|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 24, 2014 13:41:15 GMT -5
If you have any thoughts on, or proposals for, new rules or changes to existing rules for the 2014 DHL season, please post here.
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Jul 30, 2014 13:09:54 GMT -5
I'd like to bring up something that came up last summer to establish it as a rule for this season and the future: Bidding on players that would take you over the roster limit. If you have a full roster and you bid on a free agent I believe you should be required to disclose which ELC player you plan to release to make room for that player should you win the auction. Your bid should look something like this: The reason I want this is because I believe it is against the spirit of the rules to be bidding on players when you already have a full roster. You would still be allowed to bid you would simply have to put your cards on the table and tell us all how you plan to make room on your roster. You've already filled your roster so to make a bid that would force you to drop someone without having to disclose who you would drop until AFTER you've won the auction is unfair to the other owners. It allows owners to make bids simply to drive the price up without any repercussions. Also, knowing what player you plan to release would be information that might impact another owners decision on whether or not to outbid you. The other way to accomplish this is to make it a rule that you cannot bid on any free agents if you already have a full roster. If you have a full roster and want to bid on a free agent you would have to drop an ELC player to create an open roster spot before you could bid. That's an extreme measure, of course, which is why I suggest the earlier option. This rule change had quite a bit of discussion and some support last summer with Minas Tirith, Dynamo and Milwaukee all agreeing with me ( LINK) I hope we can implement this minor rule change this summer before we begin free agency.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Jul 30, 2014 13:18:21 GMT -5
Gravol's good with this rule adjustment and agrees with the reasoning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 13:49:40 GMT -5
I hate every new rule and disagree with everything - especially when it is suggested by the former Thrashers. Such is my lot in life.
That said, I like this suggestion. I would also be okay with requiring teams to have an open roster spot before they can bid on a player. Would force us to be a little more careful with the last roster spots on our teams. Should be easier too since we're gaining a roster spot this year.
|
|
|
Post by Simi Valley Kings on Jul 30, 2014 14:13:20 GMT -5
Agree with Milwaukee...the Thrashers and their owner are dolts.
As for the rule, I also agree that no team should be allowed to bid on a player unless they have an open roster slot.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Jul 30, 2014 14:15:39 GMT -5
I think requiring an empty roster spot to open an auction/place a bid is a bit too extreme, but forced disclosure of the EL Player to be released from a full roster seems fair, if there's an appetite for this rule change.
Anyone else have thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Jul 30, 2014 17:20:19 GMT -5
I agree with everything Milwaukee said.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 2, 2014 4:38:27 GMT -5
Changes to IR Replacement rules for the coming season:
a) Currently, an IR Replacement selected externally (i.e. an unsigned Free Agent) was stuck on your roster no matter what, until the original player was healthy again, or the Replacement himself was placed on NHL IR. Starting this season, you will be able to swap external IR Replacements for the cost of 3 transactions. So, by spending your weeks worth of transactions, you will now be able to dump that slumping replacement, and not be saddled with him, as long as you pay the steep price.
b) IR Replacements will now have to be released from duty after the original player has played in 3 consecutive games for his NHL team. This will give you time to make any needed roster decisions before the player comes back, while also giving you some assurance that the original player is healthy. If the original player plays 1 or 2 games, but then misses the next, you are not required to drop your Replacement. The game count will reset, and start counting to 3 when he returns again. If an IR Replacement is still on your roster after the original player has played 3 consecutive games, the commissioner will forcibly release the IR Replacement, and put the original player back on your bench, no matter the consequences this may have on your set lines. The 3 games rule is only a maximum, and you are welcome to release an IR Replacement for the original player earlier than the 3 game mark if you see fit. This rule may be difficult to keep tabs on, so if you notice an IR Replacement is being kept in violation of this rule, please notify the commissioner of the infraction.
-------
Any thoughts or concerns for these rules before they are set in stone?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Aug 2, 2014 8:22:45 GMT -5
Nicely done Commish.
That's a "Yay" from Gravol
|
|
|
Post by Morweena Reimnoceri on Aug 3, 2014 10:06:50 GMT -5
I have a proposed rule change - might be too late to do for 2014, but could be implemented for 2015.
Now, like all great ideas it came to me while naked in the sauna (very important precursor).
My idea is a way to give teams first crack at impending free agents on their team (similar to how the NHL teams have first dibs to re-sign their players instead of straight up losing them) mixed with salary arbitration.
SO...
Each season before free agency, each team gets the option to re-sign ONE of their players before they go to the free agent market.
Here's how it would work:
There would have to be a set minimum contract term and price - for arguments sake lets say 5 years $25 per is the bare minimum.
From there, any other manager interested in that player (original owner included) would submit a blind bid to Adam or Ross or whoever wants to undertake this task. I personally trust Adam to do it diplomatically and not screw people over, but he also has a lot on his plate with the league already.
Once all bids are submitted (in whatever set time frame we may decide on) the highest bid is then what said player's contract would be.
Once that is set the original owner would have a chance to match that offer or let the player go to whoever the highest bidder was - who must then sign that player for the term and price they submitted in the blind bid. **this would hopefully deter GMs from trying to fuck other over by blind bidding $60 for 5 years just to stop the original owner from retaining the player**
Let's run an example with players and GMs taken at random:
Step 1: Morweena elects to retain Colton Orr.
Step 2: Blind bids as follows (keep in mind nobody technically should see the bids ever - only the highest bid would be made public):
Morweena $32/5 years Moscow: $28/5 years Quebec: $33/5 years Gravol: $44/5 years
Step 3: Blind bid submissions close and highest bid is revealed
Highest bid goes to Gravol - $44/5 years
Step 4: Does original owner (Morweena) match the offer?:
Fuck no
Step 5:
Gravol signs Colton Orr $44/5 years
Why I think this would be awesome/work:
1) We all have players on our teams who we love. So why not get first crack at keeping them. This isn't to say that said player will 100% remain on your team, but if you love them (like the Leafs apparently love Gardiner) they will sign him for more than they should in order to keep him.
2) It's just one player per year - there will still be plenty of free agents while making it hard to go all Chicago Blackhawks and lock down Toews/Kane forever.
3) You don't have to exercise the option if you don't want to.
4) It would add a new element to free agency.
Thoughts and feedback appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Aug 3, 2014 10:31:24 GMT -5
WOW! Not just another pretty face eh Morweena!!?? We'll thought out bro
Gravol likes the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow Red Army on Aug 3, 2014 20:27:47 GMT -5
It's an interesting concept, Alex. I pitched an idea last season in the same sort of mindset, but there didn't seem to be an interest in allowing managers to retain players. My rule was allowing managers to match offers on any of their expiring EL players to retain them, though, and this is specifically for expiring TERM players.
I think we need to hear more opinions on the idea, to get a general opinion, before moving forward with discussions on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 8:18:15 GMT -5
IR replacement rule B needs to be revised so that it can be used for goalies. I also think that it's too lax. I would prefer it to be 2 games (which is most of a week).
As for the goalie rule, it really should be that once a goalie plays one game, you have to drop the other goalie. It is important that the goalie rule does not include the phrase "consecutive games" as many goalies do not play 3 consecutive games even when they're healthy. This is especially the case for fringe goalies.
While I appreciate Morweena's thought process, I am strongly against this rule change. In the NHL, bids aren't blind. We have already included something that allows for a facsimile of RFA (the EL increasing contracts). There's no reason that we as owners should have first pick at keeping our players. If we want to keep them, we just have to pay the price like in any other auction draft.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas Aces Wild on Aug 4, 2014 9:47:08 GMT -5
Good points on the Goalie situation Tim and, as much as I like Alex's idea, the way it is (as you described) will allow for more roster turnover and force all Managers to determine just how much they value their favorite players.
GRAVOL is just going to shut up now and wait out the pros & cons because everyone (including myself) hates the guy who agrees with everyone!
Cheers
|
|
St. Roch Hawks
General Manager
Doug
Every season is a reincarnation - and nobody does reincarnation better than me
Posts: 2,785
|
Post by St. Roch Hawks on Aug 4, 2014 11:31:56 GMT -5
Gee, I wonder why Morweena is suggesting this rule this summer? Hmm.... Morweena Goalie last season: Tuukka Rask - $3 / UFA this summer Oh, that's right! I am 100% against that rule change. Giving one team the exclusive ability to retain a great player by simply matching, not exceeding, a blind bid from another owner is unfair and it would lead to a dearth of high quality free agents, which is already a shallow pool. Next summer, though, when Erik Karlsson is a UFA, I will support this 100%. The Finnish Flash votes NAY on Morweena's proposed rule change, supports the changes to IR and agrees with Milwaukee's amendment about goalies.
|
|