Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Diehardsonlyfhl. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Create "Clowe Rule"?
YES 9 (56.3%)
NO 7 (43.8%)
Total Votes: 16
"Clowe Rule": VOTE now!
Topic Started: Sep 11 2015, 10:09 PM (511 Views)
EugeneNYI - commish
Member Avatar
Administrator
Please read this article first:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/m_news.htm?id=778727

and this:
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nhl/1850/ryane-clowe

Currently by our rules Clowe would go to fantrax IR but he cannot be dropped since he still has an NHL contract.

To me thats a waste of our 3 IR spots. He would have to basically sit on I.R. for 3 seasons, just to get dropped after that.

So I would like to add a rule that if a player under contract is put on NHL IR for rest of that contract, we can drop him for free. Rule will take effect as soon as vote is over (if majority passes it).

Please VOTE!
Edited by EugeneNYI - commish, Sep 12 2015, 01:20 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlexDallasGM
Member Avatar

I voted no. My reasoning is that we don't know for sure if he will really stay retired. Maybe it's fairly certain in this case but it creates a huge grey area.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EugeneNYI - commish
Member Avatar
Administrator
Excellent point and I agree.

I think in Clowe case its fairly certain.

In cases where there is a grey area I wont allow for the drop...if this rule passes.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bo_CoyotesGM
Member Avatar

Why not create a PUP list and you can then allow the player to be placed in the minors prior to the start of the season (or during the season if the situation arises)? You could either make a unilateral call on these occurrences as they arise or put the PUP designation to a league wide vote but I don't see this situation any differently than Voynov last year. In each case, the Diehards GM had no role in the player's status so to imply a law breaker should be treated differently than a long term injury seems unfair, from our GM's perspective. You could use the EXT column to flag the player, put him in the minors and the owner could then wait and see if, in fact, the player IS lost for the duration expected. Fact is the player in question CAN be dropped...there's just a cap hit involved. Tough luck is part of fantasy sports and I'm not inclined to legislate relief for certain tough luck scenarios and not others. The GM has the option of NOT placing the guy on IR. Maybe the solution is to allow FOUR IR slots?
Edited by Bo_CoyotesGM, Sep 12 2015, 12:32 AM.
Posted Image

The Desert Dogs are on the hunt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EugeneNYI - commish
Member Avatar
Administrator
Steve,

Believe me, I have considered all of this:

1. 4 I.R. spots - Its an option, but I dont want to add 1 I.R. spot just for these weird situations. I think that 3 I.R. spots is typically enough. I'm yet to see GMs have more than 3 guys on NHL I.R. Its rare. It would be a rather drastic rule changes so late into the pre-season. I would rather make a smaller change for just these unusual cases.

2. PUP - Same issue as with I.R...placing Clowe on Minors means Montreal is wasting a Minor spot on a player who will never player again. That spot could be used for another prospect. Not the same at all as Voynov, who could actually play again one day and so there is no reason we should allow for him to be dropped.

I guess we will see how this vote goes and then go from there...
Edited by EugeneNYI - commish, Sep 12 2015, 12:57 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John-RangersGM
Member Avatar
John - RangersGM
I can see both sides of this debate. On one hand, the NHL teams have to account for the cap hit, but they have unlimited IR spots, which we do not have. If we vote yes, it relieves the GM not only of the IR spot loss but the unproductive contract on their books.

I voted yes but its really close.
Posted Image

And now the Rangers had it because they beat the Vancouver Canucks last night in a spine-tingler of a Game 7 in the finals. When it ended, amid the anxiety and perspiration of a 3-2 victory, fireworks exploded overhead. Tears and champagne flowed. A fan held up a sign that said "Now, I Can Die in Peace."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EugeneNYI - commish
Member Avatar
Administrator
RangersGM
Sep 12 2015, 12:51 AM
I can see both sides of this debate. On one hand, the NHL teams have to account for the cap hit, but they have unlimited IR spots, which we do not have. If we vote yes, it relieves the GM not only of the IR spot loss but the unproductive contract on their books.

I voted yes but its really close.
Keep in mind that if Montreal puts Clowe on his I.R., it does not count against our cap...so he would no longer have to deal with his contract. It is just a waste of an I.R. spot for 3 years...
Edited by EugeneNYI - commish, Sep 12 2015, 01:04 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bo_CoyotesGM
Member Avatar

Well if teams rarely need 3 IR slots, then what's the problem? And tying up one of 27 slots would be easier to absorb than one of 3 slots. Making tough decisions is part of the job. I have always hated the 100% solution to the 1% problem. That is, having to provide relief in rare cases.

Editing to add that there is no assurance that Clowe will remain on IR for 3 years. I believe they have rules against buy outs on injured players but look at Pronger's deal. SOME actual NHL team is still on the hook for that deal and he hasn't played in 6 years or whatever. If this league was old enough, we'd be calling it the Pronger rule.
Edited by Bo_CoyotesGM, Sep 12 2015, 01:30 AM.
Posted Image

The Desert Dogs are on the hunt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EugeneNYI - commish
Member Avatar
Administrator
We have had gms use all 3 IR spots. I meant u rarely need more than 3.

I also am not sure how Nj possibly buying him out change the situation...If its done in year 2 or 3 then Montreal still wasted IR spot until then

As for Minor spots, u value them more than anyone.

I guess we can agree to disagree and let vote decide:)
Edited by EugeneNYI - commish, Sep 12 2015, 01:59 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Loren-Flyers
Member Avatar

As Steve pointed out this can be taken care of with a regular buyout. It hurts a bit, but is a chance we all take on our players and one of the challenges we face as GM's in this competitive league. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Season 4 - Discuss & Vote · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1

JETS---Banner.jpgJETS---Banner---17-18.jpg