V3 Canucks GM, BOG
Member Since
May 2, 2017
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
GM Game History:
V1: Penguins AGM, Rangers GM, BOG Member
V2: Canucks GM, BOG Member
V3: Canucks GM, BOG Member
Forum: GM Game 2019-20May 15 at 5:17
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>A_K</b></div><div>This is forever a hot topic - please see our latest rule adjustments to the trade revision/reversal process in the <a href="" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">rules doc</a>

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***</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
Forum: GM Game 2018-19May 8 at 3:36
<a href="/users/alwaysnextyear" target="_blank">@alwaysnextyear</a> <a href="/users/Dylan1995" target="_blank">@Dylan1995</a> <a href="/users/PattyMack88" target="_blank">@PattyMack88</a> <a href="/users/matt59" target="_blank">@matt59</a> <a href="/users/Gronk" target="_blank">@Gronk</a> <a href="/users/l9guysports" target="_blank">@l9guysports</a> <a href="/users/Daryl" target="_blank">@Daryl</a> <a href="/users/Rodzikhockey93" target="_blank">@Rodzikhockey93</a> <a href="/users/HotsamBatcho" target="_blank">@HotsamBatcho</a> <a href="/users/krakowitz" target="_blank">@krakowitz</a> <a href="/users/flamesfan419" target="_blank">@flamesfan419</a> <a href="/users/Bo53Horvat" target="_blank">@Bo53Horvat</a> <a href="/users/TML" target="_blank">@TML</a> Sage <a href="/users/A_K" target="_blank">@A_K</a> <a href="/users/TonyStrecher" target="_blank">@TonyStrecher</a> <a href="/users/Pross" target="_blank">@Pross</a> <a href="/users/rangersandislesfan" target="_blank">@rangersandislesfan</a> <a href="/users/mhockey91" target="_blank">@mhockey91</a> <a href="/users/TabooPenguo" target="_blank">@TabooPenguo</a> <a href="/users/Mr_Cap" target="_blank">@Mr_Cap</a> <a href="/users/Math" target="_blank">@Math</a> <a href="/users/Turner33" target="_blank">@Turner33</a> <a href="/users/Luc3" target="_blank">@Luc3</a> <a href="/users/MrBooth" target="_blank">@MrBooth</a> <a href="/users/Missouri" target="_blank">@Missouri</a> <a href="/users/BoltsPoint21" target="_blank">@BoltsPoint21</a><a href="/users/jmac490" target="_blank">@jmac490</a> <a href="/users/ricochetii" target="_blank">@ricochetii</a> <a href="/users/HallforHart" target="_blank">@HallforHart</a> <a href="/users/IceGirl" target="_blank">@IceGirl</a> <a href="/users/phillyjabroni" target="_blank">@phillyjabroni</a> <a href="/users/NateElder12" target="_blank">@NateElder12</a> <a href="/users/brenfox31" target="_blank">@brenfox31</a>

I'd just like to thank everyone for such an awesome season. I've had a great time playing the GM Game these past three seasons, but I'm sad to announce that having achieved my life goal of leading the Vancouver Canucks all the way to the Stanley Cup, I will be stepping down from the GM Game. I'll be sticking around on Twitter and I'm happy to give advice to anyone who wants it.

Thanks for all the good times,
TonyStrecher - V1 Rangers, V2 Canucks, V3 Champions
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Apr 24 at 10:16
Forum: GM Game 2018-19Mar 28 at 5:01
<a href="/users/TonyStrecher" target="_blank"><a href="/users/TonyStrecher" target="_blank">@TonyStrecher</a></a> <a href="/users/A_K" target="_blank">@A_K</a> <a href="/users/Bo53Horvat" target="_blank"><a href="/users/Bo53Horvat" target="_blank">@Bo53Horvat</a></a> <a href="/users/BoltsPoint21" target="_blank">@BoltsPoint21</a> <a href="/users/krakowitz" target="_blank">@krakowitz</a> <a href="/users/l9guysports" target="_blank"><a href="/users/l9guysports" target="_blank">@l9guysports</a></a> <a href="/users/TabooPenguo" target="_blank">@TabooPenguo</a> <a href="/users/phillyjabroni" target="_blank">@phillyjabroni</a> <a href="/users/Math" target="_blank">@Math</a> <a href="/users/Rodzikhockey93" target="_blank">@Rodzikhockey93</a> <a href="/users/Turner33" target="_blank">@Turner33</a> <a href="/users/ricochetii" target="_blank">@ricochetii</a> <a href="/users/HotsamBatcho" target="_blank">@HotsamBatcho</a> <a href="/users/EthanK24" target="_blank">@EthanK24</a> <a href="/users/TMLSage" target="_blank">@TMLSage</a> <a href="/users/HallforHart" target="_blank">@HallforHart</a> <a href="/users/Missouri" target="_blank">@Missouri</a> <a href="/users/Daryl" target="_blank">@Daryl</a> <a href="/users/alwaysnextyear" target="_blank">@alwaysnextyear</a> <a href="/users/rangersandislesfan" target="_blank">@rangersandislesfan</a> <a href="/users/brenfox31" target="_blank">@brenfox31</a> <a href="/users/flamesfan419" target="_blank">@flamesfan419</a> <a href="/users/Max" target="_blank">@Max</a> <a href="/users/Icegirl" target="_blank">@Icegirl</a> <a href="/users/matt59" target="_blank">@matt59</a> <a href="/users/NateElder12" target="_blank">@NateElder12</a> <a href="/users/Gronk" target="_blank">@Gronk</a> <a href="/users/jmac490" target="_blank">@jmac490</a> <a href="/users/Pross" target="_blank">@Pross</a> <a href="/users/mhockey91" target="_blank">@mhockey91</a> <a href="/users/Mr_cap" target="_blank">@Mr_cap</a> <a href="/users/MacWinnon" target="_blank">@MacWinnon</a>

Each team will be given the chance to negotiate extensions for two RFAs starting as soon as the trade deadline passes on April 1st until the end of April.

There will be another RFA extension period in June when you will have the chance to extend any remaining RFAs.

You do not need to choose the two RFAs you want to extend at the beginning of negotiations, if negotiations don't work out for one player, you may switch to another.

All normal RFA extension rules apply including qualifying offers. If you don't know how qualifying offers work use the CapFriendly Qualifying Offer Calculator <a href=""></a> to determine what the minimum AAV you can offer to a player is. If you make an offer that does not meet the qualifying offer threshold, the BOG member that you are negotiating with may, at their discretion, negotiate for a more expensive contract because of your mistake.

If you believe that you were treated unfairly by your negotiator, you may bring you concerns to the rest of the BOG who will vote on whether you were negotiated with fairly.

To determine which BOG member would be negotiating with which teams I used a random generator.

See the lists below for which BOG member you need to negotiate your first two RFA signings with starting April 1st. If you contact your negotiator about RFA contracts before April 1st, they may at their discretion negotiate a more expensive contract.

You are not allowed to post any of your RFA signings on CapFriendly, Twitter or elsewhere until they are officially released by the BOG in mid April. Posting your RFA signings before they are released may result in draft pick forfeiture at the BOGs discretion.

<strong><a href="/users/TonyStrecher" target="_blank"><a href="/users/TonyStrecher" target="_blank">@TonyStrecher</a></a> will negotiate with:</strong>
Tampa Bay

<strong><a href="/users/Bo53Horvat" target="_blank"><a href="/users/Bo53Horvat" target="_blank">@Bo53Horvat</a></a> will negotiate with:</strong>
New Jersey
St. Louis

<strong> <a href="/users/l9guysports" target="_blank"><a href="/users/l9guysports" target="_blank">@l9guysports</a></a> will negotiate with:</strong>
Los Angeles
San Jose

If you have any questions or concerns about the RFA process, please let us know in the Messages To The BOG Thread.