1. Outright bonus points, no. But how many points did the Capitals gain in the standings because of some of those goals (most likely on the powerplay...)? How many extra points in the standings does a team have thanks to Selke type performances from a certain forward, or how many Norris Trophy caliber plays by a defender resulted in a win for a team where they otherwise may have lost? How many extra points did a team like Columbus last season get due to Sergei Bobrovsky's Vezina caliber season? That is the type of impact that those players have. It reflects throughout the year. Because the structure of our game is as it is, we cannot award those contributions in a tangible way without handing out points for those awards. That is what the awards are designed to reflect.
2. An interesting thought to discuss in the offseason perhaps.
3. I disagree. I think it adds an interesting twist and adds to the intrigue of the end of the season. We've had the awards every year since the game started. It has never once decided a division champion, and only once has it gotten a team into the playoffs and bumped another team out. Also, bias suggests that the outcome is fixed in some way and I strongly disagree with that. My votes for the Calder, Vezina, Hart etc. would be the same regardless of what CDCGML team they played on, and in the past the votes I have received from other GMs reflected the same. The weighted points system offers balance for the few GMs that might vote for a player specifically because of what team it may benefit or work against. That's also why teams cannot vote for their own players, to try and remove any potential bias. We've also removed past awards that are very subjective, like the King Clancy award. In real life it's a great award to have, but in this game it serves no real purpose and it will not be included in the voting.