|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 2, 2017 10:03:13 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 Alright fair enough - still not sure I see any catastrophic consequences, but I'm not super passionate in that part. I'd love to see progress on this front in some reasonable form, looks like there's at least some appetite for the 25 year rule, can we move on that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 10:09:24 GMT
guys are losing there hair at 27.... lets lower the prospect age to 25
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Apr 2, 2017 10:25:57 GMT
NHL Waiver Rules. Obviously too complicated to follow for year by year, but basically if you look at it, you'll see that the games played for an 18 year old skater is 160 games, and a 24 year old skater is 60 games etc. So the older a player is when he signs, the less games eligibility he has. so I'd agree that us holding a 26 year old prospect with 140 games is excessive, however, holding an 20 year old with 140 games isn't...(according to the chart)... Thought I'd post this up as maybe it will raise some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 2, 2017 10:43:54 GMT
NHL Waiver Rules. Obviously too complicated to follow for year by year, but basically if you look at it, you'll see that the games played for an 18 year old skater is 160 games, and a 24 year old skater is 60 games etc. So the older a player is when he signs, the less games eligibility he has. so I'd agree that us holding a 26 year old prospect with 140 games is excessive, however, holding an 20 year old with 140 games isn't...(according to the chart)... Thought I'd post this up as maybe it will raise some thoughts. The league referenced here also has 7 rounds of drafted players and 30 teams on its waiver wire, and a more strict waiver system than ours . Point here is that they're dealing with contractual obligations to a lot more low end prospects than we have to deal with in the DHL.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Apr 2, 2017 10:53:10 GMT
yep, best to keep it simple from a league standpoint! however with goalie values being way too high, I can see weaker teams just hoarding goalies that aren't playing on their rosters (In hopes they become starters later in life) which is basically what Kyle did to tank for 4 years. So not sure that would open up waiver pickups as much as it would make the bottom few teams who lack goaltending depth weaker.
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 2, 2017 11:02:02 GMT
yep, best to keep it simple from a league standpoint! however with goalie values being way too high, I can see weaker teams just hoarding goalies that aren't playing on their rosters (In hopes they become starters later in life) which is basically what Kyle did to tank for 4 years. So not sure that would open up waiver pickups as much as it would make the bottom few teams who lack goaltending depth weaker. All the more reason to at least lower the age and games played rule to something more appropriate. Seems like age 25 has some traction. Could do something like 60 games for goalies being more reasonable. I think the two questions should be asked independently though so we don't miss an opportunity to get at least some improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Apr 2, 2017 11:42:25 GMT
If we are talking whats best for the league, any rule change that makes it so every team has the ability to add a spot start so they don't get stuck missing the required 3 goalie starts in case of injury etc is a bonus. Right now your options are guys like bachman. If dropping the man games or lowering the age adds in some mediocre talent that would be great so those 25-26 year old scrubs who play 5 games a year would benefit those owners looking for a start. How many goalies have played over 40 games by the age of 26 and haven't established themselves as atleast a backup? There are some late bloomers who come into the league at 26 or older, but if they have already played 40 games by that point they are established or good enough to keep on your roster. Peter summed this up nicely by saying he would have no problem calling up Grubauer and I think most guys think like this, but as hris pointed out he has some guys around 25 or so who are just getting their feet wet. My suggestion would be to drop the games played requirement. If we dropped it to 50 and 100 or 60 and 120, guys would call up their 26 year old backup goalies with more than 50 games played which wouldn't bother anyone, and guys with late bloomers could keep their goalies who are late bloomers? Does dropping the games played really effect anyone negatively? For players, guys like Austin Watson would go back into the player pool if people didn't want to keep him on the main roster, and goalies like can't even think of any? So my vote would be to drop the games played limits to 50 and 100. I think you'd see more waiver wire action which increases that component which has been dead for years, and possibly adds a few scrub goalies as spot starts as Peter said guys like Grubauer would just be called up instead of holding a prospect roster when they aren't really a prospect any longer. thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 2, 2017 11:54:55 GMT
That's hard to argue - the league doesn't really benefit only by lowering the age and making a 25 year old with 0 games played available. Using games played as a co-determinant makes a lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Apr 2, 2017 13:21:24 GMT
Here is a breakdown of my team and how it would work reducing man games for me as an example. I'll look through some others and see as well.
Looking at my prospect roster, Arvidsson, Sheary, Marchessault, and Ritchie would all be over 100 games and would lose prospect eligibility making me have to keep them on my main roster, but really they aren't prospects by nhl standards so I could live with that. AHO and Werenski are at 77 games, so early next year I'd also have to call them up, but again, not a biggie cause they aren't really prospects by NHL standards come next year as they have fulltime jobs.
Dropping the age however, is a whole new bag of worms, for me, goalies such as Rittich and Mazanec start coming closer to their age 25 season and have yet to establish themselves as legit talent. They still could though as goalies develop later. So I'm not for lowering the age, but would strongly favor reducing games played, cause even dropping goalies games played to 50 wouldn't effect anyone except guys who own players like Condon, or Grubauer who you'd probably call up and keep on the main roster anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Montreal on Apr 2, 2017 14:19:45 GMT
I'm still not sure why we would want to change anything at all here, it crates a lot more options and thought..
When I look at the forwards that Josh posted on his team above, he wont be making any moves this season if he needed to keep them all on his roster. Right now, Josh can be active due to the fact of being able to send players that he would normally keep on his roster. I think that there will be a lot less activity if we were forced to keep everyone on our main team.
This league has already so much parity as it is.
IF we decided to go with something like this, I suggest that we maybe add one or two more roster spots? Maybe mirror the "real" NHL and each have 4 LW, 4 RW, 4 C, 6 D-men, 2 goalies? If adding 3 roster spots is too much, we can eliminate the UTIL so we would only add two. This way we can still be active instead of having a full roster with no breathing room.
I also agree that we should at minimum keep the age as is.
So, add 2-3 roster spots, keep age as is, drop GP to 100-50..
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Apr 2, 2017 15:04:45 GMT
I'm still not sure why we would want to change anything at all here, it crates a lot more options and thought.. When I look at the forwards that Josh posted on his team above, he wont be making any moves this season if he needed to keep them all on his roster. Right now, Josh can be active due to the fact of being able to send players that he would normally keep on his roster. I think that there will be a lot less activity if we were forced to keep everyone on our main team. Hey Chris, not sure how this leads to less activity? I think you're falsely assuming Josh will "need to keep them all on his roster". That's not the case. If Josh's team is lacking, he'll be more motivated to look outside his farm team or the waiver wire to improve it - that means a trade - surely increased trade activity is a bonus for the league overall? Also, I don't think everyone would be in agreement that calling up and sending down a prospect during the week is some kind of brilliant strategy or the kind of activity that really shows long-term strategic hockey IQ. That's more about manipulating the design of Yahoo's games played rules. Everyone takes advantage of it to their benefit, but let's not give anyone credit for it, the cat's out of the bag on that. Actually, I think it would truly show hockey supremacy if you could draft and build a team that was so good you didn't need to make any petty moves to increase games played and still whooped everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Garrett - St. Louis on Apr 4, 2017 22:24:56 GMT
I like 25 for goalies ....Probably even prospects as well. If they are drafted at 18-19 that's 6-7 years... plenty of time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 22:49:26 GMT
My two cents... I think I'd like the flexibility that's there as it is. With the limited weekly moves it's not like teams get a huge advantage by having a ton of prospect eligible players. With that said, I like 27 for goalies, as they typically develop slower, but am definitely not opposed to dropping it to 25.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 4:38:08 GMT
Did this ever get sorted out?
Good to put it to a vote I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 5:37:18 GMT
Any day now Josh will be announcing some rule changes as well as submitting a series of votes to the league on many of the topics weve discussed in the forums. Look out for it shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on May 16, 2017 11:08:30 GMT
Your Admin team has voted on and have been discussing 20+ rule changes and amendments. Its much easier for me to post up from work where i have a comp. So assuming the 4 admin can come to a consensus, we will start posting rules that are open to vote starting on Saturday or Sunday Night.
No big rush as its the offseason, and we want to make sure we are covering all angles before any potential rule changes.
Stay tuned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 12:50:20 GMT
Cool, sounds good.
|
|