|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 20, 2015 20:48:52 GMT -5
There has been talk about whether we should continue with the status quo whereby a player that goes on IR+ can currently be replaced by allowing a GM to pick up a Free Agent while that player is injured.
The proposed change to IR+ would mean that no team could ever exceed the maximum roster size of 47 players, of which a maximum of 27 are Pro players.
A GM could still place up to 4 players on IR+, but he could only replace the injured player with a player from their farm team. If you had no player on your farm that could replace the player on IR+, this team would play short from their bench. The GM could also drop a player from their roster by picking up a Free Agent to replace the player on IR+.
This change would force GMs to be much more active in managing their teams to account for the inevitable injuries their team will encounter over the course of a season. Some GMs have expressed an opinion that this makes the GMHL more realistic whereas other GMs want to maintain the status quo and continue to have the ability to replace injured players with a Free Agent as they see fit.
I'd like to see GMs provide their reasons why they support the option they have chosen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 21:52:57 GMT -5
Just like to see this remain how it was the previous years
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2015 22:14:45 GMT -5
Just like to see this remain how it was the previous years Andrew forget how this affects you, and think what is best for the league as a whole, or more simply if this were a brand new league what rules would you want to have? If you still feel that the old way is best fine peace be with you. But I suspect your big issue with this is your lack of talent on your farm. This is why "democracy" is horrible and voting on things doesn't work, its the same thing with what happened with the expansion vote, people voted against it because they would lose some players which is stupid, because you wouldn't have those players without the contraction draft we had in the first place. I voted against the expansion because we had deadbeat GMs whom imo we had to get rid of before expanding, now that we have (Assuming the two new GMs are active.) fixed that issue. I would happily vote to expand back to 16 teams as long as it is done sensibly. AUTOCRACY FTW! |
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 21, 2015 7:17:33 GMT -5
I voted to maintain the status quo. I like the roster flexibility it provides. I'd rather have a GM pick up an NHL player as a replacement instead of calling up a kid who isn't NHL ready. We're getting close to cutting GMs ability to make any transactions other than trades. I guess my concern is having this league become stale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 7:22:47 GMT -5
I am a fan of IR+ as I am used to it from my other leagues. I also like the idea of adding FAs as it gives teams more flexibility. If the intent of this action is to force managers to manage better, then there must be some consideration given to how much time people can give to their team. Could someone tell me exactly how your version of IR+ works?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2015 7:43:34 GMT -5
As it currently works, any player that shows as IR or IR+ on Yahoo can be moved to an IR+ roster spot on your team. If player x misses a game for whatever minor ailment, you can place that player on IR+. Since we're limited to 20 roster moves; i.e. Free Agent picks up, most GMs will bring up a farm player to replace the one that is now on IR+.
If a player has a long term injury, we can currently add a Free Agent to our rosters to replace that player and this would be 1 of your 20 moves in a season. What the proposed change would do is limit a GM's options somewhat in that he is most likely going to use a member of his farm team vice a Free Agent pick up because to add a Free Agent would mean that you have to drop a player from the Pro or Farm team.
An NHL team is forced into similar action. They can place their injured player on IR, but then they call up a replacement player from their farm. If they choose to make a trade or a signing of another player, then some other player is likely sitting in the press box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2015 7:51:21 GMT -5
I'm in favour of changing how we manage our IR+ roster spots because it adds a dynamic to what a successful GM must do. You won't be able to just throw a player on IR+ and just pick up a replacement player, you would actually be forced to manage your team. You can still pick up a Free Agent player, but, and the important thing here is, you would have to then cut another player.
By changing how we do IR+, it keeps more free agent players available to all teams. It would also likely mean that a team would have to seriously consider whether they really want to retain a player who misses a lot of games through injuries or whether they are better off releasing an asset that another team is willing to take a chance on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 8:26:56 GMT -5
By changing how we do IR+, it keeps more free agent players available to all teams. It would also likely mean that a team would have to seriously consider whether they really want to retain a player who misses a lot of games through injuries or whether they are better off releasing an asset that another team is willing to take a chance on. This to me clinches it for me. Thanks Steve. |
|
|
|
Post by scoop12ca on Aug 21, 2015 10:52:15 GMT -5
leave it the same. there is not a lot of talent in the free agent pool anyway so i would think that a decent amount of the time a manager is going to promote from his farm because there is more talent there than in the pool. this could hurt a rebuilder if we change it because there could be a lot of long range players on his farm and not many players in the show to replace his pro players. now not only is the manager rebuilding he faces the fact he could be playing short handed because he doesn't have enough players on the farm playing on the big clubs to replace injuries. we were discussing avoiding tanking but i think this scenario could actually aid in someone gaining a better draft pick because of the man power shortage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Aug 21, 2015 16:15:36 GMT -5
Voted in favour of the change. I'm all for increasing the FA pool. If all 14 teams are riding a full infirmary, that amounts to 56 players taken from the FA pool; I'd like to see those extra 56 players in the pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Aug 21, 2015 21:10:07 GMT -5
Yes an NHL team cant pick up any player they want when they have an injury and therefore has to use their farm system. One thing to really think about is that same NHL team doesn't have a restriction to their farm system like we do.
The weekly limit of 10 transactions per week we have on our farm system seems like it will really restrict this rule change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 22, 2015 6:13:00 GMT -5
Yes an NHL team cant pick up any player they want when they have an injury and therefore has to use their farm system. One thing to really think about is that same NHL team doesn't have a restriction to their farm system like we do If I could add to Stu's point....One big difference between the NHL and our fantasy land is we don't decide when our prospects are ready to contribute. I can't use Daniel Sprong as an injury replacement unless Jim Rutherford decides he's NHL ready. Also, NHL GMs aren't forced to drop depth farm players when they've reached 100 games. I'll say this again...and I hope this point is heard by all...I'm very concerned about this league becoming stale. Limiting our ability to manage our rosters with a yearly max, weekly max and now injury replacement restrictions seems like a step in the wrong direction for a league that has been very active and extremely competitive. What's left for me to do with my roster? The way we're going I could set my lineup for the year today and check back in sometime in April to see how I did. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 22, 2015 19:34:50 GMT -5
Yes an NHL team cant pick up any player they want when they have an injury and therefore has to use their farm system. One thing to really think about is that same NHL team doesn't have a restriction to their farm system like we do. The weekly limit of 10 transactions per week we have on our farm system seems like it will really restrict this rule change. Even though an NHL team doesn't really have restrictions on whom they can call up, you don't usually see more than a handful of players called up in any one year and a lot of those players only get a cup of coffee, play a few games and then get sent down again. It isn't like it is the whole farm team that will get called up; rather it is a very select few. An NHL team can dress 23 players, they usually have a separate farm team that has to be managed to compete in the AHL and each NHL team is limited to 50 players under contract at any one time. I think your team in the GMHL compares more than favourably with this amount as you can have 27 Pro players on your team and 20 more Prospects, which can be chosen to fill any roster position you want as you are not managing a farm team in the minors. When I look at your team Stu, I would say that there is a very good chance that the following players will see NHL action this year: Bennett, Trocheck, Tennyson, Mrazek and Darling. Others like Shore, Hishon, Reider, Wideman and Grubauer will get a few call ups and other players may well too. I'm not saying it'll be easy and it won't take some work, but if we adapt the rule whereby a GM only can replace an IR+ player with a farm player that is just something I would expect all GMs in this league would be able to manage. Keep in mind that this is what they've gone to in the BITW, so you're going to see it in at least one league you're in this year. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 22, 2015 20:33:12 GMT -5
Yes an NHL team cant pick up any player they want when they have an injury and therefore has to use their farm system. One thing to really think about is that same NHL team doesn't have a restriction to their farm system like we do If I could add to Stu's point....One big difference between the NHL and our fantasy land is we don't decide when our prospects are ready to contribute. I can't use Daniel Sprong as an injury replacement unless Jim Rutherford decides he's NHL ready. Also, NHL GMs aren't forced to drop depth farm players when they've reached 100 games. I'll say this again...and I hope this point is heard by all...I'm very concerned about this league becoming stale. Limiting our ability to manage our rosters with a yearly max, weekly max and now injury replacement restrictions seems like a step in the wrong direction for a league that has been very active and extremely competitive. What's left for me to do with my roster? The way we're going I could set my lineup for the year today and check back in sometime in April to see how I did. What you say is indeed true with Sprong but with players like Pageau, Rask, Deslauriers, Larsson, McKenzie, Bennett, Ritchie, Tokarski, Hammond, Pickard (maybe) and Moses (likely as a KHL signing, but perhaps not) I don't think it really matters whether Sprong is available to you this year or not. Never mind the fact that it is very unlikely Sprong plays anyway. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Rychel having a shot at a few games in Columbus too. When I look at your overall team Mike, I think you're positioned very well in this league. You've got at least 10 players you can use from your farm so I don't think you're really limited at all if you have to replace IR+ players with farm players. I also don't think many NHL teams have 10 players they actually use from their farm on a regular basis, which is what you will be able to do. One other point here is that you're only filling 20 positions on your team so you actually have a lot of extra players to float in and out of your lineup. As for how we manage the IR+, this is the same rule we've played under in the NFHL since its inception under the old IFHL, which is what 5 or 6 years ago? In this league, you're limited to 30 Free Agent moves in a year of which you've used 18 moves in 2012-13, 24 moves in 2013-14 and 13 moves last year. Now one can argue as to whether the NFHL was stale or not, but I think that was more on a very inactive Commissioner rather than all the teams. The GMs that made the playoffs last year actively competed throughout the season in my opinion. I can say honestly say I've never felt my hands were tied in manner by having this same IR+ rule in place in the NFHL. If you fail to plan to have farm replacements available when a player goes on IR+, then you have to scramble for sure. You still have 20 moves you can make to add Free Agents without having to worry about using some of these moves up replacing your players on IR+. 20 moves should be more than adequate to tinker with your team. You may be somewhat limited in how you do this if we adapt the change to IR+, but you will still have a lot of options available to you, including unlimited trading up to the trade deadline to fill any perceived holes you may have in your lineup. I really think we'll be fine if we change the IR+ rule. If it turns out that this is indeed a mistake, nothing says we can't roll back this rule next year if that is what we collectively decide is best for the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 23, 2015 7:37:22 GMT -5
I think you've missed my point. My farm talent has nothing to do with what I said earlier. Sprong was only brought up as an example that we do not have any control over our prospects. We are not the NHL. We're not even NHL16 on Playstation. We're closer to Poker players and I'd like to get a few new cards once in awhile. Lol
Not that my transaction history matters but if you'd like to talk about that how many of those transactions where injury replacements? I bet it's 60-70%. That's a lot of time I enjoyed searching the free agent list for the right player to sign. Trust me, none of those signings changed the fate of my franchise. What those little transactions did was keep me(and many others) engaged. I'm very surprised most guys are voting to give up this ability to be more active. Do you guys want this league to become one where there is nothing to do but put in your pro/farm players everyday? As my 5 year old nephew would say "Boooorrrrrrrrring!"
My point is not about the talent in my lineup. Not about winning or losing. It's about having fun managing a team. Small rule changes make a big difference in the final product.
Ps
The NFHL wishes it was the GMHL. Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 23, 2015 11:52:11 GMT -5
Well, with what you've said here Mike, I guess I did misunderstand the point you were making.
I can only speak from my point of view which is I don't see this change having an impact whatsoever. I love the weekly matchups and trying to do the little things that may help me win each week.
This change would not affect my research at all. I would do just as much as I do now as I am always seeking that little edge that makes my team better.
I see this change, if implemented, freeing up additional assets for other GMs to possibly use and not as a negative at all.
This is what makes our league so good; we really do have a lot of GMs that are really engaged in this league who only want to keep this league strong and interesting for everyone to participate in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 17:21:47 GMT -5
I agree with what Dale said earlier. This kinda contradicts the other vote/discussion that is on-going regarding teams tanking. If a team has 4IR players or more and no active or few farm players this will give a perfect excuse for a team to sink further to get a better chance at a draft pick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 14:20:31 GMT -5
What about another option where a team cannot go over 48-49 players ever?
Like maybe a GM has to have 3-4 spots filled then, and only then, can he pick up 1-2 players.
For example, say the 1st 2-3 IR+ spots, you MUST replace that man with one of your farm players. But if you get such bad luck that you have 3-4 spots on IR+ filled with injured players the first 2-3 need to be replaced by farm players and the other 1-2 can be replaced by FA(s)...
Any thoughts on that...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 24, 2015 17:20:48 GMT -5
I never thought of that one Lou. I'm not sure I really want to go with that option either as I'd rather not have more things to track. My preference is to lock all teams in at 47 players total, but if the majority decides otherwise, then so be it. I like the challenge it presents a GM whereas other GMs are worried that we're narrowing the options a GM has too much. There have been good points made on both sides too.
It will take a majority vote to change how we currently handle the IR+; hopefully, everyone will weigh in on this poll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 21:37:34 GMT -5
I voted to keep the way it is, cuz injuries forced me to bottom of standings at end of year and out of the playoffs. I may not have even made the playoffs if we weren't able to use FAs. Plus my playoff matchup would've been decided after the 1st 2-3 days if it weren't for FA pickups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Aug 27, 2015 17:33:08 GMT -5
With the vote at 7-6 in favour of maintaining the status quo regarding IR+ usage, this effectively defeats the proposal. Thanks to everyone for taking their time to express their opinions.
|
|
