12-22-2020, 02:50 PM
|
#61
|
Franchise Player
|
Because he's on LTIR, same as Steen
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-22-2020, 03:26 PM
|
#62
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
I think this season is an anomaly but I think during our off-season we should consider if we can update how we handle to better align to the realities of what's happening in the NHL.
I see two paths
- We keep the current approach, which is if the player is on LTIR they aren't retired, but they get hit hard in re-rates. This benefits GMs in some cases (they can continue to use a player this year) but it also hurts GMs in others (e.g. GMs have to keep a non retired player on their roster using up cap space - Colin Wilson, Dustin Byfuglien (bit of a different situation), etc)
- We become more liberal in our definition of retirement and if a player communicates they aren't playing any more, or accepts an off-ice position - we consider them done.
This has been a moving target and we are doing the best to be consistent in how we apply the rule. But I think it's time to figure out how to evolve it given the NHL behaviours in play. To me that's a call we can align on in the off-season.
|
We have rules about signing NHL vets to UFA contracts, that if they retire then we are penalized. But we are using a standard for players that were nothing like this, whose career was cut short and unclear. Today was the first time I've ever heard that player saying they are done is not considered retired. if a player still has a term on his contract yet retires, we have never gone with the contract before. So the rules are being changed as we go to adjust to the situations (a good thing IMO) but those situations by all means aren't the standard now of how we have always done things. How we have always did things was deal with the situation as it happened
the article on Steen very obviously states that he's done in the NHL, calling it a career. Do we think that Boychuck or Steen will ever play another game? Because if we do then it's understandable to do the wait and see.
We created rules and makes teams reconsider signing player that could very likely retire. Now we are trying very hard to not acknowledge and enforce them. That was part of the game of sending in offers on players, do you take the risk to send an offer in or not.
Isn't losing these players from rosters a good thing? That creating holes and making GM's fill those positions help the league be more active. By putting penalties on signing UFA adds a risk factor. I thought this was part of the game and am confused why I'm a bad guy for thinking its a good thing
I'm lost
__________________
2018 OHL CHAMPIONS
2022 OHL CHAMPIONS
|
|
|
12-22-2020, 03:43 PM
|
#63
|
Franchise Player
|
In the past we had similar situations with Pronger, Horton and Savard and from what we recall we kept them active in the league. So we are simply trying to apply that precedent.
I'm not saying that's right. Again this has been changing as there are more examples now of players retiring but not OFFICIALLY retiring, but instead moving to LTIR to continue to collect a pay check. So we need to probably change our approach given that reality.
|
|
|
12-22-2020, 04:55 PM
|
#64
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
|
I really need to stop speaking up about things like this
__________________
2018 OHL CHAMPIONS
2022 OHL CHAMPIONS
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Hanna Sniper For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-30-2020, 09:34 AM
|
#65
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
|
|
|
|
01-03-2021, 12:43 PM
|
#66
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
I think this might have been missed but it looks like Colin Wilson has retired:
https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2045563
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
|
|
|
01-03-2021, 01:20 PM
|
#67
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheScorpion
|
Article says he’s probably done
Not definitive
|
|
|
01-05-2021, 10:01 AM
|
#68
|
First round-bust
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: speculating about AHL players
|
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
|
|
|
01-05-2021, 11:08 AM
|
#69
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
|
Weird. Ive watched his father get drafted, play a career, then his son and live to tell about it. Wonder if Carey has a grandson playing?
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cheese For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-05-2021, 12:13 PM
|
#70
|
Franchise Player
|
Yup he's dun.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Goffie For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-09-2021, 11:46 AM
|
#72
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goffie
|
This should be interesting, find out if rules are selective or equal
For the record, they all should be retired. Crawford and the others
__________________
2018 OHL CHAMPIONS
2022 OHL CHAMPIONS
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-09-2021, 12:00 PM
|
#74
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
|
Deep breath everyone.
I believe this is still a bit of a grey area in our league when it should be black and white.
Both sides have legit points. I think there is a simple solution here if we just take a step back and think about it for a moment.
Any legit retirement news whether actually retired or riding out on IR, than they are retired. In the event that player actually comes back, the team that had said player gets first right of refusal.
Is it that simple?
If so, some GMs are happy to rid themselves of a plug and some are upset because they lose a key player. BUT if we decide that it’s the GM discretion to retire player immediately or end of CPHL season it should work.
Not a rule change, it’s a rule modification.
Last edited by MJK; 01-09-2021 at 12:05 PM.
|
|
|
01-09-2021, 12:02 PM
|
#75
|
Franchise Player
|
The voting methodology is fair IMO. I did get burnt by this with Byfuglien, but thanks Scorp for taking him on and Jiri for helping me out too.
I agree with Jiri that it is tough to apply the same rule to every retirement because we have seen many players “retire” or go on long term injury etc and then come back and play (Williams, Niedermayer etc) or players constantly in the lurch (Byfuglien) Maybe we can do that if they miss a whole season, it is a different situation? They will probably get a playable rating for the first year, in any case.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to agulati For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-09-2021, 12:05 PM
|
#76
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJK
Deep breath everyone.
Both sides have legit points. I think there is a simple solution here if we just take a step back and think about it for a moment.
Any legit retirement news whether actually retired or riding out on IR, than they are retired. In the event that player actually comes back, the team that had said player gets first right of refusal.
Is it that simple?
Not a rule change, it’s a rule modification.
|
There are legit points. As mentioned, we should be able to discuss and debate these issues.
But what we shouldn't do is start to assume bad intent...such as the league being "selective with rules".
I am 100% fine having this discussion and as a group settling on how we should handle. I'm not fine with suggestions that we are not managing this league fairly.
|
|
|
01-09-2021, 12:09 PM
|
#78
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
There are legit points. As mentioned, we should be able to discuss and debate these issues.
But what we shouldn't do is start to assume bad intent...such as the league being "selective with rules".
I am 100% fine having this discussion and as a group settling on how we should handle. I'm not fine with suggestions that we are not managing this league fairly.
|
I believe there was a thread on this already where it was discussed but outcome unclear. I chose not to participate because I really don’t care either way. But some people do care and it’s best to find a solution.
Are we are a debate stage or a vote stage?
I’m good with either but it is something that needs to be resolved.
|
|
|
01-09-2021, 12:12 PM
|
#79
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by agulati
The voting methodology is fair IMO. I did get burnt by this with Byfuglien, but thanks Scorp for taking him on and Jiri for helping me out too.
I agree with Jiri that it is tough to apply the same rule to every retirement because we have seen many players “retire” or go on long term injury etc and then come back and play (Williams, Niedermayer etc) or players constantly in the lurch (Byfuglien) Maybe we can do that if they miss a whole season, it is a different situation? They will probably get a playable rating for the first year, in any case.
|
So if they all are retired and the team that player was on gets first right of refusal, doesn’t that solve our problem?
I don’t see this as being any different than when I lost Kovalchuk to the KHL. I was mad. BUT the league decided I had first right of refusal when he returned to the NHL. Every GM bid on him and I either matched it or I didn’t.
This can be the same thing.
|
|
|
01-09-2021, 12:13 PM
|
#80
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJK
I believe there was a thread on this already where it was discussed but outcome unclear. I chose not to participate because I really don’t care either way. But some people do care and it’s best to find a solution.
Are we are a debate stage or a vote stage?
I’m good with either but it is something that needs to be resolved.
|
The outcome of the previous discussion was that we would continue to apply the rules as we have been. However, as this seems to be a growing issue, including due to dynamics being created by COVID, I'm open to making an immediate change.
So right now we are probably at the debate stage - where folks are welcome to put forth other ideas, in addition to what I've suggested. We then vote on which one we go with, and probably then vote on when we apply (again options being immediate, immediate and retroactive, or in the off-season).
So if there are other proposed ideas on how to handle they should be put forth as candidates.
I'm a fan of the vote because the term "retire" which was once very clear has become less clear. It now can mean a player is totally done, done but on IR, or "taking a break".
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:00 AM.
|
|