|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Mar 23, 2023 1:13:07 GMT
Hey league, When the DHL was founded we had set games played and age limits for prospects, if a player was not called up by their age and games played limit they instantly became UFA. Over the years we had several players claimed, in some cases GMs missed the cutoff without intention of allowing their players to become UFA. In 2017 we changed the age requirement as well as goalie games played. Although we have a great group of GMs several times since then we have had players miss their cutoffs and get claimed by other teams. Admin has changed over the years, the ruthless Ty who founded the league was the original Admin, Peter played a huge role when we transferred the league to DHL 2.0, as well as Kenny and Brent joining the ranks. Myself and Chris have been around for years as well As admin we have always looked at this rule as black and white. If you miss the cutoff the players are UFA. But as admin we have a lot on our plates and I’m looking for input as to what the GMs want or how you view this rule? Recently we had two players claimed off another teams farm who were over their roster limits. As an example last year I lost stud young Vejmelka to the nasty Sabres…. (Thanks Lou) as admin I was aware of the rules and age limits and simply lost track during a heated playoff matchup. As admin I didn’t challenge this and saw it as a great catch by the Sabres (thanks again Lou) but as a GM do others see this the same way as admin views this? So my questions are as follows, should players be able to be poached when they exceed their games or age allowance? Should there be some sort of system in place to protect GMs from losing players? Should GMs have a penalty or ability they can pay or use to undo moves that result in players becoming UFA while on their farm? My concerns are…. Penalties are hard to enforce, players who exceed games played could be abused (GM sends down an ineligible player without fear of losing them). Players could exceed games played on farm with hopes no one notices giving them extra time to evaluate their performance etc. Do all GMs know the limits for prospects? Age and games played requirement? Looking for discussion on this? Interested to see where everyone stands!
|
|
|
Post by Garrett - St. Louis on Mar 23, 2023 2:55:04 GMT
Il start since I'm the dipshit who caused this. Iv never been good until this year so have never had to worry about sending guys up and down that were close to their limits. I just rode with my young guys because that's a I had. I sent down Bouchard and didn't see he passed the limit. I also sent down Knight not knowing the goalie gp was now 41 (yes 3 years ago but iv never used it, also another GM let me know he wasn't aware it wasn't 82 anymore either) This really bothered me today and I considered stepping away because having my day ruined by a fake hockey team is ridiculous lol. Hopefully everyone can see it was an honest mistake. I appreciate Josh and Chris for taking my wrath all day and talking me off the cliff. Also huge props to Jon for being the bigger man and is going to make it right even though it happened to others in the past. I wasn't aware it happened to Josh and Ken, but I wish I was at the time so I could have chimed in that I don't think that's cool. Hopefully we can change this because it's meant to be fun, but losing 2 of my fav prospects with out a warning because of a mistake is not fun at all. Again thanks for letting me vent, and I appreciate you all and this league.
|
|
|
Post by Lou - Buffalo on Mar 23, 2023 4:01:57 GMT
I'm definitely guilty of doing this to Josh and tbh I felt pretty bad about it, even though it was within the rules, still feels a bit unclean.. Luckily it didn't hurt Dallas too bad as they are still a top team with great goaltending, plus super-nuge! While we are all good guys and GM's and should always be nice to each other.. this league is ultra-competitive and everyone is looking to gain an edge. I know it's possible any of my prospects can get added as UFA's if I let them pass the limit. It's on us to keep track and it's something I accept as part of the league, even if it can be considered a bit cutthroat it's not against the current rules so I don't find fault with anyone that does it. That said it's unfortunate when it happens so I like seeing Josh open a discussion on this, more from a moral standpoint than anything. We all make mistakes and it sucks to lose a good player so perhaps the idea of paying compensation to get the player back could be something.. or receiving compensation for a player lost.. Would have to think more about it but maybe could work like RFA's in the NHL.. if a top tier prospect gets taken you can choose to send a 1st to get him back, or a 2nd/3rd for a lower tier player.. Like yes you made a mistake so if you want the player back you have to pay something for him. OR the claiming team knows they have to send you a 2nd if they claim your player. There are definitely possible loopholes to that though as Josh said, so it could be abused in various ways. Would have to be regulated somehow which may be complicated. Needs a lot more thought if it goes that route.. Another idea along those lines could be a list of all the prospects who are capable of passing the gp or age limit in the upcoming season. Teams would submit age and gp's for each prospect when they submit their final September roster. Teams can choose 2 players to "Protect" and would be able to pay to get back if they screw up, would have to send a 1st rounder or next two highest 2nd's or something like that. Again would need more thought and look for loopholes there.. I don't know just spitballing, interested to see what others think on the topic as well. For the record I'm fine with some type of change here or no changes. I'm always looking to snipe one of Chris's players because his team is too good and we all need to unite to stop him!
|
|
|
Post by Jon - New Jersey Devils on Mar 23, 2023 12:07:27 GMT
Hey fellas,
I felt pretty iffy about grabbing Spencer Knight, but went through with it, cause I assumed someone else would grab him anyway. I've decided I'm going to send him back to Garrett once the trade period opens up. I hope no one feels obligated to do the same in situations like this, because what happened was certainly within the confines of the rules. As constructed now, the rules put the onus on the GM to be responsible for tracking their prospects' games and age.
I also wanted to throw out a suggestion about this rule. I submit that the rule stays the same, in that prospects that exceed their games limit or surpass the age limit, are fair game. However, once the new GM adds the player, the new GM alerts the former GM and Admin through the board private message functin. The former GM then has 1 week (from the exact moment the claim is processed) to decide whether they want to get their player back at the cost of their next available 1st round pick, or let the player go as normal. The GM adding the player is expected to message the former GM the day that they make the addition. To me, this makes things a bit less cut-throat, but also rewards GMs for paying close attention and holds GMs accountable that are paying less attention. If the GM that loses a player does not own a 1st within the next three drafts, then regaining the player at the cost of a 1st is not an option. If the player owns multiple 1sts in the given year they are sending the pick, the higher of those picks would be the compensation sent.
Just a suggestion that I think is a happy medium that could work for us. At the end of the day, we want to be a competitive league, but also don't want things to be so cut-throat that it takes the fun out of it for some. My thoughts, anyway. Criticism or suggestions of tweaks to the new idea always welcome. Go Devils!
|
|
|
Post by Garrett - St. Louis on Mar 23, 2023 17:29:53 GMT
ideally, we could find a solution that is easier for the Admin and the GM's. IMO, we are all pretty busy in our lives and it would be nice not to have to worry about GP during the season. What if we eliminated games played as a restriction and did strictly age 24. When we post our beginning season rosters, we add the prospects age. If they are 23 or younger and are eligible for the prospect list at roster due deadline, then they are eligible for the full year. Owners then have the offseason to decide fate of guys who turned 24. Owners only have to do eligibility housekeeping during the offseason, and eligibility is determined on roster submission deadline. When trying to add a prospect midseason, we only have to search the beginning season thread for the name to see if they are on it. If they are, they cant be added. If they are not, they are free game. Any new prospect added and dropped mid season would follow regular free agent rules and is again free game. This would also have eliminated the need to post in the drop/add transactions thread. Im sure I am forgetting some loophole but just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by Josh - Dallas on Mar 23, 2023 21:12:29 GMT
All good suggestions and thoughts. I’d like to see some additional GMs chime in and give their say. I’ll send out a message and see if we get a little more feedback, non playoff teams may not be regularly logging in.
|
|
|
Post by Ken - Winnipeg on Mar 23, 2023 21:30:56 GMT
Might be worth looking at doing something like junior and define the number of pro games or year an age is reached or combo thereof for all prospects at the start of the season so we know who is a prospect who is not, but nothing changes during the season. I’ve never been able to reconcile a 21 yo not being a prospect but a 26 yo might be, ha ha.
I’ve seen other leagues give you protected farm team spots, say 5, where they let you call up players under contract regardless of age, like the NHL. That could lead to way less hoarding-friendly rules for prospects, but might be worth consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Ethan - Vegas on Mar 23, 2023 21:49:13 GMT
My suggestion here would be too keep the rules as is but only allow GMs to claim these players after the final roster submission at the end of they year until the next season starts again. During the season a player is protected as long as they are on either the major or minor league team. I feel that the purpose of the rule is not to snipe players but purely to regulate the use of the minor league teams. I’m interested in what others think but I’m not so fond of the sniping of players. If you want them and teams don’t have room for them during the off-season this allows the waiver system to not change either and there isn’t a mess with draft compensation and how to rank players. If we do end up ranking players I believe if a waiver claim is made then it’s 1st round compensation and everything else is 3rd or 2nd round.
|
|
|
Post by Garrett - St. Louis on Mar 23, 2023 23:19:30 GMT
Want to give kudos to Kyle as well as he's willing to give Bouchard back. We have a great group of guys here. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Toronto on Mar 24, 2023 17:48:08 GMT
I'm not sure the system here is really broken. When I look for players on yahoo to add during matchups, I am already looking for their age/gp...If they are not prospect eligible then I add them to my team. I do not want to be worried about messaging GMs who have let players get close to this threshold without paying attention.
Spencer Knight for example is on LT-IR and could have been stashed there and really only had like 5 starts of eligibility going into the year. I do play these games with some of my players, like Tanner Jeannot nearing his 164 games but I make notes in the yahoo section and I am on top of my team etc.
I am open to some suggestions, but I don't see this as a huge issue overall. I'm happy that people are giving Garrett the players back, and I'm sure he will never make this mistake again, but it is really an isolated incident. The players we are talking about are on the fringes of rosters which is why they are being moved up and down constantly to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan - Vancouver on Mar 27, 2023 8:02:49 GMT
This is a tough one. I keep track of my prospects fairly close, but I would hate to lose someone for making an honest dumb mistake. That's the kind of thing that could cause me to lose interest pretty quick. But there should be some kind of a deterrent from taking advantage of that type of system...
|
|
|
Post by Garrett - St. Louis on Mar 28, 2023 20:23:43 GMT
circling back... I think the idea for games played limits is meant to keep teams from recycling players each week by sending down when they need to. I think the team that owns the prospect should always get the last say in whether a player is kept or is dropped. I think the easiest way to allow this and not allow teams to abuse the system on accident is making the players eligible at the beginning of the season. 1. Managers don't have to worry about a player being stolen. 2. Easier for admin to audit. 3. Eliminate the need for the transactions page and having to post that you call up or send down someone every time.
|
|
|
Post by Lou - Buffalo on Mar 29, 2023 18:05:21 GMT
Some good input on this topic. Just wanted to mention I'm not a fan of lowering prospect age, especially with goalies needing much longer to become NHL relevant, there's not many 24 yr old prospect goalies who are worth a roster spot. Also some players are staying in Russia longer so I think 26 gives us a little flexibility in that regard.
On the players over GP limit getting sniped, perhaps something as simple as..
"If a player passes the GP limit while on your prospect roster (not called up) you retain his rights until the end of season roster deadline or until you call him up past his GP limit in-season. Along with.."If you send down a player who is passed his GP limit in-season then he is fair game because you should have known to check his GP before sending him down."
That's what we use in another league of mine. I see that as a bit of a compromise here of keeping some of the old rule intact while also giving GM's protection if they just slept on a prospect who has been down all season and didn't realize they passed the gp until a week later, etc.
The idea here is if you actively have a prospect up in the NHL and are using him you should be aware of his GP's before sending him down. So as GM's we know this and know to check before hand. If we forget we have until he clears waivers to reverse it (maybe someone is nice and lets us know we screwed up before then) otherwise he is fair game.
As someone said this doesn't happen a lot, so it shouldn't be a big issue moving fwd, at least not enough to make large scale changes to our prospect system, which I think works pretty well for the most part.
Perhaps something like this idea above could be a simple solution, or part of it with some type of compensation to get the player back for those rare times someone sends a guy down who is past the GP.
TLDR version: If a player is in the minors and passes the GP you retain his rights until either called up in-season or the off-season roster deadline. If you send a player down who is past the GP limit he is fair game unless you realize your mistake within his waiver period. Maybe we add a compensation aspect to that last part.
|
|
|
Post by Dan - Kings on Apr 10, 2023 18:45:46 GMT
Some good input on this topic. Just wanted to mention I'm not a fan of lowering prospect age, especially with goalies needing much longer to become NHL relevant, there's not many 24 yr old prospect goalies who are worth a roster spot. Also some players are staying in Russia longer so I think 26 gives us a little flexibility in that regard. On the players over GP limit getting sniped, perhaps something as simple as.. "If a player passes the GP limit while on your prospect roster (not called up) you retain his rights until the end of season roster deadline or until you call him up past his GP limit in-season. Along with.."If you send down a player who is passed his GP limit in-season then he is fair game because you should have known to check his GP before sending him down." That's what we use in another league of mine. I see that as a bit of a compromise here of keeping some of the old rule intact while also giving GM's protection if they just slept on a prospect who has been down all season and didn't realize they passed the gp until a week later, etc. The idea here is if you actively have a prospect up in the NHL and are using him you should be aware of his GP's before sending him down. So as GM's we know this and know to check before hand. If we forget we have until he clears waivers to reverse it (maybe someone is nice and lets us know we screwed up before then) otherwise he is fair game. As someone said this doesn't happen a lot, so it shouldn't be a big issue moving fwd, at least not enough to make large scale changes to our prospect system, which I think works pretty well for the most part. Perhaps something like this idea above could be a simple solution, or part of it with some type of compensation to get the player back for those rare times someone sends a guy down who is past the GP. TLDR version: If a player is in the minors and passes the GP you retain his rights until either called up in-season or the off-season roster deadline. If you send a player down who is past the GP limit he is fair game unless you realize your mistake within his waiver period. Maybe we add a compensation aspect to that last part. I like this.
|
|
|
Post by Jon - New Jersey Devils on Apr 12, 2023 15:06:42 GMT
Lots of good conversation here. I wonder if the solution is just simplifying it, so it's easier to monitor? Age becomes irrelevant. Once a player hits 200 games (60 for goalies), he's no longer a prospect? There's no poaching. You can keep shipping back and forth during the season in which the player hit 200 games, but at the season end roster submission, the choice needs to be made whether keeping on main roster, or cutting bait. Easy to audit as it's just players over 200 games aren't eligible for the farm.
Just another idea that's extremely easy for everyone to track and easy for auditing.
|
|