Limit of (p-n/a) on main roster

[jlapo11]

Do we have a limit of (p-n/a) in our main roster? If not we should have one if we want to have a competitive league. I think that NHL roster is used too often to hide prospects when there is no more places in the minor farm. Instead of releasing them. Having too many prospects in the main roster usually guarantie the last place and high draft picks (especially for next year with McDavid and Eichel).

Having a limit will also force GMs to spend their $ on FA, less money to spend in following years and better players on FA market

One topic/survey to look at this year .

 :thumbsup:

[Rob]

That's an interesting idea. I've struggled with where to draw the line when it comes to "tanking" in this league. I think only the very worst and/or rebuilding teams are the only ones with any incentive to tank for a draft pick since, like the NHL, half the league makes the playoffs. Most teams have a legit chance to make the dance. The part I struggle with in implementing anti tanking rules is it's hard enough already to recruit new GMs to take over poorly managed teams. The rule allowing teams to keep 40gp+ players in the minors might seem silly, but when I see what Florida, for instance, had done it puts me on the fence about the whole thing. That team will be a to 5 team in the next couple years thanks to Calky using the system to his advantage. At the same time I always hate setting a team going into rebuild in the first place and I don't want rules that encourage that path. I'm interested to hear what other people think about this since most of my conversations on the topic have been in private. I apologize for any egregious spelling our grammar errors in this post. I'm typing on my phone and can't even see the output... Hopefully this makes sense.

[norrya66]

I think a solution to this problem is possibly to expand our minor rosters (even more than we have) to possibly 15 players, and possibly lower our NHL rosters to 25.  I know a lot of people don't want to expand due to the fact that they like the "hard" decisions that come with the limited rosters.

I just think it takes prospects (other than the elite) too long to get too the NHL.  10, and even 12, just isn't enough spots to give teams enough time to let the prospects build. 

If we lower the NHL roster to 25, the tough decisions move from the minor's roster to the NHL roster. 

I know this is a pretty dramatic change, and most probably aren't going to like it, but I think it solves a lot of the problems with the minors, and doesn't really have any major negatives to the overall league.

[Rob]

I think changing to 25 NHL spots changes the entire dynamic of the league. The top heavy teams would have a huge advantage. I've built my team around depth so I would be screwed!

Ryan you're up in the draft by the way, Toronto passed.

[snugerud]

I do and dont see a problem with it.  I absolutely loath when teams take a tanking approach...especially when they could compete.  At the same time i have respect for anyone that can stick to their rebuild plan.  Guys that store a bunch of prospects on their roster , probably have too because they are trying to rebuild.  I can tell you I dont think any team with more than 3 non playing prospects on their pro roster will ever win the cup. If all teams didnt get their teams first 3 rounds of picks I would see a bigger problem with it. 

minor leagues are like money ,,, people always want more so increasing imo only changes things for a season or two.  Guys just need to re-think their draft strategies with the small minor league.  have a few high talent, 2-3 year away guys and draft some older prospects that will be making the jump or have made the jump..

[jmtrops]

every team should always field a competitive lineup. its ok with me if they have 10 prospects on their roster as long as they have real players in the starting lineup every night. they wont be able to make the playoff but they will still have a chance to steal a game from playoff contenders. the problem with limiting how many prospects on the roster is some of them like goalies can be prospect for 2 years while they are the backup on the big club and the skaters can be going up and down with their real team and not play every game when they are up.

[GypsieDeathBringer]

I think if a team is deliberately benching NHL players that are scoring points than that is a big issue, but I havn't seen anyone do that.  Cally's Panthers and Limey's Flames are the 2 teams that are going through a large and inevitably long rebuild, but that is the only way you can rebuild is get as many prospects as you can and hope a majority pay off.  Go look at the Panthers' roster and tell me you don't want to be the GM of that team in 2 years.  In short I am ok with teams having many prospects on their roster.

Plus it is even more of a crap shoot to tank in our league since our draft picks are based on the NHL teams picking.  You could finish last in our league and our 1st pick could equate to the real NHL's 6th pick.