HFNHL Rule Changes for 2016/2017 - GM's PLEASE READ

[Brock]

After some deliberation, the Commissioner's office has decided to make a few rule changes that will come into effect starting next season. We felt it necessary to give you a heads up on these before the trade deadline, should it somehow change your strategy.

1. All players aged 25+ (so 25 and older) will be subject to waivers should they be sent down to the minors (regardless of salary or number of HFNHL games played), EXCEPT those recently signed UDFA's without ratings. The recently signed UDFA's who are 25+, will be given a one year exemption from waivers (so that they may accumulate ratings before having to be exposed to waivers). Players with salaries $2 million and over will still make full salary in the minors (with $1,999,999) remaining the cutoff there (so no change in that regard).

2. The cutoffs for Prospect Activation will be changing. Skaters will now need to be signed after playing 50 games in the NHL. Goalies will now need to be signed after playing 20 games in the NHL.

If you have any questions, as always don't hesitate to ask. I will update the rulebook this weekend with this information.

Click to read more...

 

[MatthewFlames]

Awesome.

 

[Dryden]

I have a question. What's 5+5x10/2-4?

 

[Brock]

I have a question. What's 5+5x10/2-4?

26.

Next question.

 

[Wildman]

How come we don't have 50 player limit of signed contract like NHL?

 

[Tom HFNHL Stars]

26.

Next question.

I agree=26 ??

 

[PasiK]

Can i sign prospects during the season or only in offseason, dont remember

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Good changes, Brock. And great job with the notice.

How come we don't have 50 player limit of signed contract like NHL?

I agree this would be a good rule. We obviously have a total player limit including prospects, but I think the contract limit makes sense too. It will make the free agent process much more realistic, as there is a reason NHL teams don't try and sign 10 UDFA's every year. This would force teams to pick their spots a bit more strategically.

And we can always phase this rule in (start at 55 next year, move to 50 the next, depending on where some teams stand with contract commitments.

 

[Canuck09]

How come we don't have 50 player limit of signed contract like NHL?

Good changes, Brock. And great job with the notice.

I agree this would be a good rule. We obviously have a total player limit including prospects, but I think the contract limit makes sense too. It will make the free agent process much more realistic, as there is a reason NHL teams don't try and sign 10 UDFA's every year. This would force teams to pick their spots a bit more strategically.

And we can always phase this rule in (start at 55 next year, move to 50 the next, depending on where some teams stand with contract commitments.

Ideally this is something I'd like to see happen as well. Remove the 80 player system limit and transition to a 50 player contract limit like the NHL.

Our prospect activation will start forcing more signings soon, and if anything, I'm in favour of dropping that threshold down to something like 10-20 games. Once we're there the amount of prospects being "hoarded" on the prospect list would be minimal. It would either be guys who haven't made the NHL yet or guys who never will. Even if we don't like that we can enforce some sort of 6-8 year purge rule.

As for the concerns about 50 contracted players and finances some may have, I think it's all but a non issue now. The poorly rated guys would obviously be in the farm on ELC making 10%. Our league revenue targets and TV Revenue top-ups have helped stabilize things to the point that we can pretty easily support another 15-25 guys making $75-95k a year.

 

[MatthewFlames]

Ideally this is something I'd like to see happen as well. Remove the 80 player system limit and transition to a 50 player contract limit like the NHL.

Our prospect activation will start forcing more signings soon, and if anything, I'm in favour of dropping that threshold down to something like 10-20 games. Once we're there the amount of prospects being "hoarded" on the prospect list would be minimal. It would either be guys who haven't made the NHL yet or guys who never will. Even if we don't like that we can enforce some sort of 6-8 year purge rule.

As for the concerns about 50 contracted players and finances some may have, I think it's all but a non issue now. The poorly rated guys would obviously be in the farm on ELC making 10%. Our league revenue targets and TV Revenue top-ups have helped stabilize things to the point that we can pretty easily support another 15-25 guys making $75-95k a year.

Yeah, the forced contract signings will naturally trim prospects, especially if we lower the threshold. Personally, I see no reason why we are not forced to sign a player once they've player even fewer games, and it's something we should continue to look at past next season. The trimming from 80 games to 50 games is a great start. Perhaps we could look at the 9 games played in the NHL as the threshold, much like the NHL has for ELC contracts.

I also support the 50 pro contracts - it would affect few teams really - make more UDFA available and add to the realism.

These are good topics for the next set of rules changes for the season following next.

 

[Lord Stanley]

Our prospect activation will start forcing more signings soon, and if anything, I'm in favour of dropping that threshold down to something like 10-20 games. Once we're there the amount of prospects being "hoarded" on the prospect list would be minimal. It would either be guys who haven't made the NHL yet or guys who never will. Even if we don't like that we can enforce some sort of 6-8 year purge rule.

I believe NHL teams have 2 or 3 seasons after the draft to sign players to a professional contract. I think we should do the same sort of thing. Maybe 4 or 5 years after they are drafted, since we are a year behind as far as ratings go. After that any players not signed should be released into free agency.

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Yup, if we do 50 contracts, we can remove the prospect limit in lieu of an adjusted auto-sign threshold for prospects. Just have to make sure we give them a half-ass rating even if they played 15 games, while not inflating any scoring stats because of the small sample size.

 

[Ohio Jones]

Nice work Brock. And no arguments with the other suggestions for future changes. (Not having decent prospects makes it easy...)

 

[Fooladelfia]

Not good for the trolleos and tankeros

 

[Dr.Sens(e)]

Hey Brock and the rest of the Admin,

For our ratings, once a player has played 40 games, their SC and PA rating is only reduced 5% from a player with 80 games. This is small stuff overall and the same as if a player had played 50 games (production on a per game basis). So a 66 scoring rating would drop to 63 etc.

You might consider adjusting the above rule to 40 games played given the rating impact for a player with 40 games is the same as 50.

 

[Brock]

Hey Brock and the rest of the Admin,

For our ratings, once a player has played 40 games, their SC and PA rating is only reduced 5% from a player with 80 games. This is small stuff overall and the same as if a player had played 50 games (production on a per game basis). So a 66 scoring rating would drop to 63 etc.

You might consider adjusting the above rule to 40 games played given the rating impact for a player with 40 games is the same as 50.

For now, wanted to keep it a nice round number that was easy for people to remember (50). Plus it's just over a half a season, as opposed to just under.

I think more likely, we'll look at changing the way ratings are calculated for those players with smaller sample sizes (like you've mentioned).

 

[Tom HFNHL Stars]

Not good for the trolleos and tankeros

Or the foolofmeoos......

 

[CoyotesHFNHL]

I think 10-15 games for prospect activation is too low, coming from someone that's been out of the playoffs and has a lot of prospects, because all of my fringe guys with very low ratings would need to be signed. I think it would need to be a minimum 40 games if not the 50 we've adjusted to, just so those prospects are at a point where their rating makes them playable.

 

[Canuck09]

I think 10-15 games for prospect activation is too low, coming from someone that's been out of the playoffs and has a lot of prospects, because all of my fringe guys with very low ratings would need to be signed. I think it would need to be a minimum 40 games if not the 50 we've adjusted to, just so those prospects are at a point where their rating makes them playable.

I never get this argument. Why do they need to be "playable" right away? Why can't it take a season or two like it does in the NHL? And if people are worried about "playable" why do they go balls out to sign every UDFA possible?

I don't see anything wrong with these guys being on our farm for injury call-ups, especially with the new waivers rules coming. With a few guys you get lucky and they can play right away. The majority would take a couple seasons. Seems like the NHL to me.

 

[Lord Stanley]

I never get this argument. Why do they need to be "playable" right away? Why can't it take a season or two like it does in the NHL? And if people are worried about "playable" why do they go balls out to sign every UDFA possible?

I don't see anything wrong with these guys being on our farm for injury call-ups, especially with the new waivers rules coming. With a few guys you get lucky and they can play right away. The majority would take a couple seasons. Seems like the NHL to me.

where is the like button?

 

[Fooladelfia]

Everything that gave us less tankeros and more HFNHL teams run like NHL teams por favor.