|
Votes
May 3, 2011 11:50:13 GMT -5
Post by uofmehockey on May 3, 2011 11:50:13 GMT -5
Okay I'm posting some polls for you guys. Send me suggestions for what polls you'd like to see up and also specifically what do you want the choices to be for the recent prospect/FA signings debate to be? Let me know thanks. I've decided to stick it through and be your Commish. I'd just ask for your understanding. If anyone has problems on the tanking rules post them here. I can tinker with them but I felt at the time it was necessary to get something done about it.
I'm a bit busy with the last few weeks of classes but will do my best to keep up with the threads. I'll be able to be very active once I get out of school for the academic year. I will especially be around late afternoon and in the evening during the summer. Thanks guys.
Co-Commish Yas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Votes
May 3, 2011 18:04:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2011 18:04:03 GMT -5
Thanks for your work gguthe.
|
|
|
Votes
May 6, 2011 14:10:04 GMT -5
Post by Sami (CGY) on May 6, 2011 14:10:04 GMT -5
Thanks, and good luck with the end of school!
As for options re: prospect/FA signings, I like WildGM's proposal in the Free Agents thread, and I agree that once we have a number of polls up, we should email people to let them know to come and vote (not much sense in doing this now though when we'll have other things to vote on, i.e. Dyz and I were going to look at putting together a proposal, assuming that we allow prospect signings during the season, to subject such signings to waiver priority).
|
|
|
Votes
May 6, 2011 14:49:36 GMT -5
Post by JetsGM on May 6, 2011 14:49:36 GMT -5
As for options I would like to see on the FA prospect/signing issue-
1)Players who have played less than 39 NHL may only be acquired via yearly draft(this would allow for the signing at anytime of players who have played more than 39 NHL gms) 2)Players may be signed at anytime(except during any roster freeze) regardless of # of NHL GP(but those who have played less than 39gms may also be selected in our yearly draft)
I don't think option #2 would negatively impact the talent pool of our draft. There are plenty of prospects who are still available that I would rather select than a good number of the 2011 draft eligible players, but I might be alone in thinking that.
|
|