Active Free agent Diego Jokinen TPE: 169

[BluObieZ 1,125]

Just now, Street x Lite said:

Who are the others besides Jokinen, OLOPM, Rowe, and Girard? I guess there are some inactive "active" players like @Spangle and someone else maybe.

 

Why do we even have a draft? We should just let everyone choose where they want to play every season. @eaglesfan036 @Frank

It's not everyone. It's not every season a team folds. It was said that active players on folding teams can sign where they want. I understand where people are coming from because everyone seems to be jumping on the Vegas wagon but if Ahma wants to sign there and no where else we can't force him to play elsewhere. Can we fault him or anyone wanting to get a cup?

[BluObieZ 1,125]

It's not like I'm telling them not to sign elsewhere. If you want to fault someone then fault me for having a great team. When the teams folded it was said active players can sign where they want. I understand that with Ahmad Vegas will be even better then we already are. But that's not Ahma's fault. You cannot fault him for it and force him to play for the 2nd place team at best

[eaglesfan036 4,603]

2 hours ago, Street x Lite said:

Who are the others besides Jokinen, OLOPM, Rowe, and Girard? I guess there are some inactive "active" players like @Spangle and someone else maybe.

 

Why do we even have a draft? We should just let everyone choose where they want to play every season. @eaglesfan036 @Frank

im not a vhlm commish anymore good try though haha

[scoop 3,432]

1 minute ago, eaglesfan036 said:

im not a vhlm commish anymore good try though haha

Lol oh I'm dumb

[scoop 3,432]

2 hours ago, BobertZ said:

It's not everyone. It's not every season a team folds. It was said that active players on folding teams can sign where they want. I understand where people are coming from because everyone seems to be jumping on the Vegas wagon but if Ahma wants to sign there and no where else we can't force him to play elsewhere. Can we fault him or anyone wanting to get a cup?

And what about the players  didn't get drafted by you? Why should they have to play for a team that isn't the best? 

[BluObieZ 1,125]

1 minute ago, Street x Lite said:

And what about the players  didn't get drafted by you? Why should they have to play for a team that isn't the best? 

Valid point. But to force a player to play for a team that he is not signed with is not fair to that player. He was drafted by a team no longer in existence. Players I did not draft were drafted by teams that will be in the next season. Ahma and the rest of the players that were on those disbanded teams should be let to pick. I honestly only wanted Rowe and Ahma. It's not like I wanted them all. Yes they might be the best ones, but once again you can't fault me for the team I have

[Bushito 1,945]

7 minutes ago, BobertZ said:

Valid point. But to force a player to play for a team that he is not signed with is not fair to that player. He was drafted by a team no longer in existence. Players I did not draft were drafted by teams that will be in the next season. Ahma and the rest of the players that were on those disbanded teams should be let to pick. I honestly only wanted Rowe and Ahma. It's not like I wanted them all. Yes they might be the best ones, but once again you can't fault me for the team I have

VHLM doesn't have active free agents and they should have went into the draft plain and simple.

[BluObieZ 1,125]

Just now, Bushitroll said:

VHLM doesn't have active free agents and they should have went into the draft plain and simple.

But they didn't. It's not my fault that they didn't

[Bushito 1,945]

7 minutes ago, BobertZ said:

But they didn't. It's not my fault that they didn't

I don't know why you keep saying that, I'm not blaming you nor am I mad over it. It was a poorly designed offseason.

[BluObieZ 1,125]

Just now, Bushitroll said:

I don't know why you keep saying that, I'm not blaming you nor am I mad over it. It was a poorly designed offseason.

It seems like your whole argument is that I shouldn't get Ahma is because he should have gone in the draft. On those grounds no one should get him. It was clearly pointed out that anyone who was on a team that is folding is free to sign anywhere they want. It honestly really isn't my fault that I had all those picks, the goalie I have and players want to sign with me. I will not stop putting in offers to join Vegas because if I sit back I wouldn't be doing my job.

[Bushito 1,945]

15 minutes ago, BobertZ said:

It seems like your whole argument is that I shouldn't get Ahma is because he should have gone in the draft. On those grounds no one should get him. It was clearly pointed out that anyone who was on a team that is folding is free to sign anywhere they want. It honestly really isn't my fault that I had all those picks, the goalie I have and players want to sign with me. I will not stop putting in offers to join Vegas because if I sit back I wouldn't be doing my job.

yeah my argument is all these players should have went into the draft, it literally has nothing to do with you or your team. You can keep trying to make it about your team if you want but you're wasting your time.

[BluObieZ 1,125]

8 minutes ago, Bushitroll said:

yeah my argument is all these players should have went into the draft, it literally has nothing to do with you or your team. You can keep trying to make it about your team if you want but you're wasting your time.

Okie Dokie. Your point will get you nowhere since the draft is over

[scoop 3,432]

2 hours ago, BobertZ said:

It seems like your whole argument is that I shouldn't get Ahma is because he should have gone in the draft. On those grounds no one should get him. It was clearly pointed out that anyone who was on a team that is folding is free to sign anywhere they want. It honestly really isn't my fault that I had all those picks, the goalie I have and players want to sign with me. I will not stop putting in offers to join Vegas because if I sit back I wouldn't be doing my job.

There is literally a rule that says teams can't have more than one active free agent. It was never stated that this rule does not apply to the dead teams' players. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Street x Lite

[Ahma 1,430]

I'll sign with Las Vegas. If the noob commissioner's allow it.

 

@Banackock@Frank @BobertZ

[boubabi 4,725]

ahma got the attention he needed, but not the one he deserved 

[Banackock 8,049]

20 hours ago, BobertZ said:

But they didn't. It's not my fault that they didn't

Nor is it really ours. We did not plan for retention and were brought in after the notion was already in place. Was more of a "Oh, okay" type of thing from Frank and I.

 

All I'm going to say now is that I've sent a PM off to Higgins and Frank regarding the situation with a couple of suggestions.

 

Quote

With the teams that folded, we have a couple players who became Free Agents and it was brought to my attention that they were allowed to sign with a team of their choosing. While I agree with this, I was curious how the 1 active, 1 inactive FA signing per team "rule" would affect this.

 

This season is a rare occasion with 2 teams folding - so I say potentially up it to 2 for the season. If we allow them to sign "where ever", we're going to see 300 players stack on to Las Vegas and while it will be fun to see them dominate and lucky be a storied season for them (with Bobert creating some good craze for the VHLM), it'll be a shit end of the stick for other teams and would not create balance in the league.

 

Reminder, folding 2 teams was to create balance. Following this season, probably during, we should come back to this and figure out the inactive/active FA situation though I believe 1/1 should still work in the future with the addition that.. IF 5 teams sign an FA, it restarts at 0/5 for all teams? Inactives have a cap of 1 signing per team a season.

 

Conclusion: 

I say we either up it to two FA signings, or let it be a free show this year. I am leaning towards 2 signings though.

 

Thoughts?

Now, it should not surprise you that @Higgins has read and not responded, lol. 

 

I don't feel as though I should lay down a decision on my own without discussion with these 2. @Higgins was adamant that he got the final say in relocation and that it wasn't gonna happen this year. Frank and I made that happen for @BobertZ. So, should be apart of this too then tbh.

 

So everyone is aware, I am leaning towards everyone being able to sign 2 players. I believe in competition and that's the main reason we seen the retention of two teams. the VHLM is a huge part to the league - whether veteran members think so or not. Usually we just breeze through it and it's wrong. We should embrace every stage of our careers. Both sides of the frozen pond are important and serve a purpose to the VHL community. Now, I love Las Vegas. They got a hell of a team going, but I do not agree that they should be able to sign 4 more Free Agents because they're the new "Miama Heat" of the VHLM and people just want to be there to win (or be apart of it).

 

I have an additional suggestion:

 

For this season, open it up to 2 and 1. You're able to sign 2 actives/1 inactive. HOWEVER, if one team doesn't wanna sign an active, they can toss their Free Agent "right" for the season to the other team in a trade. Be warned, I find out you tamper and tell the player to get the rights traded or they won't play there, you will be dismissed of your GM duties. 

 

 

 

@Frank Once I hear anything from the other 2, a ruling would be made but this is likely where I stand. 

[BluObieZ 1,125]

Welcome @Ahma you are officially an #ASS

Edited April 7, 2017 by Banackock

[Banackock 8,049]

7 minutes ago, BobertZ said:

Welcome @Ahma you are officially an #ASS

Officially an ASS?

 

 

[BluObieZ 1,125]

Just now, Banackock said:

Officially an ASS?

 

 

Nice Edit. I will leave it as so

[BOOM 8,752]

I'd get a warning for that on the public board. Discrimination!

[scoop 3,432]

10 hours ago, Banackock said:

but I do not agree that they should be able to sign 4 more Free Agents because they're the new "Miama Heat" of the VHLM and people just want to be the

Maybe you don't realize this, but there is a rule  place already that says teams can have one active and one inactive free agent. You could've just decided that rule would apply here rather than allow Las Vegas a second active free agent. There aren't even more than three active free agents, so this decision is all Las Vegas needed

 

Based on your words it seems there was intent to keep things somewhat balanced, but this doesn't hinder the super team at all. Instead of allowing 1+1 you allow 2+1? Doesn't make much sense to me

Edited April 7, 2017 by Street x Lite

[Banackock 8,049]

7 hours ago, Street x Lite said:

Maybe you don't realize this, but there is a rule  place already that says teams can have one active and one inactive free agent. You could've just decided that rule would apply here rather than allow Las Vegas a second active free agent. There aren't even more than three active free agents, so this decision is all Las Vegas needed

 

Based on your words it seems there was intent to keep things somewhat balanced, but this doesn't hinder the super team at all. Instead of allowing 1+1 you allow 2+1? Doesn't make much sense to me

Im aware of the rules. Was not a decision made "just" by me. Others were involved - I made the post. 

 

For next season, something else may take the current rules place. Potentially 1 inactive and all actives placed in draft or waivers.