ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Archive => Backyard NHL => Archive => Backyard NHL: Archives => Topic started by: SlackJack on August 23, 2013, 03:43:04 PM
-
Was talking with Drew about tweaking IR replacement rules.
Basically: If a forward is injured he can be replaced by any forward but defencemen or goalies have to be replaced by like kind.
In other words if my stud defencemen gets injured, should I now be able to shop for an overlooked forward or goalie prospect? Let's curb the use of IR dollars being spent on unsuitable replacements.
Please discuss.
-
Sounds good to me.
-
So let me be clear here...
F for F
D for D
G for G
?
If this is what you are saying, then :iatp:
-
Pretty cool idea IMO
Is this just fir FA? Not for call ups within your own organization I wouldn't imagine?
-
I dont like it why should I not be able to ice the most competitive. What if I have Ovechkin in the minors and my stud dman Letang goes down with an injury. I cant call up Ovechkin because he isnt a dman. That just sounds stupid that I cant ice the best team because of a stupid rule like this. Neat idea but I am a not a fan at all
-
I dont like it why should I not be able to ice the most competitive. What if I have Ovechkin in the minors and my stud dman Letang goes down with an injury. I cant call up Ovechkin because he isnt a dman. That just sounds stupid that I cant ice the best team because of a stupid rule like this. Neat idea but I am a not a fan at all
:iatp: I am in the same boat. I feel that sometimes FA is lacking in quality, and I would rather just have the next best player than someone that I feel is not up to par.
-
I dont like it why should I not be able to ice the most competitive. What if I have Ovechkin in the minors and my stud dman Letang goes down with an injury. I cant call up Ovechkin because he isnt a dman. That just sounds stupid that I cant ice the best team because of a stupid rule like this. Neat idea but I am a not a fan at all
If you had Ovechkin in the minors then I would agree, yes that would be stupid. Otherwise I am looking for a more enlightened discussion on the issue. Namely that IR dollars not be spent acquiring prospects.
Positional restrictions may not be the best solution but what of the issue I raised? Does it even need to be addressed? Could it be addressed in another way? How about a statement that IR players have to have played at least 40 games in the NHL to qualify as replacements?
I don't mean to be tough on you Jesse. I'm just looking for some creative discussion here in the middle of the NHL doldrums.
-
I think I would agree more with the prospect rule. After thinking it over, a guy should be able to pull up anyone who is going to help their team out. But I agree that prospects should be off limits in a case like this.
-
I am ok with this if the limitations are only on the free agent market, so if you have players in the minors that you can call up since it is your own system you can call up whoever. But if you decide to go into the free agency market then you have to stay within position.
-
I am ok with this if the limitations are only on the free agent market, so if you have players in the minors that you can call up since it is your own system you can call up whoever. But if you decide to go into the free agency market then you have to stay within position.
:iatp:
-
:iatp: I am in the same boat. I feel that sometimes FA is lacking in quality, and I would rather just have the next best player than someone that I feel is not up to par.
:iatp:
-
See no reason to change the rule as it stands, but as Slack has stated, it's never a bad idea to talk hockey in the middle of the doldrums :thumbsup: If the rule were to change then I would be in favour of positional identity if you were taking a FA and allowing us to call up from our minors.