IMPORTANT - Pending League Rule Change

Status
Not open for further replies.

HFNHL Commish

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,355
8
godlh said:
Is the draft penalty exclusively for the first round or is it for every round of the draft?

Good question, Eric. The draft penalty will only apply to the first round.
 

Hossa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
9,649
274
Abroad
Visit site
Another question.

After the all-star break, can a team dip below the 66 OV rating or does it need to finish the season at 66 OV or more, and be up to 68 OV for next season.

The reason I ask is that at the deadline, it is common practice for teams not making the playoffs to trade veterans who they don't need and will most likely be gone in the summer, for picks and prospects. The example off my team is Mario Lemieux. Could I deal Lemieux at the deadline without having to keep my team at 66 OV? I mean, it doesn't make sense for me to keep Lemieux for the extra 12-15 games, might as well get something from him assuming I'm not in the playoffs. Would these types of scenarios be reviewed on a case-by-case basis or what?

I mean, I wouldn't be "gutting" my roster, but Lemieux has value at the deadline that he may never have again...
 

Brock

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
12,196
3,628
The GTA
ohlprospects.blogspot.com
Hossa said:
Another question.

After the all-star break, can a team dip below the 66 OV rating or does it need to finish the season at 66 OV or more, and be up to 68 OV for next season.

The reason I ask is that at the deadline, it is common practice for teams not making the playoffs to trade veterans who they don't need and will most likely be gone in the summer, for picks and prospects. The example off my team is Mario Lemieux. Could I deal Lemieux at the deadline without having to keep my team at 66 OV? I mean, it doesn't make sense for me to keep Lemieux for the extra 12-15 games, might as well get something from him assuming I'm not in the playoffs. Would these types of scenarios be reviewed on a case-by-case basis or what?

I mean, I wouldn't be "gutting" my roster, but Lemieux has value at the deadline that he may never have again...

I am also very curious about this.
 

HFNHL Red Wings

Guest
Although this is not my call, it's Matt's at the end of the day, it was the intent that the team held this level. The 66OV was meant as a stepping stone towards the 68OV. It was the intention that once we got to the 68OV by next season that teams not be allowed to drop below this so I'm not sure why the the interim steps would be any different to be honest. Especially if it meant teams would reduce their rosters again for the remainder of the season with the intent on just stocking up temporarily at the free agency period.
Remember the original objective is to maintain some level of competiteness and not have teams drop below for periods only to bolster their rosters temporarily for a measurement period and then trade down again in a roller coaster manner.
 

Tampa GM

Registered User
Mar 1, 2002
1,674
0
Visit site
If I trade for a player that puts me over the 66OV do I need to keep him my starting line up for the rest of the season or could I send him to minors right away?
 

Donga

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
909
0
Visit site
Tampa GM said:
If I trade for a player that puts me over the 66OV do I need to keep him my starting line up for the rest of the season or could I send him to minors right away?

As Drew said, we have to keep a level of competitiveness as we head to next year as some of us will endeaveor trying to get to a 68 OV which can be another 50-35 points depending on how our guys rated. With me, most of my better players have been playing on a regular basis except for a few due to contracts and what not. However, for me to do this, I've needed to trade for better players so I can keep on top of these things. I'm up to point now that I'm over, I can play around with my lineup such that I try and play anyone that is 100% and scratch those that are not at 100%. I guess thats the luxury of being over. Although, I'm not over by much.

If you do as you suggest, how can the guy be counted as part of your roster if he doesn't play regularly in the bigs?? If you are implying on getting someone like a Artus Irbe or a Tony Hrkac or Bill Houlder, then I can see why you would want to do this but imagine if you were in there shoes. You get sent down to the minors and the guy playing on the second or third line or starting tender is way not better than you, wouldn't you get mad?? Also depending on who you pick up, would they clear waivers?? What happens if some ******* (like me :D) decides to pick them up?? What happens then?? You traded for him and lose him just as quick. Your now in a worst position then you were in before. The only thing you got is probably $50,000 from waiver fees.

Although, it would be Matt's call, IMO he should stay on the roster to be counted. Man, why didn't someone impose a games played quota with this rule, that way it would have been a no contest with this question. I'm not taking out on you, Martin. Your question is quite valid considering this wasn't cleared up.

HFNHL Red Wings said:
Although this is not my call, it's Matt's at the end of the day, it was the intent that the team held this level. The 66OV was meant as a stepping stone towards the 68OV. It was the intention that once we got to the 68OV by next season that teams not be allowed to drop below this so I'm not sure why the the interim steps would be any different to be honest. Especially if it meant teams would reduce their rosters again for the remainder of the season with the intent on just stocking up temporarily at the free agency period.
Remember the original objective is to maintain some level of competiteness and not have teams drop below for periods only to bolster their rosters temporarily for a measurement period and then trade down again in a roller coaster manner.

I hear ya there Drew. Totally agree. :yo:

With all this talk, it reminds me that I have to bring Dale Purinton, arguably my best blue liner back into the team. :)

*sighs and everything is now off his chest :rolly: *
 

Ville Isopaa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,253
10
Helsinki, Finland
Visit site
Donga said:
If you do as you suggest, how can the guy be counted as part of your roster if he doesn't play regularly in the bigs?? If you are implying on getting someone like a Artus Irbe or a Tony Hrkac or Bill Houlder, then I can see why you would want to do this but imagine if you were in there shoes. You get sent down to the minors and the guy playing on the second or third line or starting tender is way not better than you, wouldn't you get mad??

What about if you trade for a guy, like the 3 mentioned above, that has been in the minors with previous team. If you then keep him in pro, shouldn't his OV count to the totals?


ps. I should be over 68,5 at this point with most of my players looking like they should be uprated for next season.
 

Tampa GM

Registered User
Mar 1, 2002
1,674
0
Visit site
I made a deal yesterday that is still waiting for approval and when thats done I should be at 66.15OV and I believe I will have no problem to reach way above 68OV until next season.

Daniel Sedin 4 goals tonight! You gotta love it! I wonder how his rating will be next year :)
 

HFNHL Commish

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,355
8
Tampa GM said:
If I trade for a player that puts me over the 66OV do I need to keep him my starting line up for the rest of the season or could I send him to minors right away?

If you're talking about replacing a 69OV player with a 58OV player then no, you wouldn't be able to send him to the minors right away.

Folks, it's important to remember here that, regardless of any OV requirements, we all have a responsibility to dress our best possible roster on a nightly basis. If it's obvious that you're benching players in favor of those with significantly lower ratings, shame on you! Such behavior is against the spirit of our game, and will not be tolerated.

As for the question: "Do I have to maintain a 66OV rating after the All-Star break???"

We all recognize that, sometimes, it's in a struggling team's best interest to trade a quality player before the deadline...particularly if the player is on the verge of retirement. For that reason, we did not specify an OV requirement for season's end. Obviously, that allows for some room for teams to dip below the OV requirement prior to the start of next season. That said, GMs must be prepared to explain any trade that would put them below 66OV. Such trades will be subjected to the closest scrutiny, and generally must be made for the purpose of getting the team to 68OV for the start of next season.

In other words, if you're trading Mario Lemieux (for example) because of the possibility of retirement, and the trade would put you below 66OV, you need to be able to explain how the trade will help you get to 68OV for next season. That means that you need to be getting players in return, not just a horde of 2006 draft picks. ;)

Clear enough?
 

Tampa GM

Registered User
Mar 1, 2002
1,674
0
Visit site
"Folks, it's important to remember here that, regardless of any OV requirements, we all have a responsibility to dress our best possible roster on a nightly basis. If it's obvious that you're benching players in favor of those with significantly lower ratings, shame on you! Such behavior is against the spirit of our game, and will not be tolerated."

What does this mean? If we have the responsibility to dress the best possible roster I guess that the players mention below will be recalled to HFNHL acation asap or?

Adam Graves Ottawa Senators
Earns 3.0M$ but is ranked as Ottawas 10th forward, earns 10% in the minors

Tony Hrkac Carolina Hurricanes
Is ranked as Carolinas 2nd best center but is playing in the minors?

Arturs Irbe Philadelphia Flyers
Is ranked as Flyers 2nd best goalie(backup) but is in the minors due to his high salary only.

Bill Houlder Colorado Avalanche
Is ranked 6th on Avs defence but is in the minors to do 2+M$ salary.
 

HFNHL Commish

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,355
8
In the case of Graves, you're dealing with a depth forward who clearly has no impact on the fate of the Senators, since they're currently sitting in 2nd place in the East. As such, I don't have a huge problem with the Sens keeping Graves in the minors. I would feel differently if Graves played for Carolina, in which case he'd be a first-line player. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing Graves placed on waivers so that he'd be available to other teams that could actually use him.

With Irbe, you're dealing with a backup goaltender who clearly has no impact on the fate of the Flyers, since they're currently sitting in 4th place in the East. I don't have a huge problem with the Flyers keeping Irbe in the minors since he's barely better than Noronen. Again, I wouldn't mind seeing him placed on waivers, either.

In the case of Houlder, you're dealing with a depth defenseman who plays for a team with financial problems. It would be silly to force Colorado to play Houlder just for the sake of driving the team into bankruptcy. Houlder has cleared waivers on more than one occasion. I would feel differently if Houlder was the Avalanche's #3 defenseman, but he's not.

I do, however, have a problem with the Hurricanes benching their leading scorer, especially considering that finances aren't a problem......hint, hint.

Basically what I'm saying is that, if the player is good enough that he should be playing an important role, then he should be playing. It's not fourth-liners I'm worried about here. It's teams not playing their first and second-liners.
 

HFNHL Red Wings

Guest
I don't completely disagree Martin but a couple of quick points.
(i) Really notable players have been forced to play ... just ask the the Kings and the Islanders who were forced to address certain players not in the lineup.
(ii) Bill Houlder only just became relevant with the trading of Niinimaa the other day. Prior to that he was an injured resrve 7th dman and has played some games this season when needed. He has also been placed on waivers twice this season with no one claiming him
(iii) Tony Hrkac was in the lineup until just two days ago and is available on waivers to anyone who wats him.
(iv) Graves was not originally a top 10 player when he was sent to the minors earlier in the season but recent trades have made it so and I'll admit this went unnoticed.
 

Wildman

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,942
35
Toronto
Re: Players in the minors

Here is my suggestion Mr. Commissioner:

- Team should have the right to keep players in the minors provided they have cleared waivers once.
- For the first five games of the season, teams should be forced to keep their protective list roster unless a player is under 24 years old (barring any injuries). This way, teams will be forced to play their over age players at least for the first 5 games. I know I was one the teams that decided to send Recchi down before he played his 5th game that was due to the fact that i acquired Tkatchuk and moved Doan over to RW.


FYI Martin,

I don't think any of the teams you mentioned would have a problem trading these players to you for bare minimum. I am sure these players are better than what you have under your roster. As matter of fact, Claudio just announced that Irbe is available to anyone interested.

I also see a posting from Atlanta willing to trade Turgeon for mid round pick, I know Turgeon is expensive but I am sure he can handle 1st line duties for your team.
 

Tampa GM

Registered User
Mar 1, 2002
1,674
0
Visit site
I once traded Pierre T due to his high contract(which I gave him btw :) ) and I have no intrest to take Pierre back for 7.0M$. I wouldnt even take him for free. Probably the most overpaid player in our league. I am also not intrested in Graves, Houlder, Irbe or Hrkac. Why? Mostly because of the big contracts.

How come all players in the HFNHL has two way contract? My suggestion is that if you send a player down you still pay his salary and not any 10%. I dont think that the minors should be a way for teams to earn money.

Regarding the money issue that Colorado and a few other team has. What does happen when a team has no money left?
 

HFNHL Commish

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
1,355
8
islanders said:
Here is my suggestion Mr. Commissioner:

- Team should have the right to keep players in the minors provided they have cleared waivers once.
- For the first five games of the season, teams should be forced to keep their protective list roster unless a player is under 24 years old (barring any injuries). This way, teams will be forced to play their over age players at least for the first 5 games. I know I was one the teams that decided to send Recchi down before he played his 5th game that was due to the fact that i acquired Tkatchuk and moved Doan over to RW.

First off, please don't call me Mr. Commissioner. ;)

I wouldn't have a problem with either of those rules...to a degree, they're already being informally enforced. The only problem would come with teams that start a lot of under-25 players...
 

BlueAndWhite

Registered User
Mar 1, 2002
7,208
5
Toronto
Visit site
HFNHL Red Wings said:
(iv) Graves was not originally a top 10 player when he was sent to the minors earlier in the season but recent trades have made it so and I'll admit this went unnoticed.
Before I address the Graves situation on my part, I'd like some clarification on this comment.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here Drew...
 

Donga

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
909
0
Visit site
Tampa GM said:
What does this mean? If we have the responsibility to dress the best possible roster I guess that the players mention below will be recalled to HFNHL acation asap or?

...

Tony Hrkac Carolina Hurricanes
Is ranked as Carolinas 2nd best center but is playing in the minors?

...

If you read my post earlier, I can afford to put Hrkac in the minors. THis is because that I've got players that will put me over the 1320 mark, if I put him in the minors. As Drew said, I recently put him on the waivers and he has played a majority of my games since about game 2.

The examples you give are not really that valid coz of the fact that those teams especially, the Senators and Avalanche can afford to do that. Whereas, I'm walking the tight rope but I'm managing.
 

Ville Isopaa

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
2,253
10
Helsinki, Finland
Visit site
About Houlder, I'd like to add the fact that bringing up Houlder would change my OV-mark with very little. It'd add 5 points to my total, which hardly can be a reason to play a guy who's going to retire after the season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->