needing to be revised.

Make it so only a majority of votes are needed for revision and only ONE of those 13 trades would have received enough votes to be kept. That changes the chance of a trade where BOG members disagree amongst themselves being reversed to 92.3%.

So to recap using the trades from V3 as a sample size, you're increasing the chances of a trade where BOG members have disagreement about whether it's fair or not getting enough votes to be reversed from 46.2% to 92.3%. Basically you are eliminating the power of any disagreement within the BOG. As soon as one BOG member votes for revision, the chances of it being reversed, using V3 as a sample size, would be 96.3%.

What really interests me about this rule is why the hell you guys actually want to do it, I honestly don't see a single good reason why it is a good idea. I would highly reccomend that you guys go back to the V3 rules that any trade that gets more than one keep vote will be kept, especially considering that you are now harshly punishing GMs who have their trades revised.


That brings me to the second part of the rule, you have decided to punish GMs who have their trade reversed by counting reversed trades towards the offseason limit.

First off I'd like to point out that this rules will not only effect GMs who make good trades, it will also have the exact same effect on teams who are taken advantage of and make bad trades. Punishing GMs who get taken advantage of simply makes no sense.

Even just punishing GMs who make good trades and maybe take advantage of other GMs by counting their reversed trades towards the limits makes no sense. I have always been strongly against the trade limits, because they only lead to two things, increased inactivity and boredom with the game and teams making trades that count towards future months limits weeks in advance (something that led to a number of issues in V3). If you want to punish GMs who may take advantage of other GMs, fine them draft picks or something, don't reduce their trade limit. If you're really set on this rule, I would reccomend at least increasing all teams offseason trade limits. All you're asking for with this rule is increased inactivity and confusion over future months trades. If you want to make this game better, the absolute last thing that you want to do is limit trades any more than they already are.

Thanks again for all your hard work


We aren't ignoring this, we've discussed it on twitter and will be implementing some slight changes to the rules. Thanks for the feedback.
Daryl liked this.
May 15 at 6:14
#15
rangersandislesfan
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 26,846
Likes: 2,895
Quoting: TonyStrecher
I want to start off by mentioning that all you guys on the BOG are awesome and I really appreciate all the hard work you guys put into the game.

Before I get to how horrible this rule is, do you honestly think it's fair to apply it to trades that happened before it was actually a rule? You can't make up a new rule and then apply it to trades that happened in the past. If there was anything left that I could resign from in protest I would. This is a horrible misuse of power.

Now let's start with changing the rules to only a majority being needed to reverse a trade. Before I was kicked from the BOG chat yesterday, I helpfully mentioned that I thought this was a horrible idea and now I'll elaborate on why that is.

First off I urge you guys to look over the trade votes from V3, every one of the BOG members voted to keep a trade that was eventually kept, but would have been reversed if we only needed a majority to reverse.

27 trades were brought up for revision in V3 and 12 of them received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was voted on for revision, there was a 55.6% chance that it would need to be revised.

Looking at those 27 trades, if we changed the rules to only needing a majority of votes for revisions, only 6 of them would have received enough votes to be kept. That increases the likelihood of a trade voted on for revision actually needing revision to 77.8%.

If you look at trades that weren't unanimous, meaning that at least one BOG member voted for both keep and revise, there are 13 trades where BOG members disagreed. Of those 13 trades, 7 received enough votes to be kept, meaning that if your trade was brought up for revision and just one BOG member thought your trade was fine, it would only have a 46.2% chance of needing to be revised.

Make it so only a majority of votes are needed for revision and only ONE of those 13 trades would have received enough votes to be kept. That changes the chance of a trade where BOG members disagree amongst themselves being reversed to 92.3%.

So to recap using the trades from V3 as a sample size, you're increasing the chances of a trade where BOG members have disagreement about whether it's fair or not getting enough votes to be reversed from 46.2% to 92.3%. Basically you are eliminating the power of any disagreement within the BOG. As soon as one BOG member votes for revision, the chances of it being reversed, using V3 as a sample size, would be 96.3%.

What really interests me about this rule is why the hell you guys actually want to do it, I honestly don't see a single good reason why it is a good idea. I would highly reccomend that you guys go back to the V3 rules that any trade that gets more than one keep vote will be kept, especially considering that you are now harshly punishing GMs who have their trades revised.


That brings me to the second part of the rule, you have decided to punish GMs who have their trade reversed by counting reversed trades towards the offseason limit.

First off I'd like to point out that this rules will not only effect GMs who make good trades, it will also have the exact same effect on teams who are taken advantage of and make bad trades. Punishing GMs who get taken advantage of simply makes no sense.

Even just punishing GMs who make good trades and maybe take advantage of other GMs by counting their reversed trades towards the limits makes no sense. I have always been strongly against the trade limits, because they only lead to two things, increased inactivity and boredom with the game and teams making trades that count towards future months limits weeks in advance (something that led to a number of issues in V3). If you want to punish GMs who may take advantage of other GMs, fine them draft picks or something, don't reduce their trade limit. If you're really set on this rule, I would reccomend at least increasing all teams offseason trade limits. All you're asking for with this rule is increased inactivity and confusion over future months trades. If you want to make this game better, the absolute last thing that you want to do is limit trades any more than they already are.

Thanks again for all your hard work


I don't mind the trade limit, especially now that it is 6 per month (unless i'm wrong, I feel like i read that it's now 6). However, I don't think reversed trades should count toward the limit.

I agree about the votes. I think especially now that there are only 5 BOG members, they all must agree to reverse/revise the trade.

Another thing i'd like to point out, though, is that I only like the idea of revising/reversing trades if it seems they are just made as a joke or to get people talking, etc. Like Booth in v1 as an example that one time. (Sorry, Booth Sticking Out Tongue) Bad trades happen in real life, and they don't have anyone to reverse the trade for them. Here's an example of what I think should NOT be reversed:

Montreal Canadiens
Artem Anisimov

Chicago Blackhawks
1st round pick 2019
2nd round pick 2020

Idk if these teams even have these picks, but I just picked some random teams and a random trade as an example. Is Anisimov worth 15OA and a 2nd? No. But is it something that a GM could do? Yes, and I don't think it should be reversed. It's not made just to get people talking or anything like that. I'm not saying wmjoncar is a bad GM or anything, this trade is just an example.

Here is what I think SHOULD be reversed:

Edmonton Oilers
Auston Matthews

Toronto Maple Leafs
Ty Rattie
2nd round pick 2019
3rd round pick 2020

This deal is obviously made just to get people talking, as a joke, etc. Once again, not saying Pross would make a trade just to get people talking. Using random teams again. But this trade is 100% 1-sided and not a real trade to help the team.

Just my opinion on trades being revised/reversed.
May 16 at 12:17
#16
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,922
Likes: 2,060
Edited May 18 at 8:59
@Gronk These good?

Jake Bischoff 2 years @ $874 125
Tomas Hyka 2 years @ $715 000
Jimmy Schultd 3 years @ $874 125
Tomas Nosek qualified @ 1 year $1 000 000
Alex Gallant go to UFA
Tobias Lindberg go to UFA
May 16 at 1:47
#17
I'm the Captain now
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 695
Quoting: DirtyDangles
@Gronk These good?

Jake Bischoff 2 years @ $874 125
Tomas Hyka 2 years @ $715 000
Jimmy Schultd 3 years @ $874 125
Zach Fucale goes to UFA
Tomas Nosek qualified @ 1 year $1 000 000
Alex Gallant go to UFA
Tobias Lindberg go to UFA


Idk why you stopped this on Twitter lmao. Dms
May 17 at 5:30
#18
we can.. and we will
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 5,657
Likes: 1,248
where do we post our player rights signings?
May 17 at 5:55
#19
Let'sGoBlues | WPGv4
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2,360
Quoting: Daryl
where do we post our player rights signings?


I think the reserve list feature has eliminated the need to make a thread for those. So unless I'm mistaken they can just be listed in your team description.
Daryl liked this.
May 18 at 7:36
#20
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,922
Likes: 2,060
Vegas is not exempt from this expansion like they are IRL right?
A_K liked this.
May 18 at 7:37
#21
Let'sGoBlues | WPGv4
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 2,360
Quoting: DirtyDangles
Vegas is not exempt from this expansion like they are IRL right?


That's correct, all 31 teams are subject to this expansion.
May 18 at 12:44
#22
Calgary GM v3
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,113
Likes: 880
Guess who has another question......

So I was going through the rules doc and I didn't see anything in it regarding a time frame of how longs a team needs to keep a player after signing them (UFA/RFA)
In past versions for whatever reason there was a clause that stated you had to keep a "re-signed" player until a specified date. Reasoning was said to be to protect from sign & trades.
However, since there isn't anything currently written into the rules, and we are already into v4, does this way of thinking still exist? Will the rules be changed/updated to include such things, or will this just become another negotiating aspect of the game.

Happy May Long Weekend Canada...USA you get your Memorial Day weekend next
Pross liked this.
May 18 at 1:57
#23
Thread Starter
TBL GM and BOG v4
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,342
Likes: 430
Quoting: flamesfan419
Guess who has another question......

So I was going through the rules doc and I didn't see anything in it regarding a time frame of how longs a team needs to keep a player after signing them (UFA/RFA)
In past versions for whatever reason there was a clause that stated you had to keep a "re-signed" player until a specified date. Reasoning was said to be to protect from sign & trades.
However, since there isn't anything currently written into the rules, and we are already into v4, does this way of thinking still exist? Will the rules be changed/updated to include such things, or will this just become another negotiating aspect of the game.

Happy May Long Weekend Canada...USA you get your Memorial Day weekend next


For UFAs we voted that UFAs cannot be dealt until November 1st, 2019 but for the RFAs, I have no clue.
flamesfan419 liked this.
May 18 at 2:50
#24
TOR GM v4
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 401
Likes: 143
Quoting: TabooPenguo
For UFAs we voted that UFAs cannot be dealt until November 1st, 2019 but for the RFAs, I have no clue.

TOR has acquired the UFA rights for Matt Duchene with the TOR/CBJ trade made a few days back. Those UFA rights still count for aquired assets, right? The UFA's recently signed from the 2019 Free Agency is what the rule applies to for UFA's not being allowed to trade until Novemeber 2019, right?
May 18 at 3:08
#25
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 2,119
Likes: 1,084
Quoting: Pross
TOR has acquired the UFA rights for Matt Duchene with the TOR/CBJ trade made a few days back. Those UFA rights still count for aquired assets, right? The UFA's recently signed from the 2019 Free Agency is what the rule applies to for UFA's not being allowed to trade until Novemeber 2019, right?


Any current UFA that ends up being signed in free agency will not be allowed to be traded until 11/1/19
Pross liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll