Rule changes!

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

This type of deal would simply be rejected.

Can a rule be added that indicates that the league can reject trades that are being conducted in order to circumvent league rules?

Just kind of a catch all that prevents someone from finding a loophole, using it once, getting a wrist slap and then having the league close the loophole to prevent others from using it


EG: I've found another one that gets around the "cap must be traded for something" rule - not that I'd ever use it, but it would very clearly be against the spirit of the rule and likely fall into that grey area of "well, we'll let it happen this once because it wasn't clear"

[JiriHrdina]

I think that's implicit that if someone is doing something that is clearly outside the spirit of the league we take action. If I need to add a sentence I can do that.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I think that's implicit that if someone is doing something that is clearly outside the spirit of the league we take action. If I need to add a sentence I can do that.

This just covers the league's butt in case we end up with someone that is pretty good at working the rules

Again, this is coming from a game design perspective. I've learned that if it isn't explicit, players will interpret it many different ways.

[Swayze11]

I like most of the rules except not being able to trade for UFA rights. There a legit UFA rights that are worth something and it shouldn't force a GM to let him walk if they don't have the cap room. It happens all the time in the NHL, I am not really sure why we can't do it here. Heck, the Flames wouldn't have Dennis Wideman right now if they couldn't trade for rights.

The minimum NHL games proposal was my favorite. Since the weighting system has changed, we are still going to get solid prospects that should be in the CPHL stuck in the ECHL which is very silly. There is no reason for why Seth Jones or Nathan Mackinnon should still be in the ECHL.

[TurdFerguson]

Are these awards being left intact?
Commissioner's Trophy (To team or GM who best exhibits the value of the CPHL as selected by the Commissioner team ) $2,000,000
Conference Champions $1,500,000/team
Division Champions $1,000,000/team
Overall CPHL Regular Season Championship: $2,000,000

to be honest, i have been planning pretty heavily in the back half of this year around locking down 4.5M for next season. If this is changing perhaps it can be grandfathered? pretty big swing if its wiped out at this point, granted it only matters to a couple teams.

[Hanna Sniper]

If the goal is to help weaker team be able to obtain more assets, then a playoff team not getting the 4.5M they were counting on and using it to squire or retain those assets is a good thing no?

I think we need to take a look at what we are trying to gain rather then what we are loosing. I'm loosing 20M cap bargaining chip because a loophole is being fixed... thats a good thing and we shouldn't be grandfathering that it or anything else

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

If the goal is to help weaker team be able to obtain more assets, then a playoff team not getting the 4.5M they were counting on and using it to squire or retain those assets is a good thing no?

I think we need to take a look at what we are trying to gain rather then what we are loosing. I'm loosing 20M cap bargaining chip because a loophole is being fixed... thats a good thing and we shouldn't be grandfathering that it or anything else

im not talking about the playoff awards im talking about the championship awards. i have no issue with the concept of removing these dollars all together however i feel a season should end with the same rules it started. changing the game mid-stroke isn't fair to those making decisions on rules they expected to carry forward.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I like most of the rules except not being able to trade for UFA rights. There a legit UFA rights that are worth something and it shouldn't force a GM to let him walk if they don't have the cap room. It happens all the time in the NHL, I am not really sure why we can't do it here. Heck, the Flames wouldn't have Dennis Wideman right now if they couldn't trade for rights.

The minimum NHL games proposal was my favorite. Since the weighting system has changed, we are still going to get solid prospects that should be in the CPHL stuck in the ECHL which is very silly. There is no reason for why Seth Jones or Nathan Mackinnon should still be in the ECHL.

So we should create a rule that basically applies to 1 or 2 players each year?

Changing to 100 game minimum v. a 2 year ECHL rule achieves the same thing. They would both be in the CPHL next year.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

Are these awards being left intact?
Commissioner's Trophy (To team or GM who best exhibits the value of the CPHL as selected by the Commissioner team ) $2,000,000
Conference Champions $1,500,000/team
Division Champions $1,000,000/team
Overall CPHL Regular Season Championship: $2,000,000

to be honest, i have been planning pretty heavily in the back half of this year around locking down 4.5M for next season. If this is changing perhaps it can be grandfathered? pretty big swing if its wiped out at this point, granted it only matters to a couple teams.

Those are gone. We won't be grandfathering.
If we want to improve the league than GMs need to be willing to accept some changes that don't favor them.

[Hanna Sniper]

So, 4.5 Million, live with it... not that big of a deal. The goal is to better the league in the process a lot of teams are going to be faced with some harder choice that in the end we as a league may be beneficial for.

[TurdFerguson]

Well that's a piss off. Nothing like trying to play a game long-term while the immediate landscape changes without notice.

[JiriHrdina]

These rule changes are a cohesive plan. The alternative is we do nothing. The tone of the conversation when the problem was raised was that Gms were interested in change.

I have 3 first rounders this year in the draft. Two probably very high. Reducing their contracts from 3 to 2 impacts me.

Should I argue to have that grandfathered too? I acquired those picks based on an understanding that they would be assets locked in for 3 years in the ECHL which is awesome.

So maybe we just don't do anything.

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

So, 4.5 Million, live with it... not that big of a deal. The goal is to better the league in the process a lot of teams are going to be faced with some harder choice that in the end we as a league may be beneficial for.

i'm all for making the game better long-term. My suggestions over the years speak to that. I'm just irritated at the pace in which changes are implemented/communicated and the impact that has on some GMs and their strategies.

If the league passed a rule with no notice that dropped the ECHL limit to 10 some GMs would be pissed and others wouldn't care. Just because it doesn't impact you doesnt mean it doesn't matter, Doug.

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

These rule changes are a cohesive plan. The alternative is we do nothing. The tone of the conversation when the problem was raised was that Gms were interested in change.

I have 3 first rounders this year in the draft. Two probably very high. Reducing their contracts from 3 to 2 impacts me.

Should I argue to have that grandfathered too? I acquired those picks based on an understanding that they would be assets locked in for 3 years in the ECHL which is awesome.

So maybe we just don't do anything.

don't confuse my stance. I'm all for change, just with adequate warning. As i said, a season should end with the rules it started.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

don't confuse my stance. I'm all for change, just with adequate warning. As i said, a season should end with the rules it started.

There's never a great time to make these types of change. Not doing it now basically delays it a year. So we either suck it up and do it now, or we wait for another year.

And if we grandfather one thing, then people will want the thing that impacts them grandfathered too.

[Hanna Sniper]

No, but for me I'm not saying we should grandfather the waiver rule so I can benefit from it and then impose it when someone else will

We must see the best off all over our own greed

Each of us will be hit by one rule more then the other and if we are not hit by one then odds are we are the teams these rules are being put forward for

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

There's never a great time to make these types of change. Not doing it now basically delays it a year. So we either suck it up and do it now, or we wait for another year.

And if we grandfather one thing, then people will want the thing that impacts them grandfathered too.

I understand that. I am of the opinion though that events tied to a season (UFA, Draft, Salary Cap Awards), and not a game-game-game level, should be adjusted in the off-season. The rules set the tone for the game as its played for the season. Changing them on the fly is not how games are supposed to work.

I understand this is going nowhere and i shouldn't be wasting my time; im just saying I don't think this is the way seasonal changes should be rolled out.

I'll just take my 15.5% pay cut like a champ...as its only my problem.

[Hanna Sniper]

Just to be clear the championship money would have been prize money and not anything that would have come from any team. No team will loose anything for it being removed just some team will not benefit from it

paycut... it was never yours, more like you didn't get your raise that the boss promised you,

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper

Just to be clear the championship money would have been prize money and not anything that would have come from any team. No team will loose anything for it being removed just some team will not benefit from it

paycut... it was never yours, more like you didn't get your raise that the boss promised you,

Devils advocate.

its more like not getting a raise that was in a contract.

Dallas had already clinched the division title and all but clinched the conference and league titles.

[MJK]

So now that we are going to see a much better UFA pool, how nice that is for the GM's who have put themselves in a position to bid on UFA's. A cherry on the cake for them.

I wish I had known the UFA pool would be better because we will see more guys released but I know I am not currently in a position to be bidding because I didn't plan for that!

Implementing a UFA rule like this 3/4 way through the season and about 1 week away from the trade deadline is just a punch in the gut to anyone who has spent time building a team under existing rules.