Buds Board Keepers League

Thank you, Billy.

So by lowering the threshold, we would see more players needing to go through waivers, or being traded to avoid waivers at the beginning of a season. For example, on my team I would see the waiver eligible players rise from 24 to 28. I would likely lose (or forced to trade) goalie prospect Matt Hackett. I'm not against it, but just something to think about.

Goalies can count as bench players as well.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

Tony wroteCOLONNo one is unqualified. If anything, what Fraser is doing shows that people still care. After six years that is definitely a good thing.

Yep and it's the newer people that are frustrated joining a great league with no up to date CBA and not knowing rules and dates of things.

it's not only the newer people, trust me.

I think no one suffer from this more than CC members actually, who are forced to deal time and time again with the same issues without a clear and handy reference available.

Fraser wroteCOLONIt was a case where we saw nobody else pushing to work through these issues. If its being interpreted that its some sort of power trip by unqualified individuals I'll put this to death.

No please..
You and Fraser being committed to putting together a concerted and updated CBA is something that only deserves praise and encouragement.

I think Kyle got the impression of someone wanting to change a lot of things because a lot of arguments have been brought up altogether for discussion.
I think that things that were addressed in the past and that have not been creating concerns should not be up for discussion again (at least not now when we have many other things that still need to be fixed/addressed/written/added. The 82 games schedule is something we already discussed and there was consensus so that's a different case and should be discussed/changed already as we proceed with the new CBA). That doesn't mean a possible need for their completion can not be discussed, if that arised.

So imho the steps we need to take are:
- figure out which matters only need to be added or worded (as they were already discussed and covered with announcements) or rewritten (as already part of the CBA)
- figure out which matters instead still need to be discussed and regulated
- discuss these one at once
- ideally, as soon as we are ready to move to the next point and we start discussing it, whoever is entitled to do it should write down the regulation on the previous point: it will be easier to do it when the argument is still fresh and more importantly perhaps, it will be easier for those who read to spot anything that needs to be fixed in the wording if the discussion just happened.

anything happening with this?

Yeah, we're almost done. Days away. Stay tuned.

not funny

I'm willing to help with this in the summer if needed