Some Things to Know

[Shep]

See that's the other problem I would have. Since this wasn't in place last year, so for example somebody like Roman Hamrlik was on a team's farm team because that GM couldn't afford the 5.5mil before last season so he sat him in the minors all year. That means I could trade for Hamrlik, try and call him up and lose him on re-entry waivers. Thus making Hamrlik a negative commodity in this league.

[Nick]

no, he is not in the minors right now.


ANY VET WOULD NEED TO CLEAR TO GO DOWN.

[Shep]

no, he is not in the minors right now.


ANY VET WOULD NEED TO CLEAR TO GO DOWN.

They didn't last off season, and that's my point.

If a team was up against the cap and had a vet in the minors, they are there for good unless the come up on re-entry.

But I guess you can always beat the system via emergency call-ups.

[Nick]

no no, vets in the minors going into this season need to clear waivers. we are not having every over paid vet in the minors this year.

we have 30 teams, with 23 man rosters, and the same cap as the NHL.

we have gp regulations as well as roster requirements (please make sure your team complies if your reading this).


we don't care where hamar was last year. starting now, if you want him in the minors, he needs to clear waivers, or else he's active on your bench. no more burry big money vets who play 82 games as injury replacements.... it was a silly situation.

[Shep]

Wow. This is retarded.

Lol well I guess I'll be waiving a few players. I would have done it before the waiver draft to make it more interesting.

[MSP4LYFE]

Absolutely nothing retarded about it Shep...What was retarded was the system we had before, whereby several managers would bench veteran players, and call them up as emergency LTIR's.

[Shep]

Absolutely nothing retarded about it Shep...What was retarded was the system we had before, whereby several managers would bench veteran players, and call them up as emergency LTIR's.

I'd rather take out emergency call-ups all together. Those are the joke, not contracts in the minors.

Doesn't matter, it's decided on anyways.

[Nick]

well NHL teams have injury call-ups.... how would you suggest we deal with the situation?

[Shep]

well NHL teams have injury call-ups.... how would you suggest we deal with the situation?

Out for more than 8 weeks. That would be more than reasonable. Or you can only have an emergency call-up if you have 2+ guys on the IR.

People were abusing emergency call-ups last year.

[MSP4LYFE]

well NHL teams have injury call-ups.... how would you suggest we deal with the situation?

Out for more than 8 weeks. That would be more than reasonable. Or you can only have an emergency call-up if you have 2+ guys on the IR.

People were abusing emergency call-ups last year.

Yeah they were, good point Ryan, I'm going to bring this up in the CC, see if we can get a more realistic LTIR rule in place.

[Shep]

Like, I understand where you guys are coming from in terms of contracts in the minors. Obviously we want everybody to be competitive and some teams have really destroyed their teams assets in terms of depth.

But just because a GM has acquired, for example, 2 extra D and 3 extra forwards because they are planning ahead, shouldn't leave them now having to either waive or trade assets because they are prepared for injuries.

Allowing contracts in the minors for the off-season, this still forces re-entry waivers when being recalled. And you can still allow Emergency Re-calls, with some sort of reasonable limitation. People were using Emergency re-calls for for like 15 weeks. That is not the point of emergency call-ups.

They are used if you get a sporadic amount of injuries like 3 in one game. And they are also only used for one or two games. Look at Kadri and Brayden Schenn last year. Emergency call-ups, but only played 1 game. We had emergency call-ups for like 4 months, just because we had the ability to do so.

[Nick]

well... there is a difference between emergency recall (which we didn't actually have despite calling them that... we did not replace players mid week or anything) and long term injury replacements.... which we used lots..... and incorrectly....


this is an area where we can make MAJOR improvements.... but honestly the thing is to be consistent to all GM's.... and across injuries..... we are clear now that for a player to be placed as injured, he requires the red cross, or to have missed a COMPLETE game due to injury (leaving game is not sufficient).



-> the vet issue in the minors is dead IMO... they have to clear waivers (period).

[MSP4LYFE]

This is what I found on LTIR Shep,

LONG-TERM INJURIES

A player is considered to have a bona-fide long-term injury if, in the opinion of the team, the player has an injury which will cause him to miss at least 10 games and 24 days. Even in such cases, the player's salary will continue to count against the team's Upper Limit. This is mentioned at least three times in the CBA, and is repeated in Article 50.10(a):

All Player Salary and Bonuses paid to Players on an NHL Active Roster, Injured Reserve or Non Roster that are Unfit to Play – being either injured or suffering from an illness – shall be counted against a Club's Upper Limit, Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, as well as against the Players' Share.

For players that the team has filed an LTI exception, the team is allowed to exceed the cap by up to the amount of the injured player's salary with as many replacement players as needed, provided that when the injured player is activated the team comes into compliance with the cap immediately. The team does not get to automatically tack on the amount of the injured player's salary to the Upper Limit - an example as illustrated in Article 50.10(d) of the CBA illustrates this point:

(a) Illustration: A Player with a Player Salary of $1.5 million becomes unfit to play for more than 24 days and 10 games. At the time the Player becomes unfit to play, the Club has an Averaged Club Salary of $39.5 million, and the Upper Limit is $40 million. The Club may replace the unfit-to-play Player with another Player of Players with an aggregate Player Salary and Bonuses of up to $1.5 million. The first $500,000 of such replacement salary and bonuses shall count toward the Club's Average Club Salary, bringing the Averaged Club Salary to the Upper Limit. The Club may then exceed the Upper Limit by up to another $1 million as a result of the replacement salary and bonuses. However, if the unfit-to-play Player once again becomes fit to play, and the Club has not otherwise created any Payroll Room during the interim period, then the Player shall not be permitted to rejoin the Club until such time as the Club reduces its Averaged Club Salary to below the Upper Limit.

So - just because a player has a long-term injury does not automatically grant the team extra cap space. A team with a payroll of $44 million that has a player making $4 million get injured doesn't gain any extra cap space as a result; a team at $54 million and a player at $4 million only gains $1,300,000 (all pro-rated, of course). Relief toward the salary cap only comes if replacing an injured player's salary would push the team over the cap, and the amount of relief is limited to the amount the team would go over the cap - not the entire amount of the injured player's salary.

http://www.nhlscap.com/cap_faq.htm#article_50.10

I thought there was a limit on how many LTIR any one team can have in one season, but I can't find any info confirming that.

[MSP4LYFE]

Like, I understand where you guys are coming from in terms of contracts in the minors. Obviously we want everybody to be competitive and some teams have really destroyed their teams assets in terms of depth.

But just because a GM has acquired, for example, 2 extra D and 3 extra forwards because they are planning ahead, shouldn't leave them now having to either waive or trade assets because they are prepared for injuries.

Allowing contracts in the minors for the off-season, this still forces re-entry waivers when being recalled. And you can still allow Emergency Re-calls, with some sort of reasonable limitation. People were using Emergency re-calls for for like 15 weeks. That is not the point of emergency call-ups.

They are used if you get a sporadic amount of injuries like 3 in one game. And they are also only used for one or two games. Look at Kadri and Brayden Schenn last year. Emergency call-ups, but only played 1 game. We had emergency call-ups for like 4 months, just because we had the ability to do so.

You'll be given time to adjust to the new rules, they will not come into effect immidiately, but they will be in place before the start of the regulaur season.

[Nick]

you guys need to separate the different types of injury clauses.


LTIR the players salary is BACKDATED and removed from their cap hit. this is possible because they calculate cap day by day.... they also don't take up a spot on the active 23 roster.


Emergency Call up has several types... including the non-contracted player... the waiver exempt call up... and at least 2 more types... there is restrictions on these...


now there is just the typical injury... miss a week or w/e.... and that can be even more complicated...

[kyuss]

i'll leave my opinion, even if i am a newcomer and it will probably bother some of you, with most of it been discarded..
but please don't take this the wrong way.. it's not criticizing for the sake of it, it's just expressing an opinion and trying to make the league even better accordingly with such opinion.

Personally i don't like GMs being penalized for getting too many NHL roster players, it's not like they were acquired for free (at least in theory.. judging from the difference between rosters, i don't even want to learn some of the trades that must have happened early on in this league).
And btw, having Waivers active in the offseason is one of the less realistic thing possible.. one i never heard of in a fantasy league.

Not only i don't like waivers in the offseason, i don't even like re-entry waivers during the season either (btw, is salary shared between the 2 teams for players claimed on re-entries?). I know they are there in real NHL.. but again, they make useless to have assets in the farm unless they are W uneligible. I would at least distinguish the parameters for W eligibility between recalls (re-entries) and reassignments (sending down). More games/yrs to be eligible for re-entry waivers.

Anyway, i think it would be much more important and much better to have free agency than re-entry waivers.. if you guys are obsessed with realism how is that we have no free agency whatsoever?!
that's how the league could re-allocate talent around and give future new GMs inheriting crappy teams a fair chance to compete before waiting 3 or 4 yrs (which in most cases would turn away potential new good GMs, before joining or after joining - getting them bored).
In a perfect world where all GMs are good and make good trades, under the current rules a new comer would be stuck with his inherit shit for years.

Obviously free agency would need to be brought in slowly and under proper rules, but if real world UFAs are all protected forever, other GMs have to wait for retirements or cap problems to make good roster players available, and still only through trades.
How is that realistic?
so, if you label the re-entry thing necessary as it does exist in real NHL, how can you tell me free agency is not necessary?
This is a theme i brought up with Billy (and Scott i think) when i was considering joining.. but i didn't intend to mess around about that after joining.
However, seeing that rules are more up in the air than i thought and still evolving, this is probably the right time to discuss that eventuality.

[Scott]

I like this guy lol

Mik, I'm going to draft up a plan to implement free agency (I've been working on it a bit for a couple days).. MOST are against it though but I just think they haven't been open-minded enough about the idea as losing a few players is really the only negative about it. You're more then welcome to give me a hand with the "blueprint" man.. same goes for anyone else who likes the idea.

Also, I'd love to get others opinions on this issue.

[armandtanzarian]

Oh dear..I am starting to get confused. I understand the LTIR rules and agree with them. There needs to be proof and a min game missed before being eligible, totally agree.

Now when it comes to waivers in the off season, don't like it. I agree with Shep on this. I have no problems with waiver re-entry's during the season for eligible players but to have set roster and waivers going on in the off season during team tweaking and draft time doesn't seem right/fun to me. If indeed Shep is right and the NHL does not have it during the summer, why should we?

Anyway, we are becoming so rule obsessed with the NHL and having parity that we are starting to lose site of the word "FANTASY". There is no way we can have 100% parity in this league. I think we are real close and are at a good point right now. If this topic is still up for discussion, put me on the fun side where i can do whatever i want and draft whoever i want in the off season then once roster submission time comes i have to follow all the waiver and LTIR rules, like last year. I would love to see how as a league we are going to allow vets claimed in the waiver draft to be placed in the minors but other vets claimed or traded for not, when roster submission time isn't until Oct 1st. That is seriously creating an admin nightmare.

If these off season waiver rules are going to go into effect might as well implement the complete package and have UFA status as well...really. If we are gonna go for it, go balls out and try and match completely. Kyuss' idea's and opinions are good. If we are going with off season waiver rules we might as well take out all value of having vets in the minors and share the salary cost between teams when they are called up and use a day-to-day cap system. This will teach you for trying to put a veteran in the minors, then trying to call him up or trade him, won't it! I personally hate these ideas and thought we had a great system last year. I know we had some loopholes, but i think they were addressed.

[kyuss]

I like this guy lol

Mik, I'm going to draft up a plan to implement free agency (I've been working on it a bit for a couple days).. MOST are against it though but I just think they haven't been open-minded enough about the idea as losing a few players is really the only negative about it. You're more then welcome to give me a hand with the "blueprint" man.. .

if only i had the time dude.. i'm facing a deadline with work in 2 weeks that i'll really struggle to meet, and one of the main reasons for that has been joining this league..
so actually i should not even take part into the discussion.. but since i think this could be an important moment determining the league's future, i ended up doing it none the less.

So, on the free agency topic..
i can see many being against it at first; you build a team and you're said you'll be able to keep your players' rights forever, then all of a sudden you get told one day they'll become UFAs.. it's obvious to see negative reactions from most GMs.
However, i'm confident over time a league with a properly regulated unrestricted free agency would turn out to be better and funnier for those same GMs as well.
It's all about finding the best possible way to implement it, and if it's ever going to be, this is the time to decide about that, since we are in the first off-season of the league.

There are basically 2 separated problems:
1) - Defining players eligibility for unrestricted free agency
2) - How to practically implement and manage it


1)
a- any kind of decision that brings in UFA, should leave much time before UFA will actually become effective, leaving the time for GMs to adjust;
b- somehow we would have to find a solution that won't penalize too much any team.. something like all teams can protect 1 UFA and no team can lose to UFA more than 5 players in a single offseason*. Depending on when UFA becomes effective, rules could be more or less conservative. For example, if UFA enters the game as soon as next off-season we could have 2 UFA players per team eligible for protection, going down to 1 from the following off-season. These numbers are just examples i'm throwing out.. i've not thought about them being correct or not.
c- i think our rules should not necessarily stay identical with the NHL rules in the future. I mean, suppose we decide to have the same rules for UFA eligibility as per the current CBA ( aside from added protections/limits).. then the new real CBA completely changes and makes UFA a joke a la NBA when players can become UFAs soon after being drafted.. i think once we agree on something that works we should protect ourselves against NHL changes.. like for example making any UFA below 27 protectable, or something like that.. meaning there won't be major surprises for GMs dictaded by Bettman and c.

* this already would need to be studied, to avoid team loading up with crappy players eligible to UFA just to make the good ones exceed the 5 limit.. just an example to say everything should be discussed in deep thinking about loopholes before being approved. Aside from the fact such rule changement would be unexpected (hence the need for a- and b-), another potential flaw of this system would be that some GMs would get lucky with their players getting resigned before becoming eligible for unrestricted free agency, whereas other would pay because of the real GMs being unable to resign them. However, to a lesser extent the same already happens now when some players gets overpaid in the new contract whereas others get resigned for cheap by a smart GM. And in any case, we could find a way to regulate things that takes into consideration this volatility.


2)
I guess we would be stucked with real contracts for UFAs as well, so no biddings involved (would be a total mess to manage biddings through the forums anyway.. i know by experience, as in our league we don't use real salaries and we had to build an apposite site to automatize bidding processes along with almost everything else).
Hence i guess a Summer draft would be the consequent solution. We basically already do something like that with the Waiver draft for euro and NCAA free agents..



I think people currently discarding the idea of UFA should first make an effort to think about rules that would make it applicable in a way that would bypass the problems/things they hate as soon as they think about UFA. We could be able to do it. At least we should try to see if we can find a way to make it work on paper.

I can't wait to read your plan to implement it Scott, and kudos in the first place for taking the time to deal with this matter.

[Nick]

oh god guys... we don't have waivers in the off season....

but we cannot have GM's massing vets in the minors as their injury replacements...and stopping other GM's from games played.. and essentially losing those players to the minors for the regular season!!! hence all vets need to clear waivers to get to the minors come roster submission date.

your not thinking past your own team/1 example.



UFA:

Mik we are all ears for ideas.. to help with free agency... but having a draft doesn't make sense, bidding wars are not realistic, they don't go to the worst teams, it is not some asset that can be traded.... i've yet to hear an example that doesn't make things worse.