Partial Keeper

[Vancouver Canucks]

Just thought I would throw this out there for discussion. There has been lots of discussion about older players being hoarded in the minors. What if we considered going to a partial keeper where you can only keep up to 23 players that are non-waiver eligible. It would go something like this:

• Early August - Declare 23 keepers that are not eligible to pass through waivers
• Two weeks later – Hold the annual waiver draft. These picks should have more value
• Prior to the season, set 23 man roster, everyone else can go to the minors without having to pass waivers
• If you need depth, you trade for it same as now.
• End of season activity should increase as teams try to trade players they will not protect.

Of course any change would not take effect until 17/18 or 18/19.

[Deleted]

This is not too far off from a previously discussed suggestion which received 11 of 18 votes.

iffhl.proboards.com/thread/1074/2nd-vote-stashing-nhlers-minors.

NIck - Curious on how you came up with 23?

[Golden Seals]

i like the general idea but 23 is quite low, imo.

[Dave (PLK)]

23 is the number of players allowed on roster on fantrax.

I like the idea.

We could discuss the 23 number further.

[Vancouver Canucks]

Jul 6, 2016 11:37:14 GMT -5 @eric said:

This is not too far off from a previously discussed suggestion which received 11 of 18 votes.

iffhl.proboards.com/thread/1074/2nd-vote-stashing-nhlers-minors.

NIck - Curious on how you came up with 23?

20 active and 3 reserve

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

Are prospect still eligible to pass waivers ? If not i'm completely against it.

Pretty much against it even without the prospect thing.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2016 13:02:15 GMT -5 WillyBilly (Tire Fires) said:

Are prospect still eligible to pass waivers ? If not i'm completely against it.

Pretty much against it even without the prospect thing.

Sounds like non eligible players for waivers. So your prospects are safe.

[Deleted]

I strongly disagree with this proposal. My favorite lines from the thread Eric brought up is: "This vote is about Stashing NHLers is the minors. Keep your vote regarding this issue only. It is not solely about league parity, however I do think it benefits parity a bit. If GM's would like to discuss league parity, I suggest starting a different thread."

I continue to ask the same questions: what is the point of attacking teams that have used existing rules to build up veterans in the minors as a strategy? Is the goal to punish these teams, just for the sake of doing so? There are 30 NHL teams, and 24 in our league. It's not that difficult to ice a full line up.

I just do not support a new rule that disproportionately hurts some teams, for no apparent reason other than some teams don't like a viable strategy that I've adopted. I lose something like 10 NHL'ers in this proposal, and I paid through the nose to acquire most of them.

Until someone explains WHY nhl'ers in the minors is a problem, or what the point is of getting rid this, why go down this road?

If you want to have a discussion about league parity, that's a completely different issue. It wouldn't be that hard to design something where EVERY team had to expose something to the waiver wire every year (based on some pre-set criteria), and then the lowest teams would benefit each year.

These thoughts are jumbled, as I'm pressed for time. So just off the cuff remarks. But this sounds so much like the earlier thread, and addresses none of the questions I put forward earlier (e.g. is parity a problem? if no, why do we need to do this?, if yes, can we design a system that forces players through waivers in a manner that is "equal" on all teams, as opposed to picking on a few")

[Deleted]

Just to add that I quite like Mr Vancouver in this league, and I believe his suggestion is coming with the best of intentions. So this is not meant to sound disrespectful in any manner.

[Deleted]

I like the way we can keep spare NHLers in our minor system available for call ups when needed. This was the intent of the original stashing rule.

What I don't like is hiding high quality NHLers in the minors because the GM was unable to trade the asset, cannot afford the cap hit, or in the case of goaltenders exceeding the gp limit.

I would suggest something like if a player reaches xxxx total fantrax points the previous year, they are not eligible for minors.

I would say the intention would be less towards parity, but more towards integrity of the league as a whole.

[Deleted]

Regarding Canucks GM suggestion, I would vote against it for now. It is a great idea and it makes alot of sense, but i think it deviates from our rules too far. As much as I'd like to see Buffalo GM spread out some of that wealth from his excellent drafting and trades, its not fair to him.

[Deleted]

I respect your view, Eric. And appreciate the direct response to my question.

The reason I "disagree" with you because what I think your idea does is basically the following:

- We have 24 IHHLT teams, and 30 NHL teams, so we know there will be a pile of "extra players" that will either be in the minors, or be on the waiver wire;
- In your proposal, you basically want to force the 20% of "extra players" to be the bottom 20% of NHL'ers.

I personally find that to be micro managing the league: i.e. we must ensure the top 80 percent of NHL players are on IFFHL pro rosters, and the bottom 20% are in the minors or on waivers.

But I at least appreciate your view of wanting to impose this is based on your perception of league integrity (only the best players should be on a pro roster). So I appreciate that part.

But I personally don't like making such a radical change unless it is being primary designed to address league parity - or if neutral on parity - to increase the fun factor.

My concern with this proposal is that it will ultimately lead to LESS parity. IE - if we adopt this, I will be forced to trade my 10 NHL'ers in the minors for HIGHER quality pro-roster players. And trades like last year, where I gave up a crap load of prospects for Eric Staal - stuff like that will die. Why would I make that trade if I'd just have to dump Staal at the end of the year?

I suppose where we have a healthy disagreement is the notion that a "good" player in the minors takes away credibility in this league. My understanding is the league was designed to allow this.

Again, I appreciate your response - I at least have a better sense of where you are coming from, which is quite helpful.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2016 15:49:33 GMT -5 @eric said:

Regarding Canucks GM suggestion, I would vote against it for now. It is a great idea and it makes alot of sense, but i think it deviates from our rules too far. As much as I'd like to see Buffalo GM spread out some of that wealth from his excellent drafting and trades, its not fair to him.

Thank you for the complement.

I do find the comment a bit ironic. If you look at my two "big trades" last year:

To Richmond: Buchnevich + Pelech + Van Sompel + Foegele + 2nd round pick
To Buffalo: Eric Staal + N Spalling

To Richmond: Krugel, Schmaltz, Baptiste, 2E, 3W
To Buffalo: Jokinen, JayBo, N.Schmidt.

With the exception of N.Schmidt, Richmond didn't want any of the players he traded. And he was very selective in the prospects he scoped from me. A number of these guys he absolutely wanted and insisted upon. (I never wanted to move Buchnevich, in particular).

Spreading the wealth presumably means giving all these players back to lower teams, and collecting 10 cents on the dollar.

THAT BEING SAID, THIS LEAGUE IS ABOUT HAVING FUN. AND IF A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AREN'T HAVING FUN BECUASE OF THE WAY I'VE DESIGNED MY TEAM, THEN I'M TOTALLY FINE GOING FORWARD WITH SOMETHING TO 'SPREAD THE WEALTH'. I just don't want to do this if "spreading the wealth" is the view of 1 or 2 people. But if it's a general concern from many, then lets talk it out and develop something that requires me to makes some trades or lose players to waivers.

I'm open to anything. I want to keep the league fun. Let's hear some more voices.

[WillyBilly (Tire Fires)]

It also punishes good drafting I will have multiple prospects in the NHL in the following seasons some of them will lose eligibility. Losing prospects because they are good is shitty.

[Deleted]

If it helps explain better, my logic on this topic is quite similar to why the black market is bad for the economy.

Drug money, prostitution, human trafficking, etc is all illegal and thus cannot be included as part of the economic growth of a country. Why? No taxes are paid on any of this income as it is illegal and for the most part un tracked through cash transactions. The individuals or companies involved become very rich, but the economy suffers. Less tax dollars are available for the government to spend on essential services for the country. These are billion dollars lost for the country. Serious problem.

Anyway, that's why I'don't think storing above average NHLers in the minors is good for us as a whole. It hurts everyone here. It's fantrax points that don't get to be earned by anyone. And why is this so bad? It weakens the competition available to the rich team by keeping a strong asset in their own minors. As we know, some of these head to head match ups go down to the wire.

I'm not sure of the exact number of fantrax points to use as a threshold. Basically top 6 forwards, top line D men, and established starting goalies.

And of course exemptions could be made for guys like Pavel Datsyuk who leave the league. Or elite NHLers who are on IR for long stretches.