Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 18:19:07 GMT
I vote that each year, the waiver wire resets as follows: 1: Armando 2 - 16: reverse standings i will agree to that lol at least if we do this peter has ANOTHER excuse as to why he lost to me also, it wouldnt matter because kovalchuk shouldnt belong to waivers anyways
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 19:08:38 GMT
Can we move on from this yet? Anyone but Armando gets Kovalchuk. That's the fair and logical way to handle this.
|
|
|
Post by Dave - Calgary on May 12, 2017 19:59:32 GMT
I sympathize for sure Armando, but to retain Kovalchuks rights, a roster spot would have needed to be left open. I did this with Bryzgalov waiting for him to resign (He eventually did). I brought this up in 2015 in regards to Radulov (whom I would obviously love to have on my team.) and it was brought up in regards to Sobotka who still had his rights owned by St. Louis when he left. Below is the ruling on Radulov Kovalchuk and Sobotka. Lineups issues Apr 7, 2015 at 10:44am via the ProBoards App Quote Edit like Post Options . Post by Tyler - Toronto on Apr 7, 2015 at 10:44am Sorry guys, I will respond to all this when I get back in more detail.....I saw one issue you bring up and it's a good one.......I have not read your responses but I'd say no Kovalchuk, Radulov, or Sobotka as the are not prospects and would be subject to waivers in our league if they returned home mid season, so they are always subject to waivers..... Nichushkin, Radulov, Sobotka, Kovalchuk, Bryzgalov, and even guys like Mikko Koskinen, Joacim Eriksson, etc etc all fall under the same rule. Unless you retain them on your roster they are subject to waivers once they determine they are gonna come back and yahoo adds them.I'm all for making waivers more useful to rebuilding teams as well, but again it could not be an immediate thing, we just had the 3 new teams draft waiver positions, and teams holding waiver positions for years to get their current positions.
Yes, Josh made a ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on May 12, 2017 22:30:59 GMT
As I hope you all know, I will always make a ruling based on what I think is best for the league and not myself. I think I proved this when I allowed Pickard to get claimed on waivers even though I had a ruling which contradicted this. Losing Radulov was another example where I think I could have made a similar argument as Armando is making but agreed that without keeping a roster spot a player becomes a UFA no matter the circumstance.
Armando, as you know you will always be one of the first people I go to when looking for great GM's. I love how you work the rules and use strategy to ice the best teams possible. However in this case I must unfortunately rule against Kovalchuk being able to return to a team which did not leave an open roster spot.
When Kovalchuk left the NHL, it was stated right from the get go that his retiring was a way to get out of NJ's contract and allow him to play in the KHL. NJ agreed to this to save money on what was a horrible deal. Both parties benefitted. The lack of a transfer agreement made it so Kovalchuk had to retire from the NHL to be able to play in the KHL. No one believed that Kovalchuk would 100% never return to the NHL at the time as every year it has been brought up how he could return and at what cost.
The time to argue this point was when Kovalchuk first left the NHL 5 years ago, not when he returned after everyone was under the understanding that he would require waivers which had been brought up on several occasions. People did hold waiver spots hoping to snag guys like Radulov, and Kovalchuk etc.
My ruling is that Kovalchuk is required to go through waivers as a roster spot was not maintained for him. We do not have a rule allowing for a player who retires to be held without the use of a roster spot. Kovalchuk is a unique case and I don't blame you for hoping you could re-add him, as I said it is the main reason I love having you in my leagues, you push the boundaries and pull grey areas into the open where they can be addressed.
A clause will be added to the rules, stating that in case of retirement, a roster spot must be maintained for the player or they will become a UFA and will only be available on waivers once they return to the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on May 12, 2017 22:41:01 GMT
As I hope you all know, I will always make a ruling based on what I think is best for the league and not myself. I think I proved this when I allowed Pickard to get claimed on waivers even though I had a ruling which contradicted this. Losing Radulov was another example where I think I could have made a similar argument as Armando is making but agreed that without keeping a roster spot a player becomes a UFA no matter the circumstance. Armando, as you know you will always be one of the first people I go to when looking for great GM's. I love how you work the rules and use strategy to ice the best teams possible. However in this case I must unfortunately rule against Kovalchuk being able to return to a team which did not leave an open roster spot. When Kovalchuk left the NHL, it was stated right from the get go that his retiring was a way to get out of NJ's contract and allow him to play in the KHL. NJ agreed to this to save money on what was a horrible deal. Both parties benefitted. The lack of a transfer agreement made it so Kovalchuk had to retire from the NHL to be able to play in the KHL. No one believed that Kovalchuk would 100% never return to the NHL at the time as every year it has been brought up how he could return and at what cost. The time to argue this point was when Kovalchuk first left the NHL 5 years ago, not when he returned after everyone was under the understanding that he would require waivers which had been brought up on several occasions. People did hold waiver spots hoping to snag guys like Radulov, and Kovalchuk etc. My ruling is that Kovalchuk is required to go through waivers as a roster spot was not maintained for him. We do not have a rule allowing for a player who retires to be held without the use of a roster spot. Kovalchuk is a unique case and I don't blame you for hoping you could re-add him, as I said it is the main reason I love having you in my leagues, you push the boundaries and pull grey areas into the open where they can be addressed. A clause will be added to the rules, stating that in case of retirement, a roster spot must be maintained for the player or they will become a UFA and will only be available on waivers once they return to the NHL. Well said Josh. Man, the DHL under Ty was my favorite league that I am in, and he wasn't getting the job done. But under Josh, we are in for a great league for many years. We can see how my you care about everyone, and the league. Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 22:41:32 GMT
As I hope you all know, I will always make a ruling based on what I think is best for the league and not myself. I think I proved this when I allowed Pickard to get claimed on waivers even though I had a ruling which contradicted this. Losing Radulov was another example where I think I could have made a similar argument as Armando is making but agreed that without keeping a roster spot a player becomes a UFA no matter the circumstance. Armando, as you know you will always be one of the first people I go to when looking for great GM's. I love how you work the rules and use strategy to ice the best teams possible. However in this case I must unfortunately rule against Kovalchuk being able to return to a team which did not leave an open roster spot. When Kovalchuk left the NHL, it was stated right from the get go that his retiring was a way to get out of NJ's contract and allow him to play in the KHL. NJ agreed to this to save money on what was a horrible deal. Both parties benefitted. The lack of a transfer agreement made it so Kovalchuk had to retire from the NHL to be able to play in the KHL. No one believed that Kovalchuk would 100% never return to the NHL at the time as every year it has been brought up how he could return and at what cost. The time to argue this point was when Kovalchuk first left the NHL 5 years ago, not when he returned after everyone was under the understanding that he would require waivers which had been brought up on several occasions. People did hold waiver spots hoping to snag guys like Radulov, and Kovalchuk etc. My ruling is that Kovalchuk is required to go through waivers as a roster spot was not maintained for him. We do not have a rule allowing for a player who retires to be held without the use of a roster spot. Kovalchuk is a unique case and I don't blame you for hoping you could re-add him, as I said it is the main reason I love having you in my leagues, you push the boundaries and pull grey areas into the open where they can be addressed. A clause will be added to the rules, stating that in case of retirement, a roster spot must be maintained for the player or they will become a UFA and will only be available on waivers once they return to the NHL. I got to agree with this one. this just looks to be the right decision here. (and I have no horse in this race)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 15:12:04 GMT
As I hope you all know, I will always make a ruling based on what I think is best for the league and not myself. I think I proved this when I allowed Pickard to get claimed on waivers even though I had a ruling which contradicted this. Losing Radulov was another example where I think I could have made a similar argument as Armando is making but agreed that without keeping a roster spot a player becomes a UFA no matter the circumstance. Armando, as you know you will always be one of the first people I go to when looking for great GM's. I love how you work the rules and use strategy to ice the best teams possible. However in this case I must unfortunately rule against Kovalchuk being able to return to a team which did not leave an open roster spot. When Kovalchuk left the NHL, it was stated right from the get go that his retiring was a way to get out of NJ's contract and allow him to play in the KHL. NJ agreed to this to save money on what was a horrible deal. Both parties benefitted. The lack of a transfer agreement made it so Kovalchuk had to retire from the NHL to be able to play in the KHL. No one believed that Kovalchuk would 100% never return to the NHL at the time as every year it has been brought up how he could return and at what cost. The time to argue this point was when Kovalchuk first left the NHL 5 years ago, not when he returned after everyone was under the understanding that he would require waivers which had been brought up on several occasions. People did hold waiver spots hoping to snag guys like Radulov, and Kovalchuk etc. My ruling is that Kovalchuk is required to go through waivers as a roster spot was not maintained for him. We do not have a rule allowing for a player who retires to be held without the use of a roster spot. Kovalchuk is a unique case and I don't blame you for hoping you could re-add him, as I said it is the main reason I love having you in my leagues, you push the boundaries and pull grey areas into the open where they can be addressed. A clause will be added to the rules, stating that in case of retirement, a roster spot must be maintained for the player or they will become a UFA and will only be available on waivers once they return to the NHL. i agree with the ruling put in place for the KHLers i dont have issues with that but AGAIN kovalchuk was not part of this clause or at the very least was not made to be part of the clause since no OFFICAL ruling was in place and his case (like it is in the NHL) was different from the rest. its funny because your last sentence even proves my point! whatever, obviously know one would have sided with me anyways. enjoy kovalchuk!
|
|