Retirement Rule Vote #1

[Jiri Hrdina]

Here are the proposed options for evolving how we evolve our retirement rules.
We can get into an endless debate on this, so I’d like to settle on options we vote on. There will be 3 votes:

1. The core rule itself (THIS ONE)
2. If we do away with the buyout
3. When we apply the rule (retro, now, off-season)

For the purpose of these rules, the definition is that a player is considered retired when they announce that they are retiring from pro hockey or taking an off ice position. The announcement must be made by the player, their agent, their team, or reported as confirmed by a reputable media source. If a player announces they are done in the NHL but continuing to play pro hockey elsewhere (e.g. KHL), they will still be considered active in the CPHL. A player still being technically active in the NHL via LTIR will no longer be considered an exception for their status as being retired. A player that retired during the season will be considered retired in the CPHL immediately (except when noted in the rule option below). A player that retires at the end of their NHL season, or announces that they will be retiring at the end of the NHL season, will be permitted to complete their CPHL season.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The descriptions are too long for the poll, so here they are:

1. All players that fall under the above definition will be retired immediately per the above, except if the player is announcing their retirement at the end of the NHL season, in which case they will be permitted to complete their CPHL season including playoffs. Where the matter is not clear, it will be put to a vote of the league GMs, with a majority required to retire the player. If the player “un-retires” it will be made available as a free agent to the league, following standard UFA bidding rules, with the team’s original GM holding the right to match the winning offer to retain the player. Per standard UFA bidding rules, teams, including the original GM must have the available cap space for their bids.

2. All players that fall under the above definition, will not be retired immediately but rather at the conclusion of the CPHL season. If the player “un-retires” it will be made available as a free agent to the league, following standard UFA bidding rules, with the team’s original GM holding the right to match the winning offer to retain the player. Per standard UFA bidding rules, teams, including the original GM must have the available cap space for their bids.

3. All players that fall under the above definition, will be put to a league vote to decide if they are retired or not, with a majority required to retire the player. If the player “un-retires” it will be made available as a free agent to the league, following standard UFA bidding rules, with the team’s original GM holding the right to match the winning offer to retain the player. Per standard UFA bidding rules, teams, including the original GM must have the available cap space for their bids.

[Swayze11]

I haven't been following this a ton but I think we need to take a bit of a step back here and define the definition of a retired player before we vote on this no? From my understanding that is a major factor that people have an issue with.

I know one suggestion that I read was specific to these LTIR guys. Perhaps a league vote on someone that is on LTIR is actually retired.

ex: Kucherov is on LTIR, its obvious he is coming back. Hossa is on LTIR, is obvious hes never coming back.

[Jiri Hrdina]

In the first post:

For the purpose of these rules, the definition is that a player is considered retired when they announce that they are retiring from pro hockey or taking an off ice position. The announcement must be made by the player, their agent, their team, or reported as confirmed by a reputable media source. If a player announces they are done in the NHL but continuing to play pro hockey elsewhere (e.g. KHL), they will still be considered active in the CPHL. A player still being technically active in the NHL via LTIR will no longer be considered an exception for their status as being retired. A player that retired during the season will be considered retired in the CPHL immediately (except when noted in the rule option below). A player that retires at the end of their NHL season, or announces that they will be retiring at the end of the NHL season, will be permitted to complete their CPHL season.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

In the first post:

For the purpose of these rules, the definition is that a player is considered retired when they announce that they are retiring from pro hockey or taking an off ice position. The announcement must be made by the player, their agent, their team, or reported as confirmed by a reputable media source. If a player announces they are done in the NHL but continuing to play pro hockey elsewhere (e.g. KHL), they will still be considered active in the CPHL. A player still being technically active in the NHL via LTIR will no longer be considered an exception for their status as being retired. A player that retired during the season will be considered retired in the CPHL immediately (except when noted in the rule option below). A player that retires at the end of their NHL season, or announces that they will be retiring at the end of the NHL season, will be permitted to complete their CPHL season.

I understand that is the definition. I am suggesting that we need to come together as a group to come up with a definition. I assume this definition has been discussed between you and all the other CPHL commissioner team. Perhaps this is set in stone and not up for discussion?

[Jiri Hrdina]

I wanted that feedback yesterday. I'd like to get this locked and loaded.
If you have input you can provide, as we can always massage the definitional element. But I want to move the votes forward.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

I haven't been following this a ton but I think we need to take a bit of a step back here and define the definition of a retired player before we vote on this no? From my understanding that is a major factor that people have an issue with.

I know one suggestion that I read was specific to these LTIR guys. Perhaps a league vote on someone that is on LTIR is actually retired.

ex: Kucherov is on LTIR, its obvious he is coming back. Hossa is on LTIR, is obvious hes never coming back.

Kucherov hasn't announced his retirement, Hossa has.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Basically what we are saying is that LTIR won't be a consideration moving forward.

[flambers]

Examples of the retirement/LTIR situation in the past

Chris Pronger
Marc Savard
Hossa
Horton
Steen
Boychuk

[Swayze11]

Yea, I think Hossa was a bad example but I think flambers example of Steen is bang on. Lets not pretend he isn't retired.

I understand you wanted feedback yesterday. I was under the assumption the definition of what is considered being retired was being voted on as well as how we enforce it. Forgive me on that part as I didn't read every post in that thread.

[Jiri Hrdina]

So you would keep Hossa active but not Steen?
I think that's exactly where this gets confusing.

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

A player still being technically active in the NHL via LTIR will no longer be considered an exception for their status as being retired.

If it's LTIR, whether NHL cap circumvention or for actual injury (career ending or not) they are still not retired here.

Am I on the same page?

[Jiri Hrdina]

no they would both be retired. If the player has announced they are done - they would be done regardless of whether they go on LTIR in the NHL

[JonDuke]

Ok cool. That's what I meant. I thought you were saying that, if/because they were on NHL LTIR but no proper sources said they were officially retired, they would still be retired here.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Would like to see all GMs voting in this one please.

[Tilley]

I have no issue with the rule as it is written. I used skaters on LTIR as a means of cheap UFAs years ago as a way to improve my roster on a year-to-year basis. I like the buy-out provision as it encourages GMs to think before offering a 1-way bid. In the cases like Steen, GMs have the choice to buyout or keep on the roster with a low rating. More choices make the game more fun/challenging.

[Swayze11]

I have yet to vote because I still think we need to discuss the definition of retired.

I am saying Hossa IS retired. I am saying Steen IS retired. I was saying the Steen example was better because it was more recent.

If the definition of retired is not up for discussion then I will pick one of the options above. I am just more curious if defining the definition of retired is up for vote.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Well I guess the question is does anyone disagree with the definition as stated?

[Swayze11]

I understand I might be making a mountain out of a mole hill here, I was more curious than anything.

[BagoPucks]

No issues here, I think either you are retired (ltir or flat out) or not based on the verbage put out. If things change we can fix it when the player comes back. I think it is fully defined.