Kirk should be banned from ICQ.

I'm trying to finish a Ph.D. and the guy is constantly bugging me with trade offers and asking for opinions... ban him from ICQ so I can finish school already.

LOL, u know I love you Kirk you maniac.

i dont think their should be such a thing as a olli jokinen rule.. its understood that we had it last year but i do not think it should be an annual thing.

1. I think that a team that violates the salary floor should not have a player suspended for the rest of the year while that player's salary no longer counts to the cap. It forces a rebuilding team (I'm assuming) to make a horrible trade just to get above the salary floor again.

2. There is a revenue sharing in the NHL, I know finances are a way to sign key free agents, and with some teams around the 1-3mill range with others above 30 mill... I think the top 5 richest teams should make a donation to the 5 poorest. This will increase parity in the league, as it gives poorer teams to make a splash in free agency. Some compensation to the teams donating money (such as a 3rd round pick) could be added in as well.

3. Instead of putting through every trade once it is sent in, have either Eric or Bryce look at the trade, if there is a distinct advantage to one team, put it to the BOD for discussion. That way you don't have other GMs up in arms about lopsided trades.

4. A rule currently being discussed in the BRHL thread, is that any RFA eligible cap casualties should receive a multi-year deal instead of a one-year deal.

5. I'm sure in Year 1 it was a big deal, but I didn't talk to anyone who used the sponsorships this year, can we get rid of them?

Hey Gareth,

I couldn't help but notice you contradicted yourself just a touch with the finances querries. You suggest revenue sharing but also suggest abolishing a way for teams to build finances in the sponsorships... I found that confusing. Teams that have a lot of money usually have it because they write articles, did sponsorships or other hard working methods of building up the finances. Every team has the ability to do this. It's not like we have some teams in actual bad hockey markets and need the revenue sharing. Just do some work for Eric and he'll give you (or whoever) some finances.

I like making the rich teams help the poor teams. The problem I have is that they should have to do something for the money.

Articles, league tasks etc. Also, it should be monitored so that the same teams aren't in fiscal problems over and over again. I don't want to be tossing out money for teams that are negligent.

HOTLANTA wrote:

---

neither do the yankees or red sox but life sucks lol

---

The difference though is that are markets that are bound to succeed in real life no matter how good the team is. Like the yankees, like the red sox, like the Maple Leafs.

That problem doesn't exist here. It's a level playing field. I wouldn't want to give away money I earned for writing articles or helping out the league to a lazy GM who doesn't have finances because he doesn't help out.

sponsorships mean you have to spend money and risk you complete the task.... i think that the new teams have to find some way of contributing to the league in order to gain revenue-sharing... i wasn't suggesting a completely free handout for the poorer teams...

i think a ban on kirk trading with new gms for at least a month is also a good idea.... it might put off gms to have their first conversation in brhl2 of kirk pestering the gm for a guy.... :P