And away we go........

OK fellas.  I am taking Brandon's suggestion and separating this type of discussion from our League Lounge.  Should keep things simpler.  I hope.  There has been some talk about fixing a slot of time so that we could discuss any matters that have proven to be prickly during the season.  I like the idea of the first two weeks of our playoffs.  We will all be paying close attention and should be pretty focused on hockey at that time.  Anything after that is a risk.  Some GM's like to put their feet up in the offseason and I respect that.  During the season is a bit tricky I find.  Things tend to drag on with no resolution.  With a two week time period booked, we should be able to deal with things fairly quickly.

Matt has already mentioned a couple of items:

Matt schrieb:

I can recall two issues that need to be voted on at the end of this season:

1) FAAB: How to administer FAAB for the 2015-16 season. Options are to (a) do nothing (ie. keep the midseason draft), (b) have a one-day FAAB on the day prior to the start of the season, and keep the midseason draft, or (c) have an all-year FAAB starting in October 2015 and no midseason draft.

2) Conditional Deals: Suggested options are, (a) no conditional deals allowed, (b) conditional deals with draft picks are allowed, but not with players returning to teams that traded them, or (c) all conditional deals are allowed.

I would argue that point one has already been resolved. Our recently poll on said topic had the majority choosing a full season of FAAB to start next season with our January draft to remain with us for one final season.

The floor is now open.

I could probably crank out a spreadsheet of some sort to keep the various ideas put forward in some state of order........

By the way, I have tentatively slated March 2nd - 15th as our block of time devoted to all the bullshit........um, issues at hand.  This is not set in stone, but I think that it is sensible. It is the first two weeks of our playoffs.

I like this idea

Do issues crop up during playoffs?

tissues maybe, for those who are losing, but issues?

It is a good point Scoop.
If they did, then potentially they would not be discussed for a very long time.

One could consider adding an additional block of time in the late summer. Or, perhaps we should just keep it simple (one single block of time) and deal with the consequences.

Me again. I would like to see one block of time preferably before the start of the season. This would allow us to move the draft later so fix the FAAB issue completely but still give those who are chomping at the bit to think/talk hockey.

At the end of the season my level of caring has dropped of considerably to be honest.

I smell a vote! Wait we are not voting on anything now so how are we going to figure this out?? Hehehehe

Team Po-Po schrieb:

Me again.  I would like to see one block of time preferably before the start of the season.  This would allow us to move the draft later so fix the FAAB issue completely but still give those who are chomping at the bit to think/talk hockey.  

At the end of the season my level of caring has dropped of considerably to be honest.

I smell a vote!  Wait we are not voting on anything now so how are we going to figure this out??  Hehehehe

The only issue with tackling them all at the beginning of the season is remembering all the nuances of an issue after being away from fantasy hockey for an entire summer. In that sense, I prefer the idea of handling everything at the end of every season.

Just my two cents.

My 2 cents is once we have a consensus on what we want to vote for we just vote whenever. Eventually 10 people will make it to the voting booth. I see no reason or advantage to making only specific voting blocks.

I'm just sad I have to wait till voting time to figure out whether we need to have a specific voting time. lol

I have a little trouble with votes that drag on and on and on. There are times that I forget what we were even voting for. In fact, the whole Poll could even be lost down the memory hole. With a specific block of time set aside, we could rattle through all the issues without all the bullshit ........ delays.

I think we are trying this new way regardless, I just remember lots of votes where people think of consequences after the vote is made. Then people change their minds. And what do we do then? Wait for a year till the next voting time? I think mandating a time when we all have to get together and put input into many topics at the same time will be exhaustive and frustrating. But I have a high tolerance for arguing all the time so I'm game for a few weeks of discussion fiasco, if I'm around. Hopefully it goes smooth.

Well, my goal is to reduce frustration and exhaustion. And gas. Bloating as well.

We all have enough of that already surely.

I thought with the 2 week block that we could pretty much forget trying to hammer out solutions to various problems during the year and just enjoy the hockey.

That said, I am all ears......

I had no strong opinion about this at one time, but I tend to agree that there have been too many occasions recently where polls drag on and on because a minority of GMs aren't paying attention. This should solve that problem, because everyone will know there is a two-week block of time set aside every year to discuss those issues. Kind of like shareholder meetings. It is certainly worth a try. And I agree with Greg, it will allow us to focus on hockey during the season.

John: Regarding changes to rules we've voted in, the only occasion I can recall our league reconsidering the outcome of a vote was that very complicated rule to combat tanking a couple of years back. Clearly the implications of that rule (or set of rules) were not understood by several of us, because it took a few of us by surprise. One needs to understand what they are voting for!

Otherwise, from what I can recall, rules that have been voted on have pretty much been adopted.

We decided on a way to do tie breakers, Then we couldn't figure it out one season with 4 people tied and had to make a decision midseason to change to let ESPN figure it out. We were allowed to push through trades, then had a vote mid season to let ESPN do it in it's two days because it wasn't necessarily fair because we had to ask a commissioner to push trades through, and if you couldn't get a hold of one it left an advantage to commissioners or those that could get in contact easier. We were not allowed to VETO, but the manifesto said we could. We had a big argument about that mid season and voted to allow a VETO if everyone not in the trade voted to VETO. we voted to change the 2 day waiting period to immediate. Then realized there was no time to vote on our veto. And changed it to one day... I'm not really sure even now how this works. Do we get only one day to veto? Or do we make our case in the forum like I just tried? This whole part is still a little confusing to me. I'm sure there is one or two other times I can't remember. I know we used to only be allowed to add players with two year when we started FAAB, but realized it really favoured those that watched every day to pay attention to where players were with games as the 164 games needed sometimes came up on weeks someone could be away. That plus people forgetting made us change that one.

I might be wrong and maybe doing it in two weeks will make everyone really think of the consequences of our votes. I would also like to vote to make things simpler.

I would vote to remove the prospect eligibility and allow everyone to keep the same number of players. Say 20. Then have a 10 round draft each year. This would allow us to watch our prospects longer without having to hurt our teams with the few years it takes to get them going. And it would lower tanking/stacking trades. And still give us 10 rounds of fun drafting. There would be more times a manager could win twice in a row but I think we are all equalish in out manager skills. I would not quit if I came last 3 years in a row! I also believe a change like this would have to be impemented in 2016 as many draft picks have already been traded for 2015. But it would be simpler.