|
Post by uofmehockey on Apr 3, 2012 8:53:03 GMT -5
Although I like the idea of a blind waiver system, I'm not sure of a way to make it work without it being more work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2012 9:16:58 GMT -5
I love a blind waiver system, and I volunteer to run it. Create a new username, FAWaiver, and have people submit their claim via a pm with a link to the signing. 7 days after the official team press release is made (or it's very obviously official), the waiver period is over and someone wins him.
Personally, I don't think it should be a last place gets first dibs waiver system. We can start it that way, but once you claim a new signee, you go to the back of the new signee line.
And I don't mind running it. I think it's very fair and some of those other options would kind of suck.
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM on Apr 3, 2012 12:47:36 GMT -5
so does this mean we might be eliminating the previous rule which allowed us to draft any player who was either drafted by an NHL team or under contract to an NHL team as long as they had played less than 39 NHL games. Are we know voting on whether to eliminate the that rule??? Initially I thought these poll options were in addition to keeping the above rule, seeking clarification......
the option of keeping it is as is would include allowing signed college fa to be eligible in our DTDL draft(as long as they hadn't played 40+ gms), no?
I voted for keeping as it is. If we go to a blind waiver system(which I'd prefer over open waivers) How would it work to ensure that the person(s) running it did not read the claims ahead of time and could possibly put in their own claim on the same player? Is there an option to decrease the waiver time down to 3 or 4 days?
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Apr 3, 2012 16:03:07 GMT -5
so does this mean we might be eliminating the previous rule which allowed us to draft any player who was either drafted by an NHL team or under contract to an NHL team as long as they had played less than 39 NHL games. Are we know voting on whether to eliminate the that rule??? Initially I thought these poll options were in addition to keeping the above rule, seeking clarification...... the option of keeping it is as is would include allowing signed college fa to be eligible in our DTDL draft(as long as they hadn't played 40+ gms), no? Comish Comment
This has been something we needed to look at anyway. Please refer to Section K, sub section 4 inserted below from the draft rules thread that was last updated in November.
|
|
|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Apr 3, 2012 16:48:17 GMT -5
I'll help Chris TBL, if he needs any to, administer a blind waiver system...
I also like St. Louis's idea of fixed schedules. For example, any team can place a claim on any FA player until Saturday 6:00pm, and the lowest place team who placed a claim on a player wins the claim and can put the acquired player in his lineup Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM on Apr 3, 2012 19:24:39 GMT -5
I hadn't realized that we were considering reforming our draft rules. I thought the issue in question was merely the potential waiver system for College/FA signings. Was there a large outcry to reform our draft rules(they seemed pretty clear cut)? I would like more explanation as to what each choice would mean for the league's waiver system and draft before voting- tho I think they are issues that should be voted on separately. thanks
for example does choosing "include in August Free Agent Madness" mean that players signed as a free agent in the real NHL would not be eligible to be drafted in our summer draft?
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Apr 3, 2012 20:16:24 GMT -5
I hadn't realized that we were considering reforming our draft rules. I thought the issue in question was merely the potential waiver system for College/FA signings. Was there a large outcry to reform our draft rules(they seemed pretty clear cut)? I would like more explanation as to what each choice would mean for the league's waiver system and draft before voting- tho I think they are issues that should be voted on separately. thanks for example does choosing "include in August Free Agent Madness" mean that players signed as a free agent in the real NHL would not be eligible to be drafted in our summer draft? Adjustments to the draft rules was discussed after our extremely painful entry draft last summer. But the final form of those changes have yet to be determined as you can see from the draft section of the league rules. (truthfully I've sorta forgot about it since November). The issues do need to be dealt seperately, but the current poll centers around whether the CHL/college FA should be available 1. when they sign 2. in August when Free Agency opens or 3. at our entry draft That's it in a nutshell. Let's not confuse CHL/college FA with other signees that occur during the season because those players (Wellwood, Mietten for example) have previously signed contracts or been drafted and thus can be signed anytime.
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM on Apr 5, 2012 14:12:52 GMT -5
i hear what you are saying, but the 3 options expressed above aren't reflected in our poll choices in quite so simple a way. The poll seems designed to decide when these FA's should first be allowed to sign- at the draft, at fa, or right when they sign NHL contract..... However, the poll splits the vote of those who want to sign FAs at the moment they sign in the NHL- the two options "keep it as is" and "waiver system" are the same thing they just differ in the system to go about it-fcfs or waivers. This splits the vote of those who might agree on the timing issue, which is what the poll appears designed to decide. If a majority were to decide the "when" issue as when the player signs, then there should be a following poll as to the system used(fcfs,waiver,blind waiver). This poll could end up incorrectly reflecting the desires of our GMs. I ask that we either re-vote with 3 choices or combine the votes of "keep as is" and "wavier system" for the purposes of this poll.
|
|
|
Post by PHI GM on Apr 6, 2012 8:51:21 GMT -5
Agree with Jets. I didn't know why we were voting on something that had not been discussed as far as when and how each option would work. Same thing for the lineups. Shouldn't there have been a conversation to determine the possible options and then a vote? I know I was not active for about two months earlier and it may have been discussed then. If so, I apologize.
As long as the FA's are not signed using the current system we have for NHL waivers where the worst team can sign them all, I have no problem with any of the options. If you claim one, you go to the back of the line.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Apr 6, 2012 18:18:21 GMT -5
Agree with Jets. I didn't know why we were voting on something that had not been discussed as far as when and how each option would work. Same thing for the lineups. Shouldn't there have been a conversation to determine the possible options and then a vote? I know I was not active for about two months earlier and it may have been discussed then. If so, I apologize. As long as the FA's are not signed using the current system we have for NHL waivers where the worst team can sign them all, I have no problem with any of the options. If you claim one, you go to the back of the line. that is kinda how waivers work, and why shouldn't the worst team have the first option? the roster size in this league is small enough that this shouldn't really be a big deal, it isn't as if any of these free agents are sure-fire NHL players.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jan 31, 2013 23:06:39 GMT -5
Vancouver FA discussion was never resolved last year probably due to apathy. We could only get 21 votes.
I'm willing to set up another poll with a closure date of February 28th. But unless it is over-ridden a first come basis will prevail.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Feb 1, 2013 0:03:00 GMT -5
it seems the most popular choice was to add them to the Entry Draft.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Feb 1, 2013 8:26:50 GMT -5
Shouldn't there have been a conversation to determine the possible options and then a vote? I know I was not active for about two months earlier and it may have been discussed then. If so, I apologize. No need to apologize but there was a very lengthy debate about this issue towards the end of last season. There were enough quality points made that I was actually convinced to change my tune. I now favour using a waiver system to help the weaker teams. I would have it always help the weak, though, with no moving to the back of line (but that's another issue).
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Feb 1, 2013 8:29:49 GMT -5
the option of keeping it is as is would include allowing signed college fa to be eligible in our DTDL draft(as long as they hadn't played 40+ gms), no? Comish Comment
This has been something we needed to look at anyway. Please refer to Section K, sub section 4 inserted below from the draft rules thread that was last updated in November. Agreed. Provided that a newly-signed college player has not been picked up (whether by waivers or FCFS, whatever is decided) prior to the roster freeze, I see no reason why they should not be eligible for the entry draft.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Feb 1, 2013 13:31:49 GMT -5
Just a note for Sami. Conversation should continue, but be aware that you are quoting old posts dated last April. Just want to make sure you are aware.
|
|