Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 22:09:53 GMT
While we're on the topic of possible rule changes, the one rule that I think needs looking at is length of prospect eligibility.
At the moment it's 164 games for a skater and 82 for a goalie...these are way too long in my opinion. Thats 2 whole seasons!
I think halving these halved would be the way to go (especially for skaters). It stops prospects being stockpiled (hey I'm doing it) and would bring prospects in to play more quickly meaning more overall players available on the waiver wire for injury replacements etc.........thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 22:19:37 GMT
Interesting topic Darren.
Decreasing prospect eligibility will have a few repercussions:
1) Decreases prospect value - 'What do you mean my prospect only gets to play ONE NHL season before I have to call him up?! He's only 18 years old!' Most prospects these days take 3-4 years to hit their stride in the NHL. Changing eligibility will result in more good young players being available on the waiver wire, and you holding shit prospects in the farm.
2) Decreases draft pick value - see above - why would i want to take draft picks if this guy could force his way onto my roster by April.
3) Decreases trading - The benefit of having a good young farm system is dwindled down - no longer are prospects great trading chips at the deadline. Nobody wants to be caught holding the top 10 prospect who has a mediocre first NHL season.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Mar 30, 2017 22:51:51 GMT
I argued the same thing early in the DHL Darren, but it has won me over. Sure it seems silly sending prospects like Mcdavid down, but it also gives time for guys like el nino to develop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 23:04:48 GMT
If anything, I'd say lower the age from 27 to 25. This would open up the goalie market, which is ultimately the biggest log jam and hoarding issue in the league.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Mar 30, 2017 23:08:41 GMT
I prefer to keep the prospect rules as is, for reasons that Peter stated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:00:30 GMT
Interesting topic Darren. Decreasing prospect eligibility will have a few repercussions: 1) Decreases prospect value - 'What do you mean my prospect only gets to play ONE NHL season before I have to call him up?! He's only 18 years old!' Most prospects these days take 3-4 years to hit their stride in the NHL. Changing eligibility will result in more good young players being available on the waiver wire, and you holding shit prospects in the farm. 2) Decreases draft pick value - see above - why would i want to take draft picks if this guy could force his way onto my roster by April. 3) Decreases trading - The benefit of having a good young farm system is dwindled down - no longer are prospects great trading chips at the deadline. Nobody wants to be caught holding the top 10 prospect who has a mediocre first NHL season. Some very good arguments. I agree dropping the age to 25 y.o. would be a plus. I still think it's too many games but happy for it to stay as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Mar 31, 2017 0:07:05 GMT
I think it wouldn't be fair to switch it...
Example:
I traded for Anton Forsberg a couple of months ago for obvious reasons. He will be 25 in a few months. I wouldn't have made that trade if I knew this rule...I would just lose him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:13:32 GMT
I think it wouldn't be fair to switch it... Example: I traded for Anton Forsberg a couple of months ago for obvious reasons. He will be 25 in a few months. I wouldn't have made that trade if I knew this rule...I would just lose him. True but I still think it would be for the overall betterment of the league but all good to stay as it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:19:09 GMT
Any major changes like this would be voted and approved this summer and would be a full year to implement i.e. start of 2018-2019. Not fair to mess things up without giving people time to change
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:23:25 GMT
Any major changes like this would be voted and approved this summer and would be a full year to implement i.e. start of 2018-2019. Not fair to mess things up without giving people time to change Do you think it would be worth voting on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:27:28 GMT
yeah I think it would be a good vote. I like the idea of 25 y.o.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:34:06 GMT
def 25.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:37:30 GMT
Any major changes like this would be voted and approved this summer and would be a full year to implement i.e. start of 2018-2019. Not fair to mess things up without giving people time to change Do you think it would be worth voting on? We'd have to figure out what we're voting on first! Age, GP, whatever it may be
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 0:39:05 GMT
Do you think it would be worth voting on? We'd have to figure out what we're voting on first! Age, GP, whatever it may be I think both age and games (or separately).
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Mar 31, 2017 1:08:22 GMT
Still don't like it. I have been stockpiling goalie prospects that I like (Forsberg/Subban/Korpisalo/Sparks/Saros) who are all in the 24-25 age range. Even if we have a year to switch it, I would lose a few of them, especially if others know that I am desperate to move them. I figured that I still had a few years to let them develop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 1:19:09 GMT
Still don't like it. I have been stockpiling goalie prospects that I like (Forsberg/Subban/Korpisalo/Sparks/Saros) who are all in the 24-25 age range. Even if we have a year to switch it, I would lose a few of them, especially if others know that I am desperate to move them. I figured that I still had a few years to let them develop. I hear what you're saying and completely understand. I think we should still vote on it though as I think by having prospects come up quicker it just makes more quality players available to all. I think parity in a league this size is a massive plus. Not everyone will agree however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 1:30:43 GMT
Still don't like it. I have been stockpiling goalie prospects that I like (Forsberg/Subban/Korpisalo/Sparks/Saros) who are all in the 24-25 age range. Even if we have a year to switch it, I would lose a few of them, especially if others know that I am desperate to move them. I figured that I still had a few years to let them develop. You're out here voting on the GWG change, well I've been stockpiling guys who score lots of GWG! (obviously i'm being satirical here) Everybody is affected by any rule change, but ultimately we hope that in voting, people put team biases aside and consider what is best for the league.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Mar 31, 2017 1:33:01 GMT
Actually Peter, I believe I came in 2nd (I think 3 behind you) in GWG so that goes against me also. I like Biz's idea though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 1:59:35 GMT
Actually Peter, I believe I came in 2nd (I think 3 behind you) in GWG so that goes against me also. I like Biz's idea though. I think you missed where I said I was being satirical...
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Mar 31, 2017 2:03:09 GMT
Peter, what do you think of Biz's OT point idea?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 2:09:10 GMT
Peter, what do you think of Biz's OT point idea? I think Yahoo doesn't have that as a possible category to add
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 2:17:51 GMT
As an outsider with 0 experience in the league my maybe useless opinion is the games played threshold is good but as said by other posters the age lowering to 25 for goalies sounds quite ideal.
Once again, this is just as someone who has 0 experience, no say and just looking at it from the outside.
It's fun to draft the lesser known prospects that you can be super patient with waiting for them to break out after holding on to them for so long. D-man are quite often very far from being significant fantasy contributers in their first few years in the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 13:20:30 GMT
i like the current prospect eligibility rules. i say keep as is.
|
|
|
Post by Lou - Buffalo on Apr 1, 2017 16:44:29 GMT
I like the current prospect eligibility, but would be in support of dropping the age to 25 for reasons stated by others.
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 1, 2017 22:32:44 GMT
Definitely think we should drop the age of prospects. 27 is awful. 25 is a reasonable figure, I'd support a year or two lower. Would also support a second vote to reduce games played to 82 for forwards and something less for goalies if there's interest. That will have minimal effect on most prospects - if you play 82 games early in your career, you're no longer a prospect, you've demonstrated you're a pro. If you back up a team for 5 years you're also entitled to an NHLPA pension and not exactly a prospect - maybe you haven't reached potential but you're not a roster "hopeful" anymore.
I've been in other leagues that use post-entry-level contract status as a determinant. For example, if you're 21 and signed to a 7-year, $55 million one-way deal, you're not a prospect. I'm not suggesting that, but it highlights some of the absurdities of the current rule.
Also think this is one (prospect age) we shouldn't wait a year to implement - that's an arbitrary made up rule as well - betterment of the league should take priority in these votes. It doesn't necessarily affect the player's value - and in most cases there'll be trades if the talent is legit. And it's guys who are unlikely to be franchise makers at this point anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 1:11:51 GMT
Also think this is one (prospect age) we shouldn't wait a year to implement - that's an arbitrary made up rule as well - betterment of the league should take priority in these votes. It doesn't necessarily affect the player's value - and in most cases there'll be trades if the talent is legit. And it's guys who are unlikely to be franchise makers at this point anyway. I think a change of this magnitude warrants a grandfathering period. To just reduce the prospect gp eligibility in half would throw a lot of players onto the waiver wire. We have to give teams adequate time to plan for it and adjust strategies to suit. Also please take this subjectively as I don't own any prospects over the age of 25 or over 82/(whatever weve suggested for goalies) games played other than Phil Grubauer who id happily add full time. My team could easily start this rule tomorrow, but I'm trying to help a lot of people out here.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 2, 2017 1:25:33 GMT
I think due to the fact that we are dropping the age by 2 years, we should have 2 years before this rule starts...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 1:28:04 GMT
I think put it to the vote and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 2, 2017 9:55:40 GMT
Peter you don't have to keep telling us you're not making decisions based on what's best for you Don't see the benefit of a year long delay, what's the impact overall? It's not like we're all at risk of losing 4 Crosbys. We're talking about a few teams maybe at risk of losing guys they've been holding in their hoard and hope strategy, and that's really what it is if takes until age 27...hope. If we're that worried, highlight the above 25-ers red for a year so they're unaffected but let's not let the clock keep running for anyone under 25. I agree with Darren let's put it to a vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 9:59:49 GMT
Peter you don't have to keep telling us you're not making decisions based on what's best for you Don't see the benefit of a year long delay, what's the impact overall? It's not like we're all at risk of losing 4 Crosbys. We're talking about a few teams maybe at risk of losing guys they've been holding in their hoard and hope strategy, and that's really what it is if takes until age 27...hope. If we're that worried, highlight the above 25-ers red for a year so they're unaffected but let's not let the clock keep running for anyone under 25. I agree with Darren let's put it to a vote. I was referring to both players over 25 and players over 82gp
|
|