Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 11:24:29 GMT -5
Would you please repsond with your comments on the following suggestion:
IFFHL players who meet ALL of the following requirements below will be released from thier respective IFFHL rosters at the end of every IFFHL season (including play-offs) and made available in the yearly waiver draft:
1) Eligble for waivers.
2) Skaters: over 60 GP; and Goalies: over 30 GP in the current NHL season.
3) Did not play at least ONE week in the IFFHL season (not including playoffs).
My main arguement is if you're not using the player to help make the playoffs, why are you keeping him?
If you're argument is "I am stashing him in case of injury but never had to use him", then you have too many NHLers and need to share.
If you're arguement is "I was saving him for the playoffs during waiver-free period", then the opposite should also be true: Non-playoff teams should be permitted to stash their NHLers in the minors to "tank" better.
Let me know your thoughts guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 11:56:40 GMT -5
Also, if your arguement is "I wanted to use him, but I can't afford his cap hit", then that's too bad for you. The cap ceiling is clearly stated and we all need to manage our rosters accordingly without looking for loopholes to get around the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Apr 14, 2016 11:57:43 GMT -5
interesting idea. I'm looking forward to the comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Apr 14, 2016 12:00:03 GMT -5
I like you're suggestion.
Not sure what the best fix would be but definitely see a problem. Doesn't seem to be any player of any significance put on waivers, as gms will start the season with them in minors or trade them so that they don't just lose them and the same player can be sent down waiver-free.
Guilty:
I held Engelland down all season even though i had injured D and could have used him but knew i'd lose him once the IR'ed D was healed.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on Apr 14, 2016 13:39:27 GMT -5
I'd be ok with it if there were an age restriction like they have to be 25 or older to be eligible too many prospects that aren't yet good enough for a full time roster would be claimed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 13:46:01 GMT -5
Love it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 13:47:39 GMT -5
I'd be ok with it if there were an age restriction like they have to be 25 or older to be eligible too many prospects that aren't yet good enough for a full time roster would be claimed.
Yes - That's covered in point #1
The player is eligible for waivers.
No one will lose thier waiver-free or prospects.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 13:58:09 GMT -5
Sorry but I'm against this idea because I've drafted with the rule of allowing vet rot in the minor for insurance. How this fair to change the rule now ? Just because a team like Kelowna have too much depth. I understand balancing the league but it's unfair to change the rule now. I understand at the moment the activity on the waiver wire is not enough active but I feel this is not the solution or at least not one I'm willing to get on board with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 14:00:16 GMT -5
I'd be ok with it if there were an age restriction like they have to be 25 or older to be eligible too many prospects that aren't yet good enough for a full time roster would be claimed.
Yes - That's covered in point #1
The player is eligible for waivers.
No one will lose thier waiver-free or prospects.
But you are putting a guy like Bolland in jeopardy and lower the value of Vet during the off season and opposite for the prospect and nhler that are waiver free. Too much change !! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 14:10:00 GMT -5
Bolland would not be in jeopardy as per point #2. He did not play in 60GP.
It is a league problem to let "vet rot in the minor for insurance". Like I said, if rich teams can be allowed to stash players in the minors, then let weak teams do the same so they can "win" Austin Matthews. Why should I play with my mediocre team and finish in the 7-15 range only to get smoked in the playoffs? Playing a team lke Kelowna who'sd insurance policy for injury consists of 14 NHL regulars is extremely one-sided. I would be much better off stashing Pacioretty, Lucic, and so on in the minors so I can re-build quickly with high draft picks.
It has got to be fair both ways. enough of this one way street business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 14:27:20 GMT -5
The only thing I wonder if this deal past. Does this mean let's say Parise play 70games during the season and I don't have enough cap then I would be force to either play him during the next season making the waiver free to all period during the off season none existent. Is that correct ? If that's correct you definitely don't have my vote. Let's say I want to start the year with only one goalie (Varlamov) but since both of my goalie have played more then 30 games and are older they are no longer waiver free during the off season. Meaning once the season starts I either play them both or lose one of them on waiver. How is that fair ? Having waiver exempt to decide our roster at the start give us flexibility which is one thing I love this league. I have another league that only during the playoff we have waiver free but once the season start anyone older then 26 are no longer exempt from waiver which does sucks but at least I knew about this rule when we started drafting. Is was there from the get go. So how is it fair to introduce it now ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Djurgardens on Apr 14, 2016 15:15:56 GMT -5
Would you please repsond with your comments on the following suggestion:
IFFHL players who meet ALL of the following requirements below will be released from thier respective IFFHL rosters at the end of every IFFHL season (including play-offs) and made available in the yearly waiver draft:
1) Eligble for waivers.
2) Skaters: over 60 GP; and Goalies: over 30 GP in the current NHL season.
3) Did not play at least ONE week in the IFFHL season (not including playoffs).
My main arguement is if you're not using the player to help make the playoffs, why are you keeping him?
If you're argument is "I am stashing him in case of injury but never had to use him", then you have too many NHLers and need to share.
If you're arguement is "I was saving him for the playoffs during waiver-free period", then the opposite should also be true: Non-playoff teams should be permitted to stash their NHLers in the minors to "tank" better.
Let me know your thoughts guys.
I think restriction of numbers is necessary if not in total, then certainly in some form of tiered system or as outlined by Eric's proposal in a seasonal edit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 15:35:22 GMT -5
Here's what I would consider voting for;
IFFHL players who meet ALL of the following requirements below will be released from their respective IFFHL rosters at the end of every IFFHL season (including play-offs) and made available in the yearly waiver draft:
1) Eligible for waivers.
2) Skaters: over 60 GP; and Goalies: over 30 GP in the current NHL season.
3) Did not play at least ONE week in the IFFHL season (not including playoffs).
4) anyone under the age of 26 is waiver free
Each team would have three waiver free pass to anyone that does not fit this criteria to start off the season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 16:17:09 GMT -5
Frank you have to look at the other side of the coin.
Rich teams stock pile players in the minors to help them win. Consider the opposite: stocking minors with elite nhl talent to lose and get a top draft pick. What incentive is there to finish middle of the pack? None.
I for one am strongly considering stashing my NHLers in the minors if it is still allowed by next season. I will replace my elite NHLers with scrubs to reach GP limits. It is within the rules so why not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2016 16:31:14 GMT -5
This shipped sailed long ago. If you want to do something like this you might as well just start over and redraft a league with whoever remains.
|
|
