I'm fine with that. I posted that last night when I was waiting for some type of response on an RFA signing. I didn't want to just sign him but he didn't seem to see it, so I figured an extra set of eyes would help, but he's doing a good job so if that's what he wants, it's more than fine.

I have another suggestion. I think it would be a good idea to have a master thread for in game rules and events rather than separate threads for every little detail in the game.

What do you guys think? We could have it updated and listed neatly as rangersandislesfan approves them?

Also I really like the idea for GM's to put a note on their GM thread title letting people know if they'll be busy or inactive for a longer period of time or what not.

I would like to suggest that you have to offer at least 5-6 year contracts to big name free agents, that way no one can go like $12M for 2 years for Shattenkirk.

This is the biggest thing to find a solution for, but Joe Thornton is a big name, and I don't think he's getting a 5-6 year contract.
Check the other thread for some of my ideas, and see if you can figure out something simpler but still effective maybe?

How about this?

Big name UFAs aged 26-32 need at least 5-6 year deals to meet qualifications for a bid
Big name UFAs aged 33-35 need at least 2 year deals to meet qualifications for a bid
Big name UFAs aged 36+ need at least 1 year deals to meet qualifications for a bid

That's a similar idea, but what qualifies as a "Big Name" would be my next question. You might think it is obvious, but people have different opinions on that sort of thing.
I'd like to find something without a subjective qualifier ... err, without opinions making the decisions, if possible.

-----

I think the more pressing issue that we have yet to address is Vegas' 48 hour free agency window thing before their expansion draft.
We can't have it be just them bidding against the home team, and we aren't ready to have everyone bidding on a player.
So we have to find a reasonable way to determine what a fair value is for Vegas to offer a player, if the home team decides to let that player go, so the player isn't getting much less than they would in open free agency.

I'd like to get at least that part figured out before the 25th.

Rough idea off the top of my head because I'm in a rush during intermission and don't want to forget.
Vegas gives us a list of players they plan to target, and we allow each team to submit 1 bid on those players, reflecting what they intend to offer during free agency.
So teams can't just bid up those players without consequences, those bids would be recorded and those teams will HAVE TO make those same bids during free agency as well.
Basically, no take-backs. (You can't say you'll give $9M to a player and then later change to $7M or decide not to bid on that player.)

Either that or we discuss in committee as to what a fair deal would be for that player and tell Vegas what it will cost to sign the player, but there would be a conflict of interest if it included GMs that want that player, so the GMs in that committee making the contract decisions are barred from bidding on that player in free agency?

Like I said, all off the top of my head because I'm in a rush. Check back later.

OK guys now is the time to put the rule change ideas you might have into clear concise formats for rangersfan (and me only for the fact that I will collect all the ideas and put them in a new thread for rangersfan to vote on, tomorrow.)

I'm going to be compiling all ideas I've seen (including NBC's idea on UFA's just to show Im not biased) and once its all set up, I'll post it to a thread where all rangersfan has to do is vote yes or no on each one and then its complete. Once his verdict is final, we can officially start in the sense that all the rules will then be clearly defined and any new concepts or ideas that have been approved will be added in to the official rules.

Lets get crackin

No way I'm signing a 32 year old for 6 years

make it 26-30, 31-33, 33-36, and 37+

Maybe for players over 30, the minimum years is just however many years until they're 36. This depends player to player a bit too which isn't very quantifiable in some cases.

i have a suggestion: how about we do Free Agency starting may 14th at 3:00 PM ET?

You can't just set an arbitrary date for free agency without knowing how we are going to be able to operate it.
We don't need deadlines (the when), we need methods (the how).
Once we know how it is going to happen, then we can decide when it is going to happen.

Ok since we were aiming to try and discuss and find solutions to some of the issues we've run into today, I was thinking we should break each issue into 1-2 hour discussion windows to keep our solution making more focused. Whenever we get a good number of the regulars on, maybe discuss Expansion first since that is coming up the closest and once figured out should be the easiest to set in stone. Then we can cover UFA next, and so forth. Ideally we try and keep the discussion organized so we can get as much done as possible.

Sounds good.

I recommend starting a thread for the first item on the agenda only. That way we can focus on that issue and get it resolved.
For the off season time line, the first item is Vegas UFA bidding.
We still need to decide how Vegas can sign a pending UFA/RFA, in a way that the contract is realistic, and how they "win" that player from the home team.

The most pressing side issue, is getting Nashville back into the game.
This will be followed by Dallas if we don't see some activity soon.

So Vegas Exclusive Free Agency Discussion if you want to start it?

Yes that works for me. I'll start the thread.
Update: Vegas Specific UFA discussion thread now up and running.

I think if they're at least 37 they should sign 1 year deals, but that's just me. And what do you mean big name UFAs?

I've created a new rangersfan master thread. Please go take a minute to read. but don't comment in it. Its mainly for rangersfan only. At least for now it is.

Please use the "suggestions for GM Game" to make comments.

Thanks!

Wow how long did that take? Haha

I only read the first part and the part where you discussed about trading. Before you joined we had a discussion about this stating that it doesn't matter when the trades are official or not. So after debating, we chose that trades can be made official right away.

Worked on it all morning and day.

Awesome. If you guys settled anything previously that's great.! Honestly the more that is finalized now, the faster we can officially get on with the game .

Yeah true

Also just if I missed something or said something that isn't necessarily true in the rangersfan master thread, let me know. I'll go in and change it.

I don't want to talk about this stuff, but I guess I have to. It's getting more difficult to pander to Rangers simply because he came up with the idea for the game. Marco put effort into trying to get all his Rangers' half-thought out ideas organized so we could flesh them out, and he still has no idea what is going on, because he himself admitted that he doesn't have time to keep up with the threads. I didn't even bother trying to figure out his post and where/why those ideas popped up, and "I don't understand" is kind of his catch phrase.



What are we supposed to do with that?



More of this as well. Not allowing trades in a game that is mostly centered around making trades, for one thing. Along with the typical Vegas is not allowed to do anything productive. As well as Marco pointed out, trying to restrict trades for no apparent reason and without a clear explanation.



Here's a rule that is reasonable and makes some sense.



I don't have an issue with how this has worked, mostly because others have had a voice in it. No one person can set a reasonable value for every player in the league. Not without assistance at least.



Date has been set, but no preparation has been made.



I don't currently have an issue, aside from attempting to assign a date, which we aren't prepared to do right now. I haven't seen much effort put into forming a plan to tackle either though. Thankfully, matt has started the ball rolling to get us organized in this area. So I believe we can make progress, but checking in and making sure he understands along the way, is going to be tedious and time consuming.



We need active GM's all the time. It affects the entire league when a GM disappears for long stretches. I agree with Marco's points, and with others who have suggested setting a deadline, expectation of activity, and appoint at least assistant/temporary GM/AGM's to manage the teams of the currently inactive GM's if they don't respond by that deadline.

Apparently Marco has reached the end of his patience already?
That's fine and your choice, but we could still use your input along the way.

I have more confidence in making everything work than I did yesterday, but we still need Rangers to pass the puck to some teammates if he isn't able to put in more effort.

I'm going to suggest we tackle inactive GMs first tomorrow, shouldn't take too long, and then Expansion Draft, which shouldn't be too complicated either. Could pop off 2 items in one day and perhaps get started on the next in line, that being the draft. I won't be on any more tonight, so you can start a discussion thread for inactive GMs whenever you get on tomorrow if you'd like Matt.

Once we figure we have enough votes on the Vegas draft thing, we can finalize that and strike it off the list as well, but should let it breathe for 24 hours or so.

Ok sounds good. I'll make the inactive GMs thread tomorrow morning. It looks like the 48 hour window being ditched should pass with ease so we should be good to go early in the morning with the next topic of discussion (inactives, then expansion).