Waivers

[-BA-]

I think the 50% way is the best way to go.

[Rob]

The claiming teams percentage of the contract changes depending on the type of waiver in the NHL.  When a player is waiver to be placed in the minors and is claimed the claiming team is on the hook for the full contract.  However if the player is called up from the minors and goes through re-entry waivers the claiming team is only responsible for 50% of the contract while the waiving team is on the hook for 50%. 

Our waivers are more like the unconditional relase/ minor league assignment and therefore the claiming team would have to take on the whole salary.  However I wouldn't be opposed to having the claiming team be on hook for only 50% of the contract in this league. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waivers_(NHL)

Awesome, thanks for clarifying that.  If there's overwhelming support for it I wouldn't mind implementing a waiver system similar to how the NHL handles it but I'd prefer to do it the simpler way as it makes things easier on my end!

Let's see what some other people think and go from there.  Also need your opinions on the priority method, either way is fine by me. 

[snugerud]

either one,  what ever is easiest.

[BrewCrew]

As for Sam, I told myself I wasn't even going to respond to your nonsense, and this will be the last time I will.  You received 2 good prospects for nothing in your deal with Montreal, then you oppose a similar deal that was far more fair.  Now you oppose a proposal to fix the problem.  None of this makes any sense to me.  You also recently supported an idea proposed to increase the cap after the draft which would have a direct effect on the strategies we all used in our initial extensions and the draft.  Unlike this change which really has no effect on the strategies we all used to get to this point.  You've contradicted yourself on every level and unlike Whomp who offers a constructive criticism and potential alternative, you offer nothing other than your typical venom.  I don't appreciate your insulting PM.  I thought perhaps you changed your ways after you were nearly banned from the site for this same nonsense.  I guess I was wrong.  We've quickly built one of the best leagues on ProFSL and I won't have this kind of drama ruin that.  If you don't like it you can move on, we'll have no problem finding an owner for the Kings.  Grow up or get out.

1.) I never said that the trade I made was fair, and I would have had no issues with it being veto.
2.) This doesn't fix the proposal, and I like it how it is, so why do I NEED to propose something new?
3.) I have yet to contradict myself once.
4.) I don't appreciate insulting me in the forums, and then you lock that post so I can't say anything in defense.
5.) There is no need for anything about me changing, completely uncalled for and yet I'M the one that needs to grow up...


Honestly, I don't care anymore. I still think this a great league, yes, but all this non sense is not needed. Then for you to just drop something like this is completely uncalled for. Say what you want, frankly this has just become laughable to me and if you are really gonna say that you don't appreciate name calling after what you did and what you just said here, you are your favorite word then, a hypocrite.


On track, can someone explain how this is a good change?

[-BA-]

Brewcrew, what is your issue with the newly proposed rule outside of the fact that you don't like this changing at this point in the season? If this rule had been there from the start would you have had an issue with it?

It seems to most people that have responded that it seems like an better system than what we were running under in the first place. I am generally not fond of changing rules on the fly, but I think there was an issue here than can be exploited to an extent.

In addition to the old rule having a loophole, it also created a problem where every time we had a trade like this (2 being every time), it created friction, some by myself for sure, because I didn't like it for one. I think this new proposal feels more like the real system they use, which is part of what this league is trying to recreate.

You are certainly welcome to disagree with the change, I would bet out of 20 people  you are not alone, but I don't think this is an issue that should be a deal breaker for teams. If there are issues that you have with this specific setup, outside of timing, please state what it is.

I am a firm believer in that when you do go about changing a rule after the initial start of the league, that you should have a certain level of buy in from the teams in the league. Now you may be the one in a 19-1 ruling or you might be 1 of 10. I dont' know, but it seems most people that have chimed in are in favor.

I just want to make sure from here on out, we keep this conversation constructive by all parties.

[winter]

What you guys are discussing is pretty much being used in Backyard NHL. Drew has this area covered extremely well. Look at rules - waivers, to get an idea. Very simple, very to the point.

[Anthony]

I say open up a poll with the waiver way or the current way. Majority vote and the rule gets changed. This way there is no arguing, we will have a count of votes instead of just a bunch of opinions, and the voting stays anonymous.

[BrewCrew]

Brewcrew, what is your issue with the newly proposed rule outside of the fact that you don't like this changing at this point in the season? If this rule had been there from the start would you have had an issue with it?

It seems to most people that have responded that it seems like an better system than what we were running under in the first place. I am generally not fond of changing rules on the fly, but I think there was an issue here than can be exploited to an extent.

In addition to the old rule having a loophole, it also created a problem where every time we had a trade like this (2 being every time), it created friction, some by myself for sure, because I didn't like it for one. I think this new proposal feels more like the real system they use, which is part of what this league is trying to recreate.

You are certainly welcome to disagree with the change, I would bet out of 20 people  you are not alone, but I don't think this is an issue that should be a deal breaker for teams. If there are issues that you have with this specific setup, outside of timing, please state what it is.

I am a firm believer in that when you do go about changing a rule after the initial start of the league, that you should have a certain level of buy in from the teams in the league. Now you may be the one in a 19-1 ruling or you might be 1 of 10. I dont' know, but it seems most people that have chimed in are in favor.

I just want to make sure from here on out, we keep this conversation constructive by all parties.

I just don't see how it helps? It essentially leaves no way to get rid of a players contract. I guess that, yes, that is realistic, but things like that can really hinder a franchise.

As for if it was in place to start the year, I may have said something, but I would just have to live with it since that's the way we would have used. The reason I'm saying you can't change it now is because there have already been a few people that have made drops and have had 1/2 of the contract come off the books. I don't think that is fair to all teams that you are changing it now.

[Rob]

What you guys are discussing is pretty much being used in Backyard NHL. Drew has this area covered extremely well. Look at rules - waivers, to get an idea. Very simple, very to the point.

Yea he's mimicking the NHL pretty accurately.  Like I said I wouldn't mind doing it this way though I'd prefer the simpler method. 

Good idea Anthony, I'll throw up a poll.  I do like also getting people to chime in on things as there's often gray areas that should be discussed. 

[shooter47]

Just so I have this all correct before I vote.  The only way to get the 50% reduction in the contract is if someone claims the player on waivers right?  If the player clears waivers then the original team is still stuck with the whole contract?