|
Post by dyzfunctioned on Apr 2, 2011 15:34:19 GMT -5
Just signed, gotta grab the Hobey Baker Hopeful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 11:43:08 GMT -5
Just signed, gotta grab the Hobey Baker Hopeful. I'm starting to think that a waiver period would be a good idea for newly signed players
|
|
|
Post by tavessoul on Apr 5, 2011 12:26:35 GMT -5
Ya, that was an over-sight by the rules committee. A waiver system for these signed players should be established. Scratch that.. I think we did in the original rules protect from this by saying they weren't available until the next draft with this: Please Note only prospects originally picked up via our yearly minor league Draft or are available (on FA list) may be picked up during the course of a season. Otherwise such prospects will be available in the following year's prospect draft.
This is particularily important to take note of as Fantrax sometimes has undrafted future prospects on their FA list.
Nondrafted or unsigned FA prospects are ineligible to be picked up at anytime.
|
|
|
Post by dyzfunctioned on Apr 5, 2011 12:54:43 GMT -5
That doesn't really cover it. That just says unsigned FA prospect. Miele, da Costa, etc. Are signed.
|
|
|
Post by tavessoul on Apr 6, 2011 10:02:11 GMT -5
Basically, with the originally rules, any prospects, drafted or undrafted in the NHL at the time of the our prospect draft, if not picked in the last prospect draft, was meant to be ineligible to be signed until they are drafted in the next draft, or no longer qualify as a prospect. It does cover it. But, this probably has been broken by others, and no one noticed.
|
|
|
Post by dyzfunctioned on Apr 6, 2011 10:12:58 GMT -5
Yea... I think the first claim of a prior unsigned player happened like 2-3 months ago..?
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM on Apr 6, 2011 10:52:41 GMT -5
That original is confusing- there are different interpretations of the phrase "or are available (on FA list)." If the original rule meant that you couldn't pick up NHL drafted or undrafted prospects not picked in our amateur draft, then that rule was broken on day 1 of Free Agency and nothing was ever said.......
I mean to say that if that is the rule then it was not enforced from Day One, many teams broke the rule including COL-Adam Almqvist, Mathieu Corbeil-Theriault, etc I signed a bunch of guys in similar situation(Zubarev, Muzzin, etc.) many other teams...
I don't see an issue with the college signings, as long as we don't have unlimited prospect slots, then to pick up a prospect you have to drop one....if you want a guy then you gotta scoop him up...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 14:22:54 GMT -5
Are the number of prospect slots staying the same next year or increasing?
There should be a point after which newly signed FA's are considered unavailable until our draft. I propose the NHL trade deadline, this would serve to strengthen our draft and I consider that a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 14:30:28 GMT -5
I don't see an issue with the college signings, as long as we don't have unlimited prospect slots, then to pick up a prospect you have to drop one....if you want a guy then you gotta scoop him up... I've witnessed the outcome of this philosophy in another 30 team league that I'm part of (running for over 10 years) and the result was the implementation of the waiver rule. It's a small tool to help level the playing field and the larger the competitive field the more interesting the league.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Apr 6, 2011 17:08:20 GMT -5
I don't see an issue with the college signings, as long as we don't have unlimited prospect slots, then to pick up a prospect you have to drop one....if you want a guy then you gotta scoop him up... I've witnessed the outcome of this philosophy in another 30 team league that I'm part of (running for over 10 years) and the result was the implementation of the waiver rule. It's a small tool to help level the playing field and the larger the competitive field the more interesting the league. I agree that a waiver rule is the most equitable rule in this scenario. In fact, we had this debate just a couple of weeks ago after someone (Praba, I think) signed Akeson. I originally read the rules the way Taves did. That said, the drafting leaves a lot to be desired and, as it is now, I'm inclined to agree with Swartz (that signing these prospects is permitted). I'm pretty sure that Dyz was also in on that debate and said that he'd put it up for discussion during the Rules Committee's off-season musings.
|
|
|
Post by dyzfunctioned on Apr 6, 2011 18:53:08 GMT -5
It's definitely something we need to address in the off-season, and probably something that should have been addressed earlier in the season. But there's been way too many signings at this point to change anything until the off-season.
|
|
|
Post by swartzkov on Apr 7, 2011 14:35:52 GMT -5
I agree - this is going to have to be an off-season discussion point.
|
|
|
Post by tavessoul on Apr 12, 2011 12:48:30 GMT -5
Ya, the rule was originally meant to prevent this, and Akeson, and Da Costa, etc.. from being signed. Yet, clearly, things kind of got missed, so a few signings would have to be undone. Next year, there definitely needs to be an actual enforcement of the rule, since this is a cheap way to do it, or an adjustment of the waiver system. I didn't mean to point out Dyz, but merely that signings like this are by rule invalid, and shouldn't have ever been allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Apr 12, 2011 22:11:27 GMT -5
Ya, the rule was originally meant to prevent this, and Akeson, and Da Costa, etc.. from being signed. Yet, clearly, things kind of got missed, so a few signings would have to be undone. Next year, there definitely needs to be an actual enforcement of the rule, since this is a cheap way to do it, or an adjustment of the waiver system. I didn't mean to point out Dyz, but merely that signings like this are by rule invalid, and shouldn't have ever been allowed. Taves, I don't think that the rule is that clear-cut. Also, as to the original intent, I dug through old emails and discovered that we had originally intended to use a waiver system and it just never made its way into the rules. Here is a link to the discussion that we had when the first signing of this kind took place: sparrowtrini.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=signings&action=display&thread=710
|
|