VOTE: Restrict Resigning of Recently BO Player?

[SlackJack]

Hey it's just Math guy.........when you vote on trades do you vote twice?

Singed, it's just logical!

the real issue here is weather multi-ownership is good for the league. It has been discussed before and will no doubt be debated again. Let's just not do it here.

Regardless of the number of votes, we are learning how people feel. This participation is key to a healthy league. Let's hope we hear from more GM's regardless of the outcome!

[snugerud]

I am neutral. 

I do find it an easy cop out on a contract and I dont like that it allows people to extend players at free will knowing that worst case scenario they can always buy them out. 

at the same time, its a level playing field and would create more work from the admin side. 

[dickiedunn]

Ottawa Senators management submits a No vote on the grounds that this is a non-starter of a rule change.

The big question is How does modifying the "Buy-Out and Try to re-sign" guidelines improve the overall level of competition in the league? As it stands, I do not believe the rule benefits any particular group nor individual.

In the event Los Angeles is permitted to vote, Kings would also vote No.

Otherwise the Los Angeles franchise abstains.

- DD

[PsychoticPondGoons]

Hey it's just Math guy.........when you vote on trades do you vote twice?

Singed, it's just logical!

What?? Ripper you are still out in LF!
That's Apples and Oranges man. League wide vote means 1 vote per team.
:TC: is select members, that would be double counting.

[ripper]

Ahhhhh ok, wait....... are you asking me to sign your daughters hat?

[SlackJack]

Oh what now Snug votes no? Next time we have a discussion lets all say what we really mean. Gotta stick a pin in this one.

[snugerud]

I didnt vote no. I voted neutral.  I still hate it, just not sure I hate it enough to put pigs through the extra admin work since I am gathering that both admins are not hot on the idea. 

[PigsRule]

REPOST from another thread but relevant here as well from a league setup perspective:

We have to make cap management tools available to owners to dig themselves out of holes previous owners have dug or ones they've dug themselves.

Otherwise, ppl get frustrated with the cap issues their team face and they decide to abandon the team.

To promote ownership stability and foster long-er term commitment to building winning franchises we have created these tools for owners to use. Call them loopholes but in fantasy play, no one wants to get stuck with too many problems that block them from contending. Buying out, resigning and applying for a Buyout discount are all cap management tools to help teams compete on the fly.

[PsychoticPondGoons]

VOTE TOTALS
5 teams voted YES, close loophole for same team to resign recently bought out player
:COL-NHL:
:TOR-NHL:
:CAR-NHL:
:STL-NHL:
:WAS-NHL3:

10 teams voted NO, don't restrict buyouts players from being resigned by their recent owner.
:CLG:
:BOS-NHL:
:FLO:
:EDM:
:VAN:
:PHI-NHL:
:CHI-NHL:
:CLS:
:OTT:
:LAK:

Cleaning up votes and posts and added the vote totals to the first post.

5 Yes votes to change the rule on buy outs that would stop the same team buying out a player to bid on the same player who is a Free agenct.

10 No votes to let the existing BO rules remain which means a team can buyout player X or a random example like Alexander Semin (LOL) and bid on Semin in the free agent pool with the 29 other teams and be allowed to win and resign Semin.

[SlackJack]

or a random example like Alexander Semin (LOL)

The vote was actually 6 GM's to 4 with 1 undecided. But make no mistake, it's in the rules so I intend to use this loophole as much as anyone!   :rofl: