Forums/GM Game

Board of General Managers Official Thread

Jul 9, 2017 at 2:31
Stickied
Follow @CapFriendly
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 955
Likes: 382
BOG Members:
boltscharge17
Zach
DavidBooth7
Turner33
Matt59
JT_Miller
jmac490
Jul 9, 2017 at 2:47
Stickied
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 9,549
Likes: 3,022
Edited Aug 9, 2017 at 10:31
BOG Agenda

****BOG OPENINGS TO COME - DROP YOUR NAME IN TO BE CONSIDERED FOR POSITION BY THE 12TH

BOG Members Leaving:
matt59 (August 14th)
jmac490

GMs Who Applied For BOG:
Bo53Horvat
Icegirl
phillyjabroni
DarylthePony
Duster


Votes:

1) To place boltscharge17 on Level 1 of Infraction System: 3-0: Booth Turner Zach in favour

2) To place DirtyDangles on Level 2 (again): 2-2

Other:
1) GM Game Awards: to discuss further after FA
Turner33, CleanDangles, phillyjabroni and 4 others liked this.
Apr 26, 2017 at 9:43
#1
Go Jackets
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,755
Likes: 1,393
This thread is specifically for the seven elected members of the Board to discuss policy and vote on topics of conversation amongst themselves. If you are not on the board, please DO NOT post in this thread yet. We will debate whether it would be easier to create a separate "Suggestion Box for Board of GMs" where everyone can drop ideas, proposals, and grievances and everyone can debate the issues together. The other option is to just post the ideas on this thread, but ideally this thread will not be too cluttered such that it's difficult to find important discussion. The policy will be publicly announced in the Master Thread when it is decided upon. Thanks everyone!

The seven members of the Board are: ricochetii, matt59, F50marco, Mr_cap, Zach, rangersandislesfan, and BreKel
Apr 26, 2017 at 9:45
#2
Thread Starter
Go Jackets
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,755
Likes: 1,393
Ok so first things first, do you guys think we should let people post their suggestions directly to this thread and have discussion occur here? Or should we make a separate "Suggestion Box" where people can drop in ideas and discuss with everyone, but only we discuss the suggestions in this thread? The second option would make the conversation easier to follow for the seven of us, but I don't want the board to seem like an exclusionary group either.
Apr 26, 2017 at 9:55
#3
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 1,444
It won't feel exclusionary either way. Everything we do is public for people to see any time they choose, so they shouldn't feel left out.
I've repeatedly stated that everyone is free to voice themselves and offer feedback.

We have a relatively calm weekend ahead of us to get organized, so once all of the BOG have their protected lists submitted, we can start forming an agenda and ticking items off.
Apr 26, 2017 at 9:59
#4
Thread Starter
Go Jackets
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,755
Likes: 1,393
Quoting: ricochetii
It won't feel exclusionary either way. Everything we do is public for people to see any time they choose, so they shouldn't feel left out.
I've repeatedly stated that everyone is free to voice themselves and offer feedback.

We have a relatively calm weekend ahead of us to get organized, so once all of the BOG have their protected lists submitted, we can start forming an agenda and ticking items off.


Ok sounds good
Apr 27, 2017 at 12:39
#5
rangersandislesfan
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 26,993
Likes: 2,966
All Board of Governors members,

Just a quick question: when should we do free agency? I think it's time to pick a date soon. So please, if you have an idea, post it here for when you think we should do the expansion draft. Thanks!
Apr 27, 2017 at 12:44
#6
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
All Board of Governors members,

Just a quick question: when should we do free agency? I think it's time to pick a date soon. So please, if you have an idea, post it here for when you think we should do the expansion draft. Thanks!


I had originally planned to have free agency from May 13th - May 20th, but the other 6 board members will have to discuss it as well.
Apr 27, 2017 at 12:56
#7
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 1,444
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
All Board of Governors members,

Just a quick question: when should we do free agency? I think it's time to pick a date soon. So please, if you have an idea, post it here for when you think we should do the expansion draft. Thanks!


Like I said. How to do free agency properly comes before setting a date to do free agency.
I'm guessing the expansion draft part was meant to say free agency.
Apr 27, 2017 at 1:03
#8
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quoting: ricochetii
Quoting: rangersandislesfan
All Board of Governors members,

Just a quick question: when should we do free agency? I think it's time to pick a date soon. So please, if you have an idea, post it here for when you think we should do the expansion draft. Thanks!


Like I said. How to do free agency properly comes before setting a date to do free agency.
I'm guessing the expansion draft part was meant to say free agency.


True, I think a major part of that has already been dealt with. If you own a players rights, you have the option of matching the highest bid or if your not willing to match the highest bid, you let said player walk.
FlyerFanatic and matt59 liked this.
Apr 27, 2017 at 1:05
#9
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 1,444
Quoting: Zach
Quoting: ricochetii


Like I said. How to do free agency properly comes before setting a date to do free agency.
I'm guessing the expansion draft part was meant to say free agency.


True, I think a major part of that has already been dealt with. If you own a players rights, you have the option of matching the highest bid or if your not willing to match the highest bid, you let said player walk.


Can't seem to find the previous thread. I had links to how we could work it with a google spreadsheet, and there were some other details in there that we could discuss. Maybe I'm just tired and can't see properly. Hoping it wasn't deleted.
Apr 27, 2017 at 1:16
#10
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quoting: ricochetii
Quoting: Zach


True, I think a major part of that has already been dealt with. If you own a players rights, you have the option of matching the highest bid or if your not willing to match the highest bid, you let said player walk.


Can't seem to find the previous thread. I had links to how we could work it with a google spreadsheet, and there were some other details in there that we could discuss. Maybe I'm just tired and can't see properly. Hoping it wasn't deleted.


Yes, I already have a UFA spreadsheet in my email, so I know what Idea your talking about completely.

My thoughts are we should separate forward UFAs by average points over the last 3 seasons and age to determine salary and term

Example
Jaromir Jagr average of 50 points over the last 3 seasons and age 44 so he would get a 1 year $4M contract

And if TJ Oshie averages the same 50 points over the last 3 seasons, but he is only 30 so he would get a 5-6 year $6M+ per year contract

****Note, point averages were purely an example, and in no way does it represent the said player(s) statistics****
Apr 27, 2017 at 8:49
#11
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quick question regarding the draft, are we going to sign every player that we draft to show we own their rights?
Apr 27, 2017 at 8:59
#12
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 1,444
Quoting: Zach
Quick question regarding the draft, are we going to sign every player that we draft to show we own their rights?


Probably couldn't hurt, if Capfriendly doesn't have a hard cap on number of contracts for teams.
If there is a limit, we'd have to do it another way, using description box or additional details text in trades.
Apr 27, 2017 at 9:08
#13
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quoting: ricochetii
Quoting: Zach
Quick question regarding the draft, are we going to sign every player that we draft to show we own their rights?


Probably couldn't hurt, if Capfriendly doesn't have a hard cap on number of contracts for teams.
If there is a limit, we'd have to do it another way, using description box or additional details text in trades.


Yeah I was thinking about that as well, I believe the NHL maximum is 50 contracts per team, but if Capfriendly allows more, I think signing them would eliminate any confusion post draft.
Apr 27, 2017 at 9:18
#14
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 1,444
Quoting: Zach
Quoting: ricochetii


Probably couldn't hurt, if Capfriendly doesn't have a hard cap on number of contracts for teams.
If there is a limit, we'd have to do it another way, using description box or additional details text in trades.


Yeah I was thinking about that as well, I believe the NHL maximum is 50 contracts per team, but if Capfriendly allows more, I think signing them would eliminate any confusion post draft.


50 professional contracts is the limit. So 23 for your NHL roster and then 27 other players you own the rights to. That's why NHL teams don't just sign every player they get their hands on.
I think we could safely remove that limit for our purposes. I would like us to keep it realistic, but it's easier to represent a player by giving him a contract and use the tools at our disposal, rather than try to keep track of their rights. We'll have to play around with a test roster and see how many players can be added to a single team (add 75 players to a team and see if it actually lets you, or if it prevents you).
Apr 27, 2017 at 9:27
#15
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quoting: ricochetii
Quoting: Zach


Yeah I was thinking about that as well, I believe the NHL maximum is 50 contracts per team, but if Capfriendly allows more, I think signing them would eliminate any confusion post draft.


50 professional contracts is the limit. So 23 for your NHL roster and then 27 other players you own the rights to. That's why NHL teams don't just sign every player they get their hands on.
I think we could safely remove that limit for our purposes. I would like us to keep it realistic, but it's easier to represent a player by giving him a contract and use the tools at our disposal, rather than try to keep track of their rights. We'll have to play around with a test roster and see how many players can be added to a single team (add 75 players to a team and see if it actually lets you, or if it prevents you).


That sounds good to me.
Apr 27, 2017 at 9:37
#16
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quoting: Zach
Quoting: ricochetii


Can't seem to find the previous thread. I had links to how we could work it with a google spreadsheet, and there were some other details in there that we could discuss. Maybe I'm just tired and can't see properly. Hoping it wasn't deleted.


Yes, I already have a UFA spreadsheet in my email, so I know what Idea your talking about completely.

My thoughts are we should separate forward UFAs by average points over the last 3 seasons and age to determine salary and term

Example
Jaromir Jagr average of 50 points over the last 3 seasons and age 44 so he would get a 1 year $4M contract

And if TJ Oshie averages the same 50 points over the last 3 seasons, but he is only 30 so he would get a 5-6 year $6M+ per year contract

****Note, point averages were purely an example, and in no way does it represent the said player(s) statistics****


Or we just do it this way.

Teams submit a list of all of their UFAs that have received a bid, show the top 3 bids for those players, then the BOG decides if the signings are fair and realistic, that way it stops people from offering someone like Oshie $12M for 2 years just because the have the cap space to do so.

The BOG would see this and nullify the offer, then it would go to the next realistic offer and the owner of Oshie's right would then be able to match that offer if they wish to do so.
Apr 27, 2017 at 9:39
#17
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 1,444
Quoting: Zach
Quoting: Zach


Yes, I already have a UFA spreadsheet in my email, so I know what Idea your talking about completely.

My thoughts are we should separate forward UFAs by average points over the last 3 seasons and age to determine salary and term

Example
Jaromir Jagr average of 50 points over the last 3 seasons and age 44 so he would get a 1 year $4M contract

And if TJ Oshie averages the same 50 points over the last 3 seasons, but he is only 30 so he would get a 5-6 year $6M+ per year contract

****Note, point averages were purely an example, and in no way does it represent the said player(s) statistics****


Or we just do it this way.

Teams submit a list of all of their UFAs that have received a bid, show the top 3 bids for those players, then the BOG decides if the signings are fair and realistic, that way it stops people from offering someone like Oshie $12M for 2 years just because the have the cap space to do so.

The BOG would see this and nullify the offer, then it would go to the next realistic offer and the owner of Oshie's right would then be able to match that offer if they wish to do so.


I'm not dismissing it as a possibility, but I'd try my best to find a way to keep our opinions out of it first. Something objective would work best.
Apr 27, 2017 at 9:42
#18
Hardcore Sabres fan
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 7,789
Likes: 1,118
Quoting: ricochetii
Quoting: Zach


Or we just do it this way.

Teams submit a list of all of their UFAs that have received a bid, show the top 3 bids for those players, then the BOG decides if the signings are fair and realistic, that way it stops people from offering someone like Oshie $12M for 2 years just because the have the cap space to do so.

The BOG would see this and nullify the offer, then it would go to the next realistic offer and the owner of Oshie's right would then be able to match that offer if they wish to do so.


I'm not dismissing it as a possibility, but I'd try my best to find a way to keep our opinions out of it first. Something objective would work best.


I was thinking with 7 BOG members it wouldn't be bias in any way, towards any player. I think it would make the UFA process much simpler and fair because you having 7 people taking a look at bids and signings.
Apr 27, 2017 at 10:04
#19
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 16,191
Likes: 4,056
Hi fellow BOG's,

I'm not too concerned on specifics of UFA's , Entry draft, etc. Most of the opinions brought up thus far are valid and make sense so I'll be aligned with what the consensus seems to be. I'll obviously still participate though.

My only concern however is dating these events correctly. IMO having the expansion draft this early was a waste of potential as we could of timed it better with real life and as a result, reports of players waiving their NMC's, etc could of made it a little more fun. Now that it is out of the way though, I say we take a step back and time the next events as perfect as possible. Finding a happy medium between keeping GM interest and aligning the events with real life should be one of our main targets.

Someone had brought up a good point a while ago. What happens after Free agency? Well the way things have been going and the quickness to lose interest, I don't see a point in playing the game after free agency...... and the amount of time that will pass between free agency and training camp again will result in a few inactive GM's forgetting the game altogether.

Need to find a way to keep THIS game going as long as possible. Or else we might as well just hold separate games where each event of the year is that game.
Apr 27, 2017 at 10:07
#20
Thread Starter
Go Jackets
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,755
Likes: 1,393
Quoting: Zach
Quoting: ricochetii


I'm not dismissing it as a possibility, but I'd try my best to find a way to keep our opinions out of it first. Something objective would work best.


I was thinking with 7 BOG members it wouldn't be bias in any way, towards any player. I think it would make the UFA process much simpler and fair because you having 7 people taking a look at bids and signings.

That could become a conflict of interest though if we're all bidding on a free agent as GMs. Ideally we stay out of the UFA process and the highest bidder or home team/Vegas wins the bidding unless we get numerous complaints about ridiculous contracts (the $12 million oshie example). Then we may be forced to intervene but ideally we stay out of the process as much as possible. We just set the rules, not make decisions for the market.
Jdp liked this.
Apr 27, 2017 at 10:09
#21
Thread Starter
Go Jackets
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,755
Likes: 1,393
Quoting: F50marco
Hi fellow BOG's,

I'm not too concerned on specifics of UFA's , Entry draft, etc. Most of the opinions brought up thus far are valid and make sense so I'll be aligned with what the consensus seems to be. I'll obviously still participate though.

My only concern however is dating these events correctly. IMO having the expansion draft this early was a waste of potential as we could of timed it better with real life and as a result, reports of players waiving their NMC's, etc could of made it a little more fun. Now that it is out of the way though, I say we take a step back and time the next events as perfect as possible. Finding a happy medium between keeping GM interest and aligning the events with real life should be one of our main targets.

Someone had brought up a good point a while ago. What happens after Free agency? Well the way things have been going and the quickness to lose interest, I don't see a point in playing the game after free agency...... and the amount of time that will pass between free agency and training camp again will result in a few inactive GM's forgetting the game altogether.

Need to find a way to keep THIS game going as long as possible. Or else we might as well just hold separate games where each event of the year is that game.

I say we just finalize the ideas in place first (like you said there's good ideas, they just need finishing touches), then we set reasonable timetables. Maybe push the Entry Draft until the end of May, free agency to early/ mid June? But let's not go into specific dates quite yet
Apr 27, 2017 at 10:15
#22
Thread Starter
Go Jackets
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,755
Likes: 1,393
Did we come to a decision on whether players with Black checkmarks in the expansion tool who were given contract extensions in this game can count towards the 2-1-1 requirements for exposure? I remember we had a discussion on it but did we come to a consensus?
Apr 27, 2017 at 10:37
#23
Stars GM for V3
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 1,444
Quoting: matt59
Did we come to a decision on whether players with Black checkmarks in the expansion tool who were given contract extensions in this game can count towards the 2-1-1 requirements for exposure? I remember we had a discussion on it but did we come to a consensus?


We set the rules so that the CET was the deciding factor for players' status.
We didn't allow NMC waiving, so I don't see a reason to allow a change to a player's status from RFA extensions either.
To keep it simple, we should leave it as is, with a player's status in the CET being their status in the game.

We also did our RFA signings earlier than what normally occurs IRL, where teams wait until after the draft.
Technically, most of the RFA's we signed wouldn't actually have an extension in place. We were forced to do it for logistic purposes to get them to show up on our rosters and involve them in trades.
Otherwise we are getting into some more complicated things, such as who would prefer to use their arbitration rights, among other things.

In short. We've already agreed on the process and I see no need to change it, especially while it is in progress.
matt59 and Duster liked this.
Apr 27, 2017 at 11:16
#24
Thread Starter
Go Jackets
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,755
Likes: 1,393
Quoting: ricochetii
Quoting: matt59
Did we come to a decision on whether players with Black checkmarks in the expansion tool who were given contract extensions in this game can count towards the 2-1-1 requirements for exposure? I remember we had a discussion on it but did we come to a consensus?


We set the rules so that the CET was the deciding factor for players' status.
We didn't allow NMC waiving, so I don't see a reason to allow a change to a player's status from RFA extensions either.
To keep it simple, we should leave it as is, with a player's status in the CET being their status in the game.

We also did our RFA signings earlier than what normally occurs IRL, where teams wait until after the draft.
Technically, most of the RFA's we signed wouldn't actually have an extension in place. We were forced to do it for logistic purposes to get them to show up on our rosters and involve them in trades.
Otherwise we are getting into some more complicated things, such as who would prefer to use their arbitration rights, among other things.

In short. We've already agreed on the process and I see no need to change it, especially while it is in progress.

Ok sounds good I'll relay the message
Apr 27, 2017 at 12:12
#25
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 16,191
Likes: 4,056
Quoting: ricochetii
Quoting: matt59
Did we come to a decision on whether players with Black checkmarks in the expansion tool who were given contract extensions in this game can count towards the 2-1-1 requirements for exposure? I remember we had a discussion on it but did we come to a consensus?


We set the rules so that the CET was the deciding factor for players' status.
We didn't allow NMC waiving, so I don't see a reason to allow a change to a player's status from RFA extensions either.
To keep it simple, we should leave it as is, with a player's status in the CET being their status in the game.

We also did our RFA signings earlier than what normally occurs IRL, where teams wait until after the draft.
Technically, most of the RFA's we signed wouldn't actually have an extension in place. We were forced to do it for logistic purposes to get them to show up on our rosters and involve them in trades.
Otherwise we are getting into some more complicated things, such as who would prefer to use their arbitration rights, among other things.

In short. We've already agreed on the process and I see no need to change it, especially while it is in progress.


Agreed. Let's try to make the game accurate and as real life as possible but lets not go overboard either. If we start incorporating some more complex rules than we have no choice but to go with the actual dates of events in the NHL to accommodate the real life rules in place. That and 90% of the game would end up being explaining the rules to the GM's.

I don't think Vegas will select any of the possible players this rule isn't protecting anyway.
DirtyRebound liked this.
 
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Remove Option
Submit Poll