What's the point in creating this thread when we have the other BOG thread? Also we just recently created a master thread, so I don't see any point in making a new one.

Organization, professionalism and the fact that we have to replace all of Booth's stickied posts anyways so why not. Honestly there isn't a great reason for it it just makes it more official that we have a new BOG and hopefully the GM Game has turned a corner for the better.

So rename it "Official Official Official" lol.

Fair enough, I guess.

The idea is for public posting to occur in this thread, so we can keep the other for the BOG to conduct business, while avoiding the burying and sidetracking that make it difficult to stay on task and track a single item.

Hey guys, just so you know both PHI & LAK have been inactive since Friday

Thanks. .someone else mentioned as well and I was checking...

I talked to LAK on twitter today so I can vogue for him. We were dicussing trades. Philly, don't know but I talked to him on twitter yesterday about a fantasy hockey league.

If you could tell Philly we need him back or we'll be forced to find a replacement GM, that would be great.

You should look into duplicates of players because of mistakes in FA... Toronto and Florida have Desmith. I believe Vegas and another team both have Connor Carrick

Connor Carrick issue was fixed. I'll look into DeSmith

ANA has Sam Carrick, I have Connor Carrick

I remember seeing someone make mention of it though

Yeah that was me, they both had Connor Carrick listed, but we figured out that ANAs player was supposed to be Sam Carrick.

was just about to comment on that myself

We're looking into DeSmith.

I couldn't find a record of Pittsburgh signing DeSmith.
In that case DeSmith was won by Florida legitimately in free agency.

Do both sides still have possession of the other assets in that trade?
If so it is relatively simple to just reverse the trade.

And I have Trevor Carrick

So, for the next waive of FA are we really making a master list for everyone to view? I hate this idea, because as we just witnessed in FA there are teams that bid on every single player. I liked the idea of just submitting list anonymously along with bids and if there are ties then we do waiver priority. It seems weird to spoon feed players to GMs when they have no idea who they even are.

This could change but this is the current plan.

There will be a master list of the players left over from the first round of FA. But for the new FAs (College and CHL), there will not be a list and teams will submit their bids privately.

DELETE

Oh ok I must have read it wrong, but I thought you guys were saying we were putting college FAs on the list with leftovers from Rd 1 FA. Thanks for clarifying

Wow, that's a lot of posts. Did I stutter when I clicked?

and apparently I can't edit/delete them. Sorry peeps.

Check the UFA Discussion thread for my preliminary plan. All players would be available in a list, but the number of players you can make an attempt at would be restricted.
Entries onto the list could be anonymous and the list of players you want to target could be anonymous. Nobody knows who is in on who until it's time to make selections, so you can't just piggyback off someone else's targets. It also prevents teams from attempting to get every single player.

Review my proposal and leave any feedback in that thread to keep the related discussion in one location for me please?

Check the UFA Discussion thread for my preliminary plan. All players would be available in a list, but the number of players you can make an attempt at would be restricted.
Entries onto the list could be anonymous and the list of players you want to target could be anonymous. Nobody knows who is in on who until it's time to make selections, so you can't just piggyback off someone else's targets. It also prevents teams from attempting to get every single player.

Review my proposal and leave any feedback in that thread to keep the related discussion in one location for me please?

I think there needs to be discussions about penalties for trading players/picks you don't have. I see this all the time where a deal is agreed upon and then someone comes back with "oops I don't have X, can we do this instead?" GMs should know exactly what they have when discussing deals.

I second this... especially if the game is to get a second version