ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Archive => Backyard NHL => Archive => Backyard NHL: Archives => Topic started by: Drew on January 12, 2013, 03:54:40 PM
-
Tony suggest we put this up for discussion. Whoever wants can lead us off with discussion.
-
12 - Retired & Moving Players
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=19455.0
I will start it off with my opinion that we should be able to put Retired/Moving players into our minors if they are on the last year of their current contract. (Just like other players) This give teams more cap and control of their teams. IMO
Its hard because you can't predict who will leave to other leagues or retire. Some players also decide to come out of retirement so what would happen with that situation?
I would like to hear what others think. Maybe I am wrong and the rule is fine the way it is?
-
Depending on what others want but I would be most willing to have a decrease in the buyout cost, say 25% instead.
I just don't want people signing KHL/Swiss/etc. players and stashing them in the minors as a no risk play. If someone wants to take a risk on these players it requires them to keep them on their roster and not stash in the minors.
The retirement part comes into play more now that, over the next couple years, now that most of the contracts in the league have been signed by us and are not their real life contracts. If we lower this down to 25% someone can take a risk on Selanne at $3.0m over 3 years now and get off very easy when he does retire. I feel like a player like Selanne shouldn't be signed to more than 1 year but how else would we restrict this?
-
12 - Retired & Moving Players
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=19455.0
I will start it off with my opinion that we should be able to put Retired/Moving players into our minors if they are on the last year of their current contract. (Just like other players) This give teams more cap and control of their teams. IMO
Its hard because you can't predict who will leave to other leagues or retire. Some players also decide to come out of retirement so what would happen with that situation?
I would like to hear what others think. Maybe I am wrong and the rule is fine the way it is?
Than what about for players that are not in the last year of their contract? Will they come off of the books the same way? I like it this way because it keeps the rules simple and it adds an additional risk.
For example: Say someone signs Jaromir Jagr to a two year contract so they can guarantee that they win, do we let this person slip through the system unpunished? With this ratification, all he has to do is lose a minor spot. Right now, the risk to doing that is much greater.
-
Depending on what others want but I would be most willing to have a decrease in the buyout cost, say 25% instead.
I just don't want people signing KHL/Swiss/etc. players and stashing them in the minors as a no risk play. If someone wants to take a risk on these players it requires them to keep them on their roster and not stash in the minors.
The retirement part comes into play more now that, over the next couple years, now that most of the contracts in the league have been signed by us and are not their real life contracts. If we lower this down to 25% someone can take a risk on Selanne at $3.0m over 3 years now and get off very easy when he does retire. I feel like a player like Selanne shouldn't be signed to more than 1 year but how else would we restrict this?
25% is much better but I don't think many people if anyone will be stashing KHL/Swiss players. It would be the same as stashing AHL players.
If somebody had Selanne at $3.0m over 3 years they would be on the hook for that just like every other player until he was on the last year and could be sent down.
It just does not make sense to me to treat some players different then others. We can't help who leaves the NHL? Its not like we can talk to the players or their agents. haha
-
Than what about for players that are not in the last year of their contract? Will they come off of the books the same way? I like it this way because it keeps the rules simple and it adds an additional risk.
For example: Say someone signs Jaromir Jagr to a two year contract so they can guarantee that they win, do we let this person slip through the system unpunished? With this ratification, all he has to do is lose a minor spot. Right now, the risk to doing that is much greater.
If a player is not in their last year we could buy them out just like any other player. (It would be a 50% buyout)
Whats the difference from stashing players that are still playing in the NHL?
-
If a player is not in their last year we could buy them out just like any other player. (It would be a 50% buyout)
Whats the difference from stashing players that are still playing in the NHL?
:iatp:
-
If a player is not in their last year we could buy them out just like any other player. (It would be a 50% buyout)
Whats the difference from stashing players that are still playing in the NHL?
I meant AHL :doh:
-
:bump: anybody else have an opinion or suggestion?
I like something like this. :thumbsup:
A) Retired Players Under Contract
If a player retires and they are still under contract, they still have to be compensated. They would be owed 50% of their contract for the year they retire and be tracked under the buyout part of the roster pages.
Therefore if a player who is making 4m (2011-12) retires they would be owed 2m for 2011-12. If the players contract is 4m (2012-13), they would still be owed 2m for the length of their contract ex. 2.0m (2012-13).
If a player retires in majors or minors they must be compensated under this rule. The player can be left on roster if a team wants.
B) Players Moving Leagues
They follow the above rule as well except that the GM can choose to keep the player in case they decide to come back to the NHL.
These players can be sent to the minors or waived if they are in the last year of contract just like other players.
-
Personally, I think players going to other leagues and retired players should be treated differently.
If they retired from the NHL, then I think they should hold other NHL player's rules in this league. They should be able to be dropped to the minors at a 50% discount ONLY during the last year of their contract.
As for players leaving for other leagues...I like Drew's proposal for 25% discount on these guys. I look at Semin as a good example in this case. Everyone that knew hockey knew that his contract in the NHL was up, and there was talk he could go to the KHL. This being the case, everyone proceeded with caution when it came to him.
In conclusion, I think a guy that retires from the NHL, should have the same "abilities" that guys that are still playing in the NHL should have. Once they leave the league, then it's different.
Just my 2 cents
-
Basically I am hoping a reduced rate will be more appealing. Here are two proposals to the rule. Please vote on one of the following.
Option 1:
A) Retired Players Under Contract
If a player retires and they are still under contract, they still have to be compensated. They would be owed 25% of their remaining contract. Therefore is Nicklas Lidstrom retires and has a contract of $5.0m (2013-14, 2 more years), would then be owed $1.3m x 2 years. This could be paid out all in one year or up to the max of years remaining on the contract.
If a player retires in majors or minors they must be compensated under this rule. The player can not be left on roster, they must be paid their 25% compensation at time of retirement.
B) Players Moving Leagues
They follow the above rule as well except that the GM can choose to keep the player in case they decide to come back to the NHL.
These players may also be waived to the minors if in the last year of their contracts.
Option 2:
A) Retired Players Under Contract
If a player retires and they are still under contract, they still have to be compensated. They would be owed 50% of their contract for the year they retire and be tracked under the buyout part of the roster pages.
Therefore if a player who is making 4m (2011-12) retires they would be owed 2m for 2011-12. If the players contract is 4m (2012-13), they would still be owed 2m for the length of their contract ex. 2.0m (2012-13).
If in the last year of their contract, they can be waived to the minors at a reduced rate. 25% of their contract cap will apply to the major league roster and 75% to the minor league roster.
Therefore if a player retires with a $4.0m contract (in the last year) could be waived to the minors with $1.0m of their contract counting towards the major league cap and $3.0m to minor league cap. These players could also be bought out at 50% as above to count against the major league cap.
B) Players Moving Leagues
They follow the above rule as well except that the GM can choose to keep the player in case they decide to come back to the NHL.
-
Option 1 gets my vote
-
I like option #1 but did not mind the 50% buyout for retired players. Teams should be responsible for the players they sign.
I just didn't really think that teams should be forced to keep a player on there main roster if they are playing overseas. They will have to keep them on the roster anyway unless they are in the last year of their contract. :toast:
-
option #1
-
I like option #1 but did not mind the 50% buyout for retired players. Teams should be responsible for the players they sign.
I just didn't really think that teams should be forced to keep a player on there main roster if they are playing overseas. They will have to keep them on the roster anyway unless they are in the last year of their contract. :toast:
Essentially I do have the final say so I may leave it to 50% because we have to be aware how close players are to retirement, signing Teemu to a 2 year deal this year is one of those risks we take sometimes.
I also have to add a section for death as well. Death voids the contract.
-
I just didn't really think that teams should be forced to keep a player on there main roster if they are playing overseas. They will have to keep them on the roster anyway unless they are in the last year of their contract. :toast:
I kind of agree here... I know teams do want to keep their top tier talent, but you never know sometimes with these foreign players.
Also, I like option one better.... Something about being cheaper always seems better.
-
I'm liking option #1 as well.
-
I like option 1 bc of rule b but not bc rule a like u said about temu still think retire player should be 50% so no one bids crazy on a guy for one year then gets a easy buy out
-
I like option #1 but did not mind the 50% buyout for retired players. Teams should be responsible for the players they sign.
I just didn't really think that teams should be forced to keep a player on there main roster if they are playing overseas. They will have to keep them on the roster anyway unless they are in the last year of their contract. :toast:
option gets my vote with the 50%
-
Basically I am hoping a reduced rate will be more appealing. Here are two proposals to the rule. Please vote on one of the following.
Option 1:
A) Retired Players Under Contract
If a player retires and they are still under contract, they still have to be compensated. They would be owed 25% of their remaining contract. Therefore is Nicklas Lidstrom retires and has a contract of $5.0m (2013-14, 2 more years), would then be owed $1.3m x 2 years. This could be paid out all in one year or up to the max of years remaining on the contract.
If a player retires in majors or minors they must be compensated under this rule. The player can not be left on roster, they must be paid their 25% compensation at time of retirement.
B) Players Moving Leagues
They follow the above rule as well except that the GM can choose to keep the player in case they decide to come back to the NHL.
These players may also be waived to the minors if in the last year of their contracts.
Option 2:
A) Retired Players Under Contract
If a player retires and they are still under contract, they still have to be compensated. They would be owed 50% of their contract for the year they retire and be tracked under the buyout part of the roster pages.
Therefore if a player who is making 4m (2011-12) retires they would be owed 2m for 2011-12. If the players contract is 4m (2012-13), they would still be owed 2m for the length of their contract ex. 2.0m (2012-13).
If in the last year of their contract, they can be waived to the minors at a reduced rate. 25% of their contract cap will apply to the major league roster and 75% to the minor league roster.
Therefore if a player retires with a $4.0m contract (in the last year) could be waived to the minors with $1.0m of their contract counting towards the major league cap and $3.0m to minor league cap. These players could also be bought out at 50% as above to count against the major league cap.
B) Players Moving Leagues
They follow the above rule as well except that the GM can choose to keep the player in case they decide to come back to the NHL.
Seems relatively unanimous so we will go with option 1 with one modification. This rule will be effective at the start of week 5. I am also adding a death amendment to the rules as well.
NEW RULE:
Option 1:
A) Retired Players Under Contract
If a player retires and they are still under contract, they still have to be compensated. They would be owed 50% of their remaining contract. Therefore is Nicklas Lidstrom retires and has a contract of $5.0m (2013-14, 2 more years), would then be owed $2.5m x 2 years. This could be paid out all in one year or up to the max of years remaining on the contract.
If a player retires in majors or minors they must be compensated under this rule. The player can not be left on roster, they must be paid their 50% compensation at time of retirement.
B) Players Moving Leagues
They follow the above rule as well except that the GM can choose to keep the player in case they decide to come back to the NHL.
These players may also be waived to the minors if in the last year of their contracts.
C) Death
If a player dies while still under contract their contract becomes null and void. Therefore the player would be released off the team and no cost.
-
Seems relatively unanimous so we will go with option 1 with one modification. This rule will be effective at the start of week 5. I am also adding a death amendment to the rules as well.
NEW RULE:
Option 1:
A) Retired Players Under Contract
If a player retires and they are still under contract, they still have to be compensated. They would be owed 50% of their remaining contract. Therefore is Nicklas Lidstrom retires and has a contract of $5.0m (2013-14, 2 more years), would then be owed $2.5m x 2 years. This could be paid out all in one year or up to the max of years remaining on the contract.
If a player retires in majors or minors they must be compensated under this rule. The player can not be left on roster, they must be paid their 50% compensation at time of retirement.
B) Players Moving Leagues
They follow the above rule as well except that the GM can choose to keep the player in case they decide to come back to the NHL.
These players may also be waived to the minors if in the last year of their contracts.
C) Death
If a player dies while still under contract their contract becomes null and void. Therefore the player would be released off the team and no cost.
Maybe we could add a stipulation that if a players retires under a certain age its a 25% discount. This would be nice for unexpected players retiring early. What do you think?
-
Maybe we could add a stipulation that if a players retires under a certain age its a 25% discount. This would be nice for unexpected players retiring early. What do you think?
What are some players say under 30 that have retired lately? Seeing if this would be warranted and can't think of many off the top of my head.
-
What are some players say under 30 that have retired lately? Seeing if this would be warranted and can't think of many off the top of my head.
It does not happen often but was just an idea. I was thinking somewhere between 30-34.