Earfgang

Earfgang
Member Since
Oct 22, 2019
Favourite Team
Carolina Hurricanes
2nd Favourite Team
St. Louis Blues
Location
California
Forum Posts
64
Posts per Day
0.25
Forum Threads
4
Biography
Unimportant person: Move along with your day
Forum: NHL TradesJun 26, 2017 at 7:41
Forum: GM Game 2019-20Dec 22, 2019 at 11:20
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Earfgang</b></div><div>It is true, we have appropriated many of the CBA's rules and regulations, but on a meta level I see this as a reaction to our fictional environment. The 32 owners of the NHL teams have found that their organizations are being controlled by GM's that are, in many cases, below the level they are willing to accept. I'm sure Edmonton is surprised and confused by this notion but many wouldn't be. It makes sense that to protect their investments they put a governing body over the leagues general managers, both as a precautionary measure to protect investments and as an opportunity to directly encourage more equal competition (We all know Bettman has wanted this power since he started).

That being said, while the trust owners have in their managers has been in question for a few years now the players association has taken this opportunity to change hockey to be safer and more player friendly by changing the goals of the game. The game is now based off of more skill based incentive scoring instead of puck in net caveman style pissing matches of hitting and fighting. They pushed for the value of advanced statistics to give better determinations of value of skill across the league and the physical toll on players has been significantly decreased due to skill being rewarded and hitting and fighting being non-entities in winning effectively limiting hitting to a minimum and relegating fighting to an uncommon sideshow. In this renaissance of player safety there is no way in hell the owners would move to take away simple rights as the winter Holiday trade break.

Learn the lore of the game <a href="/users/MrBooth" target="_blank">@MrBooth</a> XD</div></div>

@ Banks @ Jarvis blink twice if this is Mike’s double
Forum: GM Game 2019-20May 15, 2019 at 6:14
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TonyStrecher</b></div><div>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</div></div>

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 :p) 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:

:canadiens
Artem Anisimov

: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:

:oilers
Auston Matthews

:mapleleafs
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.