|
Post by Hamilton Bulldogs on Sept 11, 2015 9:38:24 GMT -5
I have to agree with the 82 games as the bare minimum, as I see 26 being way to low. Age limit I do not really have an opinion on besides the goalie age limit being higher than the player limit.
|
|
|
Post by London Knights on Sept 11, 2015 11:38:27 GMT -5
I do have to put my foot down on the idea of lowering to 26 games for skaters though. Uh oh.. the foot is down!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 12:10:16 GMT -5
most players in the NHL who are on their two way ELC will play over 100 games before signing their second NHL contract with a one way provision. This is an excellent point! Thinking in terms of player development and still being under an ELC puts things into proper perspective. I see the sense in 82 is bare minimum and actually agree now that even a 100 limit may work. (hope Soo was sitting down for that )
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 11, 2015 17:28:49 GMT -5
Alright, so I was playing around with the player limits. You CAN set separate games played values for both goaltenders and forwards, which we already knew. However, we can NOT set separate age limits for goaltenders and players, unless somebody knows a trick that I don't. So the age has to be the same for both of them.
Because of this, I think its fair to say age 26 wins by default. I also messed around with GP and going from 82 games to 100 hardly made a difference. We literally only gained 2 players on the entire list (Nicolas Deslauriers and Filip Forsberg). I'm fairly certain that we should keep it at 100 GP.
Everyone seems to pretty much be on the same page with this. Plus, I need this figured out immediately so I can move forward with getting the league prepared for the prospect draft. With that said, I am going to skip creating a poll and propose the following for a brief discussion:
Players: Age 26 / 100 GP Goaltenders: Age 26 / 50 GP
Any objections or concerns?
Keep in mind that if these numbers don't prove to be perfect down the road, they will certainly be close enough so that we can make minor adjustments without shaking the league up.
It was that easy huh??? Next time I'm going to recruit Mississauga Steelheads to convey my ideas to you right from the start. Hahah
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 18:06:54 GMT -5
Glad we are making progress on nailing this down. Two things we need to include in the ruling to clarify things:
For Players Ages:
We need to specify age to match what Fantrax is using as mentioned above. The "start of the season" for Fantrax I believe would be Sept 15 because they have a "Rookie" filter that would have to coincide with what the NHL uses to define rookies for that season. So, suggest we use that unless there are objections.
Also for clarity...
Are we saying: a> less than 26 (26 not inclusive) b> no more than 26 (26 inclusive) ie. less than 27
Same for games: a> less than 100 (100 not inclusive) b> no more than 100 ie. less than 101
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 11, 2015 18:49:17 GMT -5
Glad we are making progress on nailing this down. Two things we need to include in the ruling to clarify things: For Players Ages: We need to specify age to match what Fantrax is using as mentioned above. The "start of the season" for Fantrax I believe would be Sept 15 because they have a "Rookie" filter that would have to coincide with what the NHL uses to define rookies for that season. So, suggest we use that unless there are objections. Also for clarity... Are we saying: a> less than 26 (26 not inclusive) b> no more than 26 (26 inclusive) ie. less than 27 Same for games: a> less than 100 (100 not inclusive) b> no more than 100 ie. less than 101 The option checked is "Less than or equal (<=)" Example -The player needs to be 26 OR less -100 games OR less We have the option to either make it so you must only meet the eligibility options prior to the start of the season (assumed its Sept. 15) or make it so that once you hit the limitations the player is no longer considered a minor.
|
|
|
Post by Flint Firebirds on Sept 11, 2015 19:32:42 GMT -5
26 is too old for skaters in my opinion. If we policed ourselves during the draft and didn't let goalies 25 and 26 under the game limit be drafted without undoing it we would be fine. Yes it's hands on for the commish but there aren't that many goalies that fall into those two ages but there are a ton of skaters that do instead of sticking at 24
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 12, 2015 5:28:14 GMT -5
That's a good option, I don't mind the idea as it wouldn't take a lot of work. I would ideally like the age to be 24 for the sake of my perfectionist tendencies, although I do not think it has as much impact to our league as people think. In my opinion it has next to zero impact regarding skaters, unlike goaltenders.
I do have to point out a couple things for the sake of getting everyone to agree on something (whatever that something is) so we can move forward. We are getting very short on time and unfortunately a decision has to be made.
-There are actually way more goaltenders than players of significance that are between the ages of 24-26. -There certainly will be a player or two here and there that come to he NHL between the ages of 24-26 and put up 3rd liner stats. Everyone has equal opportunity to acquire these rare players -There is one player on the entire skater list over 24 years old that I would consider acquiring. -I think age would have a greater importance on skaters if say our GP limit was super high, like 140+ games.
Here is an example:
The top 3 point scoring skaters on the list who are over 24 years old and under 100 GP -Anders Lee (The only player of significance) -Josh Jooris 12g 12A -Colton Sceviour 9G 17A
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 12, 2015 5:40:51 GMT -5
I think we need to discuss implementing rules to prevent GM's from cycling prospects into their lineups and gaining extra weekly starts. As of right now it would be possible to leave a couple roster spots open to cycle in and out prospects all week long.
Another thing would be changing RW/LW to just Wingers. I'm good with either way but figured it would be a good topic to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Flint Firebirds on Sept 12, 2015 6:55:42 GMT -5
I think we need to discuss implementing rules to prevent GM's from cycling prospects into their lineups and gaining extra weekly starts. As of right now it would be possible to leave a couple roster spots open to cycle in and out prospects all week long. Another thing would be changing RW/LW to just Wingers. I'm good with either way but figured it would be a good topic to discuss. So you're stating you have to keep prospects in the minors all season?
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 12, 2015 7:39:06 GMT -5
No way! Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear.
I am suggesting implementing rules that will prevent a team from using their minor roster as an extended version of their main roster (using it as extra bench positions). I don't think the purpose of the minor roster is to gain an extra 10 player starts per week against your opponent. It is there to build your team and call players up as necessary to improve your roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2015 9:39:57 GMT -5
I think we need to discuss implementing rules to prevent GM's from cycling prospects into their lineups and gaining extra weekly starts. As of right now it would be possible to leave a couple roster spots open to cycle in and out prospects all week long. Another thing would be changing RW/LW to just Wingers. I'm good with either way but figured it would be a good topic to discuss. This is exactly why I had been pushing for lower age/games. The more talent that is producing in the NHL on the minor roster - the more problematic the cycling issue will be. Possible ideas to help deal with this potential problem: 1> Lower age/games - this has gotten most of our attention so far in discussions 2> Limit how many times a season players can be called up. Like you are allowed 6 all year for example. 3> Place a minimum stay requirement on call-ups. Like a player has to remain on roster for at least a week or whatever. As long as we have anti-cycling rules in place the more at ease I am with having the age and games limits higher. I have backed away from my earlier position on this due to the fact that we will all play with same rules. If other GMs cycle - then so would I - to stay competitive. I would much rather not allow cycling to limit the potential abuse - not to mention the extra overhead LM's have in trying to keep track and monitor all of that activity.
|
|
|
Post by Flint Firebirds on Sept 12, 2015 9:50:12 GMT -5
In my league if you bring a guy up, he must stay on your roster that scoring period(week) before he goes back down
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 12, 2015 10:28:32 GMT -5
Keeping a minor on your main roster for the entire scoring period seems to be the way to go. Most decent leagues I looked at use this method and don't seem to have many issues with it.
Brian, does your league also lock in the lineups for the scoring period at the beginning of the week? Or can you make lineup changes anytime you want?
Scott, every-time you suggest lowering the GP limit I am going to increase it by 10 lol
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton Bulldogs on Sept 12, 2015 11:59:16 GMT -5
leagues I have been in before would lock the rosters at the start of the week. You would have to do your roster changes on sunday before they were locked or you were SOL
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 12, 2015 12:02:49 GMT -5
leagues I have been in before would lock the rosters at the start of the week. You would have to do your roster changes on sunday before they were locked or you were SOL Do you like or dislike that setup? There also options of Bi-weekly lineup changes
|
|
|
Post by London Knights on Sept 12, 2015 13:01:11 GMT -5
I prefer daily changes myself. Keeps it more competitive, and keeps GMs heads in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Flint Firebirds on Sept 12, 2015 14:11:18 GMT -5
Keeping a minor on your main roster for the entire scoring period seems to be the way to go. Most decent leagues I looked at use this method and don't seem to have many issues with it. Brian, does your league also lock in the lineups for the scoring period at the beginning of the week? Or can you make lineup changes anytime you want? Scott, every-time you suggest lowering the GP limit I am going to increase it by 10 lol You can move him at any time during the scoring period but they must remain there until the period ends whether it's the first or last day of it. And no we don't lock it. Daily moves so it's more active
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2015 16:27:51 GMT -5
Keeping a minor on your main roster for the entire scoring period seems to be the way to go. Most decent leagues I looked at use this method and don't seem to have many issues with it. Brian, does your league also lock in the lineups for the scoring period at the beginning of the week? Or can you make lineup changes anytime you want? Scott, every-time you suggest lowering the GP limit I am going to increase it by 10 lol LMAO! I didn't suggest it! I was speaking past tense as to why I was more in favor of it in the past. Seriously, as long as we adopt some controls to limit/reduce/eliminate cycling we will be fine. Incidentally, I prefer daily lock.
|
|
|
Post by Soo Greyhounds on Sept 12, 2015 16:49:23 GMT -5
-We will stick with daily lineup changes. -Prospects must remain on your roster for the entire scoring period. (Cap penalties will apply to repeat offenders who are trying to abuse the system)
-100 GP or less for minor skater eligibility
-50 GP or less for minor goaltender eligibility
-26 years or less at the beginning of the season for both skaters and goaltenders.
-A legitimate prospect draft of all prospects who meet the above criteria.
Note: Once you hit your max GP limits you instantly lose minor eligibility unlike age which is qualified at the beginning of the season. I don't think we want a guy being considered a prospect who has 160 NHL games under his belt 3/4 through the season.
Can everyone live with this? I can't please everybody and make every change requested. I do think everyone involved had solid input and as a result we made a lot of good changes to strengthen our league. This is the last chance to strengthen your arguments before the changes go into effect.
And the most critical changes of all......
Forum Member Ranks Pylon (1 star) 0-24 posts Duster (2 star) 25+ posts Bender (3 star) 75+ posts Grinder (4 star) 125+ posts Dangler (5 star) 175+ posts Sniper (6 star) 250+ posts All-Star (7 star) 325+ posts
|
|