Mid-Season Supplemental Draft

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2015 21:51:21 GMT -5 Tbone (Kelowna) said:

Though not really that opposed to some sort of cap on the minors - as do think that we should all strive to ice the best rosters we can and make use of as many higher end assets as we can, do recognize that there will always be those overpriced, undesirable assets - blame the NHL GMs for that - that will be difficult for most teams to justify dressing on their starting rosters.

This is true, but it would be better if it were a rarity rather than the norm.

Without good data (hopefully more than 7-8 people will post to the Weekly Roster Moves thread next week), it's difficult to say how big of an issue this is, but from those who did post, plenty of cap space is being left unused. Feels like a missed opportunity for some clubs. I think that is what you are saying also, that we can only create conditions, we can't force anyone to do anything.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

We should definitely consider this mid-season waiver draft for next year, perhaps even a couple of them - one at end-Nov and one end-Jan, sort of a limited free-agent pickup option in-season. And perhaps even do this in conjunction with replacing a couple of rounds of the waiver draft with this, which is becoming a bit thin anyways. Also, as we approach the player limits, those extra picks probably decrease in value anyways. Or allow each GM the option of either utilizing their picks in-season or saving them for the off-season, so each team is limited to 4 waiver pickups per year.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2016 21:50:07 GMT -5 Tbone (Kelowna) said:

We should definitely consider this mid-season waiver draft for next year, perhaps even a couple of them - one at end-Nov and one end-Jan, sort of a limited free-agent pickup option in-season. And perhaps even do this in conjunction with replacing a couple of rounds of the waiver draft with this, which is becoming a bit thin anyways. Also, as we approach the player limits, those extra picks probably decrease in value anyways. Or allow each GM the option of either utilizing their picks in-season or saving them for the off-season, so each team is limited to 4 waiver pickups per year.

Agree with either of those options.

[Deleted]

Here's my think outside the box comment lol

To go with the 70 player limit, add a 50 contract limit. No minors salary cap limit. This will help feed the talent pool of the waiver draft making it more interesting for everyone. Plus makes it more challenging for the top teams to stay on the top. Jimmy needs a challenge

Thoughts?

[Dave (PLK)]

good idea.

matches the nhl limit of 50 contracts

[Deleted]

I view contract limits as a completely different subject than a mid-season waiver draft (or drafts). I think both ideas could be explored in the off-season to see how or if they could be implemented.

With respect to contract limits, I have one suggestion, and one concern.

Suggestion: I think this would be more palatable if the approach was to stagger something like this in (e.g., 65 contracts in 2016, 60 contracts in 2017, etc.) Lopping off 20 contracts right off the bet is a bit harsh. In my case, I've been actively trading "no contract" players for NHL talent, all year. Implementing this proposal right away would mean I'd have to cut a whole bunch of players, or trade a bunch, with no adjustment period. So something like this would be more "fair" if it was brought forward gradually.

MAJOR Concern: this proposal will be next to impossible to enforce. Right now we have a quarter of the league that can't even use IR spots properly. And this is something that is OBVIOUS - a guy in an IR spot with no IR flag. This new system will require teams to keep track of who have contracts and who don't - I have no faith that most teams will put the energy into doing this. I can't see this proposal working unless we FORCED people to use google sheets, and FORCED people to display the contract status and cap for their team. (And I already know that most of the league won't go to google sheets). Without going to google sheets, I see this as leading to a two-tier system, where people using Google sheets will abide by the rule, and people who don't publically display their team info will not abide by the rule. And that is a horrible outcome, in my mind.

I can also envision situations where trades are made, players switch hands, and then the inevitable - "hey wait, invalid trade, that puts you over 50 contracts."

in short, I can't see any way to have public accountability for such a rule, or any type of enforcement, unless the league moves forward with requiring contracts and caps to be posted and continually updated. And I've seen no appetite to go down this road.

[Deleted]

I could see a 60 then 50 over the next two years.

We could have a moderator job to enforce contract limits.

Sorry to hear some GM's are struggling with IR! Lol I thought fantrax prevented moves when the roster was illegal.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2016 13:27:58 GMT -5 @eric said:

I could see a 60 then 50 over the next two years.

We could have a moderator job to enforce contract limits.

Sorry to hear some GM's are struggling with IR! Lol I thought fantrax prevented moves when the roster was illegal.

Preventing moves when the roster is illegal is an option available in fantrax, but it's a premium feature. We are a free league, so we don't have that option. The IR system is pretty bad, IMO, when a quarter of the league (last time I check), had guys on IR illegally.

[Deleted]

If they break the IFFHL rules, what is the penalty?

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2016 12:12:32 GMT -5 @eric said:

Here's my think outside the box comment lol

To go with the 70 player limit, add a 50 contract limit. No minors salary cap limit. This will help feed the talent pool of the waiver draft making it more interesting for everyone. Plus makes it more challenging for the top teams to stay on the top. Jimmy needs a challenge

Thoughts?

Not really a fan of this. Too hard to keep every line up to date as is and to add to it. I always thought we would go up by 10 every year until we reach 90 and then it would stop. I even talk about it with Dave at the beginning when we created this league and he agree about it. Am I wrong Dave ? I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to mirror the nhl (50 contract) but I prefer to not mix the roster limit and the contract limit. Just simplify by not having restriction on contract and just have the limit at 90 for the roster.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2016 14:28:58 GMT -5 @eric said:

If they break the IFFHL rules, what is the penalty?

The IFFHL rule says: "ROSTER Requirements:minimum 20, maximum 23 (at all times--if you go over or under you will lose any points accumulated the day(s) your roster is invalid)." But this rule is not enforced. GMs are leaving active players on IR, at times for several weeks, and continuing on...

An example, for illustrative purposes. Lehner is currently on IR for Helsinki, but has been active since January 15th. So that's what, 6 lock in periods? Helsinki's current bench has 3 goalies on it (the maximum), and 23 roster spots (the maximum). If our rules were enfored, Helsinki likely would be forced to send John Gibson down (he's waiver free), or he'd have to wavier Reimer or Bernier. He's had Gibson in his active line up these last 6 weeks...

And just to note that Commissioner Dave put Lehner on IR on behalf of Helsinki in late November January, and also promoted Gibson to the main team in early January.

And this is just one example. Look for yourself, there are more of them...

Read more: iffhl.proboards.com/thread/3/iffhl-rules#ixzz41mLMGsRc

[Deleted]

What is the current appetite of the league? Do most GM's want to see rules strictly enforced?

Kind of a catch 22: Penalty is remove all the points from that week. But, all that means is the GM gets to keep their waiver eligible player on the pro roster and have a higher draft pick at the end of the season. hmmm....seems breaking the rules is really good lol

[Deleted]

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is doing this intentionally, in order to get an advantage (i.e. to tank, or to carry extra players). My belief is that people just don't track their IR very closely, and "free" fantrax doesn't prevent making mores where there is someone on IR that is ineligible.

[Deleted]

what did people say about paying $5 each to get Fantrax premium?

[Deleted]

My recollection is that Commissioner Dave had no interest in going down that road (i.e. pay league). Collecting $5 from 24 people year after year is a lot of work...