|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Nov 21, 2008 22:19:33 GMT -5
You saw all points made. Once a unanimous decision has been voted upon, that is the team that will get Emery.
Voting closes at midnight pacific tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:22:19 GMT -5
Based on the RULES POSTED at the time, He rightfully belongs to Tampa. Also, there will never be a unanimous decision in a poll....might wanna modify that....
|
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:23:54 GMT -5
I still think New Jersey should get him.
There were good points made but he has already been officially claimed by Jersey so I don't think you should be able to go back on that. This might be something you want to look into for next year's free agent period. We should make sure we get all the rules figured out for stuff like this before it starts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmcook on Nov 21, 2008 22:24:34 GMT -5
Tampa has already moved on and is bidding on 3 other goalies. You can't cover every situation in the rules. This happened a decision was made, lets move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:25:11 GMT -5
But if Jersey's bid was a violation of the RULES (which it IS and WAS) he never was officially claimed by Jersey.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:26:31 GMT -5
It was moved and posted as "Claimed by New Jersey" is what I meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:27:51 GMT -5
So we're ok with violating the rules now? Just so we can "move on"? I think that's a TERRIBLE precedent to set. Terrible. And I expect better out of this league. Cause we ARE better.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmcook on Nov 21, 2008 22:33:54 GMT -5
It can't be in violation if there was no rule to handle this particaular situation
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Nov 21, 2008 22:35:51 GMT -5
NJD will not be allowed to vote in this due to a possible bias.
I meant to say majority, not unanimous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:40:33 GMT -5
I think there should definitely be a rule made so this doesn't happen again.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Nov 21, 2008 22:45:24 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:56:17 GMT -5
It can't be in violation if there was no rule to handle this particaular situation There was no AMMENDMENT or CLAUSE for this situation. The current rules outlined the RULES....so they should stand - for now: "When bidding on a UFA, you must bid at least $100,000 higher than the last bid (example, last bid was $800,000, you'd have to bid $900,000 or higher)." Until we change it, that MUST be what we go by. We can't assume GMs know what we mean. Some are new and don't know anything BUT the posted rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 21, 2008 22:58:20 GMT -5
It's a technicality, but its one that Tampa was clearly using when bidding, and he should not be screwed over simply because he read and bid by our posted rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmcook on Nov 21, 2008 23:00:11 GMT -5
and some don't read the rules at all. He has moved on and there are 3 goalies he is bidding on. The vote isn't going to change and Tampa isn't bitching so why make a problem where there is none
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Nov 21, 2008 23:04:23 GMT -5
As I said to Pens on MSN, Tampa IS bitching, just not to you guys. He also said, when asked, that he bid on other goalies cause he has 17M in cap and wanted a backup for Emery.
Also, I am not "making a problem where there isn't one" I am pointing out that there IS a problem, and Emery on NJ is that problem. jmcook, you've been a member of sim sites for AGES. You know all the ins and outs. Tampa is BRAND NEW. He doesn't know how they work, so he goes by the rules. He isn't trying to fuck anyone, he just thought he was signing Emery, and ended up handing him over to someone else. THAT is a BIG fucking problem in my book.
|
|
