Yeah this is always tricky and now one policy seems like it ever fully deals with every situation or scenario.
Moreover, in some cases the GM WANTS the player to retire to free up cap space - in which case a more liberal definition would favor things.
However, in some cases the GM does NOT want the player to retire, as they will lose them in the sim and/or be hit by a buyout. In this case a more restrictive definition would favor things.
So in general perhaps we need to try to improve further.
I would propose that a player should be considered retired if:
- They announce their retirement (from hockey overall, not just the NHL)
- They are listed as a former or retired player on wikipedia
- They accept an off-ice position within hockey, in management or coaching. Broadcasting excluded from this.
- They have been inactive for 2 straight seasons
A player will NOT be considered retired if
- They file their papers with the NHL only, without a corresponding announcement
- They are playing pro hockey anywhere
- They are listed as an active player on Wikipedia
Thoughts?
|