Admins

User avatar
RusH
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 10:07 pm
Battle.net Name:
Battle.net Char Code: 0
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: Admins

Post by RusH » Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:37 am

Crush isn't a true first rounder.. Tom is borderline 2nd rounder imo. Bulb is a legit 1st rounder and him going first overall isn't that much of a shock seeing as he had what? 50 goals last season?

If these teams weren't eliminated from the playoffs, these trades would've never happened.

But I believe the point of the thread was to address the ZHPL rules that rekt JMoney, not the trades.
User avatar
krazymen
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:10 pm
Battle.net Name: krazymen
Battle.net Char Code: 249
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: Admins

Post by krazymen » Thu Jun 04, 2015 3:22 am

the point of this thread is to address ALL the issues that happened this season and try to fix them.
Bowling trophy (birthday trophy)
Achieved level 105 in starcraft 2
Undefeated in 5v5
self proclaimed director of ironic trophies
User avatar
l)arkangel
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:50 am
Battle.net Name: Darkangel
Battle.net Char Code: 1457
Battle.net Server: NA
Location: Troll City

Re: Admins

Post by l)arkangel » Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:43 am

My reason for veto ing the first trade was that I thought the premise of a team trading strictly zhpl players for zhl players after each team knew of they made the playoffs or not was bad for the league the owners oveelrturned the veto meaning that they felt it was within the owners right to make trades that would better their chances in the playoffs in their respective leagues. Therefore if it's allowed to go through once, I can't really make any claim to veto another.

That was my thought process as a commissioner
*S5 Champion*

Player Profile
User avatar
krazymen
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:10 pm
Battle.net Name: krazymen
Battle.net Char Code: 249
Battle.net Server: NA

Re: Admins

Post by krazymen » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:20 pm

l)arkangel wrote:My reason for veto ing the first trade was that I thought the premise of a team trading strictly zhpl players for zhl players after each team knew of they made the playoffs or not was bad for the league the owners oveelrturned the veto meaning that they felt it was within the owners right to make trades that would better their chances in the playoffs in their respective leagues. Therefore if it's allowed to go through once, I can't really make any claim to veto another.

That was my thought process as a commissioner
I understand that thought process but I think that even if both trades was trading ZHPL players for ZHL players i think that they were still pretty different since it was completely different player with different skills being traded to different teams that were each lacking skills in different aspect. so to me both trades are completely different which means that even if the owners veto the first one the 2nd could still end up not being veto'd by the owners. Why? because you want a system where they let a trade that they think is not harmful to the league go thru and one that is harmful to not go thru. But what we saw is that even tho they thought it was harmful they still didnt veto knowing they could get a trade themself afterwards that would not be veto'd by the commish. Which would, in their opinion make their team much better and be worth not vetoing the harmful trade. I can see where you're coming from tho and i know some people agree with what you did and others dont.

The main problem with having owners decide on trades is that they are only gonna take a decision thats gonna be good for their teams and since some teams felt like the first trade made one team extremely stronger for the playoffs they felt like they had to do the same (and thats for every team since we all know that a lot of teams tried to get players). The easiest way to do so would be to make sure that the 1st trade works in order to be able to even try to do a 2nd trade that would potentially not be able to be veto for the same reason you said.

I believe that if we treated each trade as a new one where if the commish feels like the trade would be bad for the league and then vetos the trade then owners knowing that would most likely not veto the initial trade. Because, they would know that if the commish thinks it would be harmful to the league even if its core aspect (ex: ZHPL players only for ZHL players) is similar to a previous trade, he would veto the trade.

In my opinion, if you look at it like trade 1 ZHPL for ZHL players is = to trade 2 ZHPL players for ZHL players is not the best way to do it since each team in the league will have different problems (missing defense, missing offense, missing goalie ...) and every player plays different position so even if a trade is ZHPL for ZHL players it could mean much more than that. So, even if the trade seems similar in its core aspect I believe that its actually really different if you look at it closely.

If we want to keep it where we do it like you did this season, then we need to change the fact that its the owners who decides wether to veto a trade or not. Because. they will try to get a trade afterwards that might harm the league but be good for their team knowing that the commish would have no power to veto it afterwards or no good argument to veto it if you will.

Thats what i think anyways
Bowling trophy (birthday trophy)
Achieved level 105 in starcraft 2
Undefeated in 5v5
self proclaimed director of ironic trophies
Locked