Proposed Rule Changes and Adjustments for 2014-15 Season

[Steve]

As everyone knows, we are going to 2 rostered goalie positions in the upcoming 2014-15 season. With the addition of 1 more goalie position, the minimum goalie starts per week will increase from 2 to 3.

My initial thoughts were to just drop 1 bench player and go with 26 on the Pro roster and 20 on the Farm. Having thought about this for a bit, I believe we are better served by increasing the roster size to 27 as this should allow teams more flexibility with managing all their assets. The farm will still increase by 2, which will make a maximum of 20 farm players on each team. I'm not looking at expanding the rosters any further than this in future years as 20 players seems to be a large enough farm for most everyone.

Last year, I added in 4 IR+ positions, mostly because I messed things up. Regrettably, Yahoo wouldn't allow me to reverse the addition of all these extra IR+ spots. I really believe that having 4 IR + 4 IR+ slots is too many. When Yahoo brought in the IR+ position, they implied that this would not count against the maximum of 30 players on a team. They also stated that there could be a maximum of 5 IR+ positions used in any league.

I'm sure most of you would agree that having IR+ is much more flexible than IR as day-to-day injured players can now be put in to these IR+ slots. I would propose that we go with 5 IR+ positions next year and no IR whatsoever. If Yahoo still limits the maximum team size to 30 positions, this number may have to drop to 3 IR+, but this would still be better than having to use 3 IR. If you find that you are always at more than 5 injured players, than perhaps it is time you consider dropping some of your "band-aid" boys.

So, unless anyone is dead set against this, I propose that:

- rosters be increased to 27;
- the farm size be capped at 20; and
- we use 5 IR+ slots maximum per season.

The other major point I feel that needs addressing is the usage of add/drops during the playoffs. A lot of playoff contenders used the remaining adds/drops from their total of 30 to bring players in/out of the lineup in order to increase their odds of winning their playoff match. Although well within the rules to do so, I believe that we need to add an additional rule for the playoffs that limits the use of your remaining roster moves in this manner. After all, you got to the playoffs with this team, so you shouldn't have to stream players in an attempt to win your playoff match up.

I propose that during the playoff match ups:

- farm eligible players already on your farm team can still move freely between the farm and pro teams as always intended;
- FA can only be picked up to replace a player that has gone on IR+ during the playoffs; once you replace the injured player, you cannot swap out your FA acquisition unless he too becomes injured or your injured player is activated from IR+; and,
- GMs can only add a new farm eligible player to their farm that is not currently playing in the NHL.

A team that has been eliminated from the playoffs would not be limited in the moves they may wish to implement, provided they are still at less than 30 FA moves in the year.

Opinions welcomed.

[Deleted]

Seconded.

[Deleted]

Thirded.... If that's even a word hahaha

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2014 9:17:51 GMT -5 @steelcity14 said:

Thirded.... If that's even a word hahaha

In this case it sure is.

[Moose]

Fourthed.

Thumbs up to anything that stops streaming!

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2014 11:10:03 GMT -5 Moose said:

Fourthed.

Thumbs up to anything that stops streaming!

Agreed, especially in the playoffs. You have 22 weeks to build a playoff team. That should be enough time for any potential contender....with the exception of maybe Lee lol

[Deleted]

I don't agree. If you are aloud to make 30 moves through the course of the year and you choose not to waste or make many during the season in and effort to win playoff matches that is being smart.

[Deleted]

I think all rosters should be frozen at the trade deadline, so nobody can sign any FA between the Trade Deadline and end of Playoffs.

[Ryan]

I agree with Andrew. I know that I purposely made an effort to try and reserve some roster moves for the playoffs. It's not like this presents an unfair advantage to any GM since everyone starts at 0 at the beginning of the season and it's how you manage your team throughout the year that gets you into the playoffs. If anything, I feel that any team that gets into the playoffs with an abundance of roster moves available remaining, they've done a good job.

[Moose]

What about 5 weekly transactions(call ups and FA) instead of 30 yearly transactions?

Either way I hope we decide soon because if the rule stays the same I'm getting in the game and streaming the Moose to the 2015 championship.

I don't think quantity should beat quality but that seems to be the way...unfortunately.

[Stu]

I made around 5 moves all year before the playoffs started. Had no reason to change my team around. Almost everybody else that went into the playoffs were at 20 moves or over, some guys damn near close to 30. Why should I get penalized for saving my moves for the playoffs??? when the playoffs were finished I still had less transactions then every other team in the playoffs. Just cause I don't pick up farm players or flip flop my team every other week throughout the season like other gm's doesn't mean I shouldn't when the time is right. Its called strategy and it works. That shouldn't be taken away. This rule shouldn't be changed.

[Steve]

Apr 21, 2014 12:35:13 GMT -5 @basalt13 said:

I think all rosters should be frozen at the trade deadline, so nobody can sign any FA between the Trade Deadline and end of Playoffs.

Although this is one possibility Anthony, it seems a little harsh that a team cannot replace an injured player that goes down for the final weeks of the season. Additionally, the NHL allows for FA signings and we do see coveted NCAA players signed to contracts and picked up by NHL teams every year. Sometimes players do come over from the KHL or SHL at the end of their respective seasons/playoffs; Kuznetsov this year and Soderberg last year are prime examples.

If anything, you should be able to replace your injured players and not be unnecessarily penalized. I've actually played in a league like this once. One of the best teams lost the final because of this very rule as his number 1 goalie went down.

[Steve]

Apr 21, 2014 11:52:52 GMT -5 @andrew said:

I don't agree. If you are aloud to make 30 moves through the course of the year and you choose not to waste or make many during the season in and effort to win playoff matches that is being smart.

Andrew and Stu: The whole point of limiting the amount of moves in a season was to limit the amount of streaming. Many GMs don't like streaming of any sort, whereas other GMs want to stream fully all the time. A match up really shouldn't be decided by a GM who picks up 2-3 players on the last day (this is especially true in the playoffs imo) in an attempt to flip a result.

Example: It is the last day of the championship and you trail 9-6. You had 5 moves left going into the final playoff round and your opponent had none. It has been a close battle and the 3 moves you used so far this week sees you eek out a narrow lead in assists and points. Neither of you have any D available, but you make your last two moves in an attempt to take over BS and Hits, both of which you trail by 1. Lo and behold you receive 2 Hits and 2 BS and none of the players on either team score a point.

Based upon your final moves and the gains you made in Hits and BS, you win the championship. Although this is well within the rules, imo, you really shouldn't be able to do this because all you've really done is circumvent the spirit of the rule that was put in place to stop the streaming of players to decide an outcome.

It is a loophole gentlemen and nothing more. This league was set up primarily as a fun league, with a bit of added incentive being having a cash prize available to the champion. It shouldn't be about winning at all costs. You've gamed the system by streaming players in the final match up, which was the only way you could beat the superior team. You cannot do anything like this in the NHL, so I really think we should limit the ability to do streaming like this in the playoffs.

As you may well remember, I've already closed a loophole earlier this year when I made sure that adds to the farm counted against your total roster moves as some GMs were wanting to just add to the farm and then call a player up. By the rules at hand originally, you could do this very thing, which was essentially circumventing a rule that was in place.

You may call it implementing a strategy, but what you're really doing here is exploiting a loophole.

My proposal is to limit streaming, so that a team wins or loses in the playoffs based upon the merit of his team vs your team and not how you can cycle players through your lineup to possibly decide the outcome in a very few, tight categories.

What I'm proposing is a middle ground between the two extremes of absolutely no streaming and full streaming. Replacing injured players only at least allows a GM the possibility of still being able to compete.

As a Commish, I want to close any possible loopholes and level the playing field for all competitors. If I'm playing you in the finals, I want to beat you because I have the better team and not because I have the ability to stream more players than you. Call me naive if you want, but I think this is definitely the best way to go for our league.

[Stu]

I totally disagree with you. Not trying to be a dick but I don't see how its a loop hole. Don't be stupid and waste all your moves before the playoffs start. Save some for the playoffs simple as that. Every GM has the same amount of transactions, choose them wisely.

One example to think about.

Its the last week of the season and the 8th and 9th place teams are playing each other for the final playoff spot. 8th has used all of there 30 transactions and 9th has only used a few throughout the season. 9th adds 5 players on the final day and gets into the playoffs. You gonna stop that too? Sure its not a playoff matchup but its practically the same thing isn't it. Is that a loop hole??

Another thing to remember is that you can be guaranteed that you will miss out on games from some of your top players in our GMHL playoffs because of how its situated with the NHL's schedule. Nothing new but the top NHL teams are putting there best players as a healthy scratch in the final few games of the season to give them rest for there playoff run. There not hurt and cant get put on your IR. Why cant I pick up a player to fill in for them? Is that streaming??? Now the other GM is winning the championship because they beat a team that didn't have a few of there top players in on the last day. Do you feel good about winning that way?

Once again not trying to be a dick but more like a devil's advocate.

[Ryan]

I have to chime in again and wholeheartedly agree with Stuey.

I have to disagree that this issue is entirely a loophole and I do really see the ability to sign FAs as a strategy.

Using myself as an example, and I acknowledge that there are a few other GMs who were in the same boat as I, but my IR and IR+ were at capacity ALL season long with 8 players (4 IR and 4 IR+). Due to the nature of the injuries I faced, most were long term and season ending or damn close to it (Dupuis, Backstrom, Harding, Tanguay, Letang, Bolland, Grabovski, Franzen). I could have easily, on a DAILY basis, added and dropped players at will until I reached the 30 limit just to get me through the season and hope to see the light of playoffs at season's end. However, with the additional 4 IR+ slots, the FA wire was garbage all season long and this ended up being counter-intuitive to the whole purpose of reducing the league from 16 to 14 GMs to strengthen the FA wire (I know this was a mistake and is besides the point but it supports my argument).

Rather than adding and dropping players daily just to get through the season, I realized that I would get blasted in the playoffs if I was stuck with the Saku Koivu's and Shawn Thornton's of the league. Sometimes a player would go on a hot streak or get back into form and I would use a transaction in that case (e.g., Palat, Timmonen, Niskanen, Cogliano) but these were few and far between. I decided it would be more beneficial to reserve some transactions for the playoffs.

I fully admit that if my roster was locked with no transactions allowed heading into the playoffs, I would NOT have beaten Forsworn in round 1. There was obviously no way for me to know ahead of time whether the available FA pool in the playoffs would even be strong enough to help me through, but it did and so was still a risk and not a guaranteed advantage.

I believe that since we all start at 0 transactions at the start of the season and it's off to the races from there, it's how you methodically choose to manage your team, especially in the face of injury when down 8 key players throughout the year, that allows you to be competitive throughout the year AND in the playoffs. Intuitively, you would expect that I would burn through my 30 transactions much faster than say, the Oshawa Rush, who did not face the breadth of injuries that many teams did. However, I strategically planned full well knowing that the team I carried throughout the year would not be strong enough to carry me through the playoffs due to injuries, let alone allow me to get in!

I do have to say, I'm very surprised at the level of backlash against streaming in a league that has a farm system...which is essentially providing the same advantage of additional available players to a roster on any given night. I've suggested this last year when the same issue arose: I believe we can either allow full streaming as we currently do, or none at all. As much as I appreciate your efforts, Steve and Glenn, to find a middle ground to satisfy all, I don't think it can be had. With comments coming out regarding support for any decision that restricts streaming; I think the decision is simple - keep it the way it is, or get rid of farm system all together and cap the YEARLY transactions for FA signings as we see fit.

[Moose]

Streaming is always a hot topic because it's a way for inferior teams to win. The reality is if we allowed unlimited streaming, my wife could win this league.

Your point regarding farm team use is valid. What we need to do is avoid abusing the farm system. I believe the farm system in a keeper is in place to build for the future not rack up shots/hits/blocks. If you're going for realism...When Sidney Crosby has a day off the Pittsburgh Penguins don't call up Brian Gibbons to rack up stats.

I'm guilty of streaming in this years playoffs and I hated doing it. There's no honor in picking up a meathead for a couple PIMs to weasel my way to victory.

I personally feel 5 transactions per week is the answer. It prevents daily streaming and for those of you that like making moves it's a lot more than the 30 yearly we currently have.

[Deleted]

I am 100% against any limit on transactions. Streaming imo isn't the issue, its when the rosters should be frozen is the issue. I maintain a full roster freeze at the trade deadline is the best option. It may even entice some of the teams who don't make moves to do so.

The other reason why I think a full freeze at deadline is needed is so team who are clearly out of the playoffs don't dump there "ok" but old players to FA and pick up extra farm eligible players.

IMO its either leave things as they are which has worked for the most part in the past few years, or do a total roster freeze.

[Steve]

Apr 22, 2014 17:38:41 GMT -5 Stu said:

I totally disagree with you. Not trying to be a dick but I don't see how its a loop hole. Don't be stupid and waste all your moves before the playoffs start. Save some for the playoffs simple as that. Every GM has the same amount of transactions, choose them wisely.

One example to think about.

Its the last week of the season and the 8th and 9th place teams are playing each other for the final playoff spot. 8th has used all of there 30 transactions and 9th has only used a few throughout the season. 9th adds 5 players on the final day and gets into the playoffs. You gonna stop that too? Sure its not a playoff matchup but its practically the same thing isn't it. Is that a loop hole??

Another thing to remember is that you can be guaranteed that you will miss out on games from some of your top players in our GMHL playoffs because of how its situated with the NHL's schedule. Nothing new but the top NHL teams are putting there best players as a healthy scratch in the final few games of the season to give them rest for there playoff run. There not hurt and cant get put on your IR. Why cant I pick up a player to fill in for them? Is that streaming??? Now the other GM is winning the championship because they beat a team that didn't have a few of there top players in on the last day. Do you feel good about winning that way?

Once again not trying to be a dick but more like a devil's advocate.

Stu, I don't mind anyone questioning what I have proposed or presenting their point of view. If anything, perhaps you'll open my eyes a bit and I'll reconsider my position or perhaps my arguments may persuade you.

Even though you do present some valid points, star players are held out on a lot of teams so it is really hard to judge if one fantasy team really got the shaft because their star players sat out and your opponents played. It may end up being a disadvantage, but it could be you or your opposition who had his players sit. That is totally beyond our control.

The team that used his last 5 moves in the last game to come from behind and squeak into the playoffs is streaming. Sure he's playing within the established rules, but the rules were not put in place to game the system to win at all costs. So yes, that is exactly what I would propose to eliminate, although it is far more difficult to do in the regular season.

My point is that you should be able to win based upon the merits of building a superior team rather than taking advantage of a situation to defeat the other team.

We could argue back and forth forever on this point, but bottom line, I am going to cut down on the ability of teams to stream their roster moves to possibly influence whether they win a match up or not, especially in the playoffs. What I am proposing certainly doesn't put any team at a disadvantage compared to any other team, it merely ensures that the team you built is what you stand behind and not a strategy based upon cycling players during these playoffs.

[Steve]

Apr 22, 2014 21:20:12 GMT -5 Moose said:

Streaming is always a hot topic because it's a way for inferior teams to win. The reality is if we allowed unlimited streaming, my wife could win this league.

Your point regarding farm team use is valid. What we need to do is avoid abusing the farm system. I believe the farm system in a keeper is in place to build for the future not rack up shots/hits/blocks. If you're going for realism...When Sidney Crosby has a day off the Pittsburgh Penguins don't call up Brian Gibbons to rack up stats.

I'm guilty of streaming in this years playoffs and I hated doing it. There's no honor in picking up a meathead for a couple PIMs to weasel my way to victory.

I personally feel 5 transactions per week is the answer. It prevents daily streaming and for those of you that like making moves it's a lot more than the 30 yearly we currently have.

A maximum of 5 moves a week is one option, but then you will not be able to use your farm team the way we have used them in this league. Yahoo will allow a maximum of 5 moves period, and then nothing more until the next match up. I'm certainly not going into every single roster and making 4 or 5 moves daily so that you can use your farm team to its maximum.

Having 5 moves also allows a GM to use all of his moves on a Sunday whereby he is trying to catch up in a close category... again, this is what I am trying to put a stop to because a GM is cycling players here trying to win a match. The match should be decided by your team and not your ability to cycle.

[Steve]

Apr 22, 2014 22:14:05 GMT -5 @basalt13 said:

I am 100% against any limit on transactions. Streaming imo isn't the issue, its when the rosters should be frozen is the issue. I maintain a full roster freeze at the trade deadline is the best option. It may even entice some of the teams who don't make moves to do so.

The other reason why I think a full freeze at deadline is needed is so team who are clearly out of the playoffs don't dump there "ok" but old players to FA and pick up extra farm eligible players.

IMO its either leave things as they are which has worked for the most part in the past few years, or do a total roster freeze.

Anthony, a full roster freeze does present another option; however, for the 16 weeks or so up to that point, a GM is allowed to use his farm team and replace injured players. Now he can't because a full roster freeze won't allow it. I think this option is just a little too rigid.

My goal is to level the playing field in a playoff match so that your team is competing against the other team based upon the assets that you owned going into this match up and not a strategy that stretches the intent of our rules. To me, this is what it is all about. Build the best team you can and then compete. If your team lives up to expectations, then you just might win it all.

[Steve]

Apr 22, 2014 18:53:17 GMT -5 Ryan said:

I have to chime in again and wholeheartedly agree with Stuey.

I have to disagree that this issue is entirely a loophole and I do really see the ability to sign FAs as a strategy.

Using myself as an example, and I acknowledge that there are a few other GMs who were in the same boat as I, but my IR and IR+ were at capacity ALL season long with 8 players (4 IR and 4 IR+). Due to the nature of the injuries I faced, most were long term and season ending or damn close to it (Dupuis, Backstrom, Harding, Tanguay, Letang, Bolland, Grabovski, Franzen). I could have easily, on a DAILY basis, added and dropped players at will until I reached the 30 limit just to get me through the season and hope to see the light of playoffs at season's end. However, with the additional 4 IR+ slots, the FA wire was garbage all season long and this ended up being counter-intuitive to the whole purpose of reducing the league from 16 to 14 GMs to strengthen the FA wire (I know this was a mistake and is besides the point but it supports my argument).

Rather than adding and dropping players daily just to get through the season, I realized that I would get blasted in the playoffs if I was stuck with the Saku Koivu's and Shawn Thornton's of the league. Sometimes a player would go on a hot streak or get back into form and I would use a transaction in that case (e.g., Palat, Timmonen, Niskanen, Cogliano) but these were few and far between. I decided it would be more beneficial to reserve some transactions for the playoffs.

I fully admit that if my roster was locked with no transactions allowed heading into the playoffs, I would NOT have beaten Forsworn in round 1. There was obviously no way for me to know ahead of time whether the available FA pool in the playoffs would even be strong enough to help me through, but it did and so was still a risk and not a guaranteed advantage.

I believe that since we all start at 0 transactions at the start of the season and it's off to the races from there, it's how you methodically choose to manage your team, especially in the face of injury when down 8 key players throughout the year, that allows you to be competitive throughout the year AND in the playoffs. Intuitively, you would expect that I would burn through my 30 transactions much faster than say, the Oshawa Rush, who did not face the breadth of injuries that many teams did. However, I strategically planned full well knowing that the team I carried throughout the year would not be strong enough to carry me through the playoffs due to injuries, let alone allow me to get in!

I do have to say, I'm very surprised at the level of backlash against streaming in a league that has a farm system...which is essentially providing the same advantage of additional available players to a roster on any given night. I've suggested this last year when the same issue arose: I believe we can either allow full streaming as we currently do, or none at all. As much as I appreciate your efforts, Steve and Glenn, to find a middle ground to satisfy all, I don't think it can be had. With comments coming out regarding support for any decision that restricts streaming; I think the decision is simple - keep it the way it is, or get rid of farm system all together and cap the YEARLY transactions for FA signings as we see fit.

Ryan, you do present some valid points here. We can argue until the cows come home wrt is this a strategy or a loop hole to get around the intents of a rule. Your argument is predicated around doing everything within the rules to win at all costs. My point is predicated on a team winning based upon the team he built, rather than invoking a strategy that involves the cycling of players if need be, to give you the best chance of winning.

When we set up this league, one of the goals was to be able to use your farm team to augment your pro team. If we hosted our league on Fantrax (or CBS or ESPN I believe), your farm team players are part of your roster and you can move them freely in and out of your lineup, as long as you replace them with another farm eligible player. Since Fantrax recognizes these players as part of your team, moving players up and down from your farm will not count against total transactions and all teams can utilize whatever players they have on their farm any way they want.

What we're doing here in our GMHL league is the exact same thing, except I have to manually intervene to make it happen. I think it works and it encourages teams to build their farm teams because ultimately, it benefits their overall team.

Many leagues hosted on Yahoo that limit transactions would never reset the amount of transactions to allow the recall of farm players. Once you've burnt through your 30 transactions, you're done. The way many of us have used the farm teams, it sure wouldn't take too long to use up 30 transactions, so obviously, farm players certainly wouldn't be called up in the manner we do now. I don't particularly like that, so I do the manual intervention for everybody.

My proposal also doesn't see a team stuck with being unable to replace an injured player. If your player is hurt in the playoffs, you will still be able to replace him. Now if a star goes down, it is nigh on impossible to replace his production, but you may be able to leave a very good farm player in your lineup for all games or at least pick somebody else up to help you somewhat.

There was mention somewhere that if we allowed a team to cycle players during the regular season at the end of a match up to win a week, then it really isn't any different or shouldn't be any different in the playoffs. That is a really good point. Perhaps we should consider that the only FA you can pick up on a Saturday or Sunday would be limited to replacing an injured player only. Or perhaps if you pick up a player, he has to stay on your roster for a week. There are lots of possibilities here, but I really don't want to place too many restrictions on what a GM can and cannot do.

Some leagues do run with a lot of restrictions, some which are enforced too heavy handed if you ask me; however, to limit streaming, we could always say no FA pickups on Saturday or Sunday unless it is to replace an injured player.

Another possible option is to give everyone a maximum of 5 FA pickups in the playoffs. That way, everyone has the same advantage in the playoffs as every other team that made the playoffs.

All I can say is that I think something has to be done to minimize the strategy of streaming, especially during the playoffs. I'm not limiting any team over any other team or placing any undo restrictions on any team. If anything, the playing field has been leveled and your competing with the team you built. I really cannot see how this is a bad thing. Why wouldn't you want to compete under the same circumstances as your opposition instead of relying on your cycling strategy to influence your final placing?

I do understand that some GMs are going to disagree with me no matter what is proposed; however, something is going to have to give here. I truly believe that we'll be a better league because of these proposed changes.

[Deleted]

If you mean 5 total pickups in the playoffs for the 3 week period, then I agree with that also. But if you man 5 per week, then I think that number should cut back to 2-3 a week in playoffs. The whole point of fantasy hockey is to have the best teams compete in playoffs and win a championship. Not to have a mediocre team with 20 moves left heading to playoffs win because of a technicality in streaming. Like you said Steve, whatever we deicide, there's going to be 1-2 GMs who disagree no matter what. I personally like the proposed change. Guys well still have a chance if their player is injured and needs replaced.

That being said I am +1 for the changes.

[Deleted]

I agree with Andrew and Anthony

[Stu]

Apr 24, 2014 7:11:34 GMT -5 @steelcity14 said:

If you mean 5 total pickups in the playoffs for the 3 week period, then I agree with that also. But if you man 5 per week, then I think that number should cut back to 2-3 a week in playoffs. The whole point of fantasy hockey is to have the best teams compete in playoffs and win a championship. Not to have a mediocre team with 20 moves left heading to playoffs win because of a technicality in streaming. Like you said Steve, whatever we deicide, there's going to be 1-2 GMs who disagree no matter what. I personally like the proposed change. Guys well still have a chance if their player is injured and needs replaced.

That being said I am +1 for the changes.

Lou, there's more then 1 or 2 GM's that disagree with this.

A mediocre team with 20 moves left heading into the playoffs that beats the top seeded team sounds like a good GM to me. Sounds to me like they might have sacrificed some weekly points and maybe even playoff positioning in the regular season by not picking up players and saving there moves for there teams playoff run.

[Deleted]

I know. I was just throwing ideas out, even kinda dumb ones lol. I am actually for the new proposed rules at the top of this thread.