Ideally within 3-5 business days after we solidly the v2 plan. can I count you as a supporter? Currently have 17/17 support

I already told you about it on twitter. Yea I like it.

me and matt59 talked about v2 plan a couple weeks ago. So next week will be a team draft?

Are you saying that you support the plan and we would be selecting teams a couple days after we finalize the plan? Currently 18/18 in favor, 19/19 if you support.

the plan of a volume 2? I have been supporting it for months now.

*version 2 and sweet. currently 20/20 support - still missing the following :
DirtyDangles
F50Marco
Jt_Miller
Math
mhockey
plNHL
rangersandislesfan
ricochetti
WerenskiWarrior
WhisperWhisper

*jmac is leaving once a replacement GM is in place (since we last spoke about it)

Salary Cap: Minor, but .738666667% should be 73.866666%.

Trade Limits: I would suggest there be less trades per month (3?), an additional 4 trades in the 2 weeks prior to the trade deadline (2/week), and probably double the off-season trade limit, especially if it includes draft pick trades. Those are typically busier times for transactions and restructuring teams and the times when you would be able to use those extra trades for picks/minor league transactions. For the current pre-season, GM's are going to want to make some kind of an impact on their rosters before the season begins. So maybe the off-season 5 works for a start and then the next off-season can have the 10 limit.

NMC/NTC: NMC's can only be waived if the IRL counterpart actually waives it. Anything else is just speculation. Aside from the expansion draft, which was a special case, there are very few reasons for a player to waive an NMC. He is basically saying he either wants to be buried in the minors or claimed off waivers. That doesn't happen very often. A player would rather force a team to buy him out.

Retained Salaries and Buyouts: I'd like to see a restriction or evaluation process for retention as well. I've seen too many retained salaries that just aren't reasonable. Like 50% on quality players or players on long contracts. The goal is to bring their salaries more in line with their performance, not make them into bargain price players.

Trades (35%) Lowest score total (1-5) scale: I don't think forcing a team to make 12 trades is a fair evaluation tool and is counter-intuitive. An astute GM may not need to make 12 trades. If anything, they will make a few really good trades and then a bunch of nothing/junk trades just to meet the requirement, thus devaluing the few good trades they did make.

I think those are the only issues/considerations I can see. Other than that it looks pretty good.

Rico, the .738666667 is the multiplier of the salary cap ceiling. The floor is roughly 74% of the salary cap ceiling.

Any trade that involves draft picks and draft picks only, do not go against the trade limit.

I wouldn't mind the NMC proposal that you have, I just think that if teams can come with concrete evidence that they would, then the BOE can determine if the NMC would be waived.

I am not sure what you mean with Retained Salaries. Only up to 3.

I think that we can lower the trade threshold to around 6 or 8.

I still have a big issue with the 4 trades per month. I feel that if a GM feels a trade will better his team he should be able to make it. I think the number of trades will go down a lot from V1 especially if you are able to be fired as a GM for doing a bad job. GMs will take more time to evaluate the trade because of this. I think we are trying to tighten the screws too much and that is going to make for a ton of down time and a pretty boring game.

You can put .73 or you can put 73%. If you put both, it's 3/4 of 1%.

I missed the draft pick only trades not counting. consequence of not doing it all in one sitting.

Shea Weber or Letang having 50% salary retained at this point in their career, based on their abilities and term of their contracts, is not realistic. That's all I mean by retention should be evaluated as well.

I'm just pointing out that having a threshold is contrary to the idea of "good" trades. A lower limit would definitely be better.



I don't think anyone expected so many trades in general, but perhaps that is too far in the opposite direction. I personally don't want to see entire rosters turned around again. There are also people from outside the game who would prefer a more "restrained" market and more realistic experience. You can make 23 good trades that pass evaluation individually, but should you be able to trade your entire team away? That's what my preference is against. I'm out of time for now, but perhaps there's an alternative, like each team submitting a list of "core" players that they can't trade or something. Peace for now, in a rush!

mhockey91 is in. He currently is unable to get to a laptop rn but has told me he is in v2

I agree with everything you just said Rico, except for the core player idea. Not being able to trade core players would eliminate most blockbuster deals, while I agree that limits are good as personally I'm not a fan that I own MTL and have Giroux, Ekblad, Chychrun, and Vesey making up my team.

I was in a rush, but that was just off the top of my head. Alternatives could be considered, such as a limit on the percentage of turnover you can have on your roster.
I'm fine with a monthly number of trades limit myself, I'm just trying to think of something that serves a similar purpose but is more palatable to others.

A casual observer should be able to look at a roster at the end of the season and know what team it is without seeing the name, is my opinion.
How we ensure that is the case is debatable.

How about with each trade offer that is proposed, we have the BOE vote on it and if 2/3 agree then it will go through.

So before posting the deal in the official thread, it will have to be posted in a separate thread probs called 'proposed deals thread' and the BOE reviews it.

This is a fantastic idea

Also, I think before we pick teams, there has to be a review period of who is allowed to be a GM or not. Those people that do not pass, but have seniority would then become AGM's.

I will address everyone in a moment - just want to gather everyone into a condensed post.

Dangles - one of the core tenets of v2 is to not have immediate roster turnover like there was in v1. while I agree that GMs should be able to make moves that better their team, they should also be forced to evaluate trades and whether it benefits my team based on the amount of trades left. If I have 1 trade left, do I really think the value of trading an AHLer and a pick for a bottom-six forward really makes my team better? By having a trade restrictions, GMs will have to critically think if it makes sense to make the trade, and in turn, the opportunity for GMs to get smarter is greater than allowing teams to make infinite trades. if a GM wants to do infinite trades, v1 would still be operating for them to do so.

Rico - retained salary would go into consideration when rating a trade. having north of 3M on the books for Weber, unless the return is absolutely offsets that value, is going to be weighed accordingly.

Mr_Cap - the BOE has the right to overturn any trade that they feel detrimental to the league. if a GM repeatedly makes poor trades, they will be addressed accordingly. having the BOE sign off of trades is pointless IMO, as they already retain the right to overturn a trade if they feel it is detrimental to the integrity of the game.

Mr_Cap - I feel that many GMs have felt out what would be a bad trade in v1, they shouldn't be punished for v2. while some trades (and I have called out MMN on having "BS evaluations") I think that if GMs continually make poor trades in v2, they will be addressed accordingly by the BOE.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Side note - 22 GMs (out of 30) support v2. Still need the following:
DirtyDangles
F50Marco
Jt_Miller
Math
plNHL
rangersandislesfan
ricochetti
WerenskiWarrior
WhisperWhisper

Tell that to half of the league's GM's that still have no clue what they're doing. I think it is very important to have competent GM's in V2 from the get-go, rather than hiring and firing.

Suggestion 1: This would mean that If a GM gets fired for bad trades they would still be allowed to eventually get back into the game ... as GMs sometimes aren't great GMs with one team but then get better when they're Going a new team.

Suggestion 2: This means that i don't think we should fire GMs for bad trades in the original GM game.

Suggestion 3: This means that a) You can't get fired for one bad trade (unless it's like, McDavid for 'future considerations'), and b) if you feel a trade is not very good, you can't suggest to fire a GM unless it's a really bad trade (example: Doughty for Bergeron instead of Doughty for Tarasenko)

Suggestion 4: You can't fire GMs because they didn't trade a certain player: So you couldn't say 'you should have traded this player, and you didn't, so you're fired.'

23 now

I actually don't feel that we should have a trade limit at the deadline ... or at least not on deadline day ... chances of a team making like, 7-20 trades in less than a day are pretty small.

I like this idea but for a BOE to vote for the deal not happening they have to think it's very unfair i'd say, like if something a little bit unfair then they should vote no just because it's a little bit off in value.

Edit: I'm pretty much saying they should only say no to letting the deal happen if they feel it was meant as a joke.