MAJOR Breaking news....

[notoepik]

Originally posted by KevanGuy@Apr 6 2005, 02:41 PM
Well, the way I see it is that your AHL roster doesnt win you games in the CPHL. Thats more what I meant.

But some of us have stocked the AHL with talent out of necessity because the future is all we have at the moment. Hate to lose that because we did a good job.

[moon]

I know I left the league but I will throw my two cents in.

I think it is a great idea. I think it will work in this league because of the fact that the difference between a 3rd liner and an AHLer are not nearly as big as in the NHL with most teams.

Tampa was a lower level team but if they have to replace Lubos Bartecko with Tyson Nash I don't see a big drop off. Hell some of the bottom teams can't get much worse so I don't think that will be a problem.

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by notoepik+Apr 6 2005, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (notoepik @ Apr 6 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-KevanGuy@Apr 6 2005, 02:41 PM
Well, the way I see it is that your AHL roster doesnt win you games in the CPHL. Thats more what I meant.

But some of us have stocked the AHL with talent out of necessity because the future is all we have at the moment. Hate to lose that because we did a good job. [/b][/quote]
Well you will still protect the same amount of players as everyone else. Instead of protecting players in the 80's you will be protecting these prospects I guess. I am sure there will be a limit as to how many players a team can lose. I cant see losing 2-3 players being too harmful to any team.

[Young Guns]

Myself I cant really think of any negatives to this idea. Some people have pointed out a couple things as to why they may not like it but :doo: More gm's, more activity, more interest by all. I wouldnt be to worried about the expansion draft etc. It would more less effect every team the same way. Maybe hurting the teams with a bit more talent in the end but not enough to make a huge difference. :tup:

[notoepik]

Originally posted by KevanGuy+Apr 6 2005, 03:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KevanGuy @ Apr 6 2005, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

But some of us have stocked the AHL with talent out of necessity because the future is all we have at the moment. Hate to lose that because we did a good job.

Well you will still protect the same amount of players as everyone else. Instead of protecting players in the 80's you will be protecting these prospects I guess. I am sure there will be a limit as to how many players a team can lose. I cant see losing 2-3 players being too harmful to any team. [/b][/quote]
I don't see losing 2-3 players as too harmful either KG. But you seem to imply that the AHL on every team is worthless. Granted my boys won't be winning me a bunch of games, but they are talented prospects for the most part. I have them there for a purpose. Some will grow with the team and some will be traded, they are not just warm bodies like many teams have on the AHL. Well some of them are

I am not against expansion at all, I just want to ensure that moves we have made for the future of our team are somehow protected. For instance, I have a pending deal with a playoff GM. We wanted to wait until the playoffs were over and trading resumed to finalize the deal. Niether of us wanted to do the deal before the playoffs. I hope that it is not affected by the expansion process.

[KevanGuy]

Makes sense. I guess with expansion we are all 'risking' something. You're risking the deals you made for the future I am risking depth CPHLers. SHould be interesting to see how it all works out.

[looooob]

I'm siding with Becky here

again, I'm all for expansion. great idea actually

but the implication that we are worried about our AHL players then we have big problems isn't exactly fair

I'm in this league for the long haul. 3 years so far. and I've always been mindful for building for the future, especially this year when I've just missed the playoffs

teams that have blown their brains out on making a cup run and have a bunch of older, often expensive players around and a depleted farm system are probably less worried about losing players then some teams in different situations

doesn't mean we shouldn't go ahead with this, just trying to show where some teams are coming from when they mention their AHL players or younger guys

[JiriHrdina]

I think the one natural solution would be to have an age exemption in place. Perhaps lower than then waiver draft one - say 22. This would allow teams to not have to worry about some of their top prospects. If you were allowed to protect say 5 blueliners, 10 forwards and 2 goalies. Or 1 goalie and an extra skater AND any player 22 or under was exempt I think most teams woudl be able to protect their prize assets.

As an example here's what the Wild would possible do.

Protected forwards (10) : Mark Bell, David Legwand, Brendan Morrow, Dave Scatchard, Daniel Sedin, Paul Kariya, Scott Hartnell, Raffi Torres, Ben Clymer, Trevor Letowski.
Protected D-men (5): Dmitri Kalinin, Chris Phillips, Filip Kub, Nik Kronwall, Andrew Ference.
Goalie: Tomoas Vokon.
Extra skater since only protecting 1 goalie: Andrew Alberts

Key exemptions for age: Jason Spezza and other prospects

This would leave the likes of Keith Carney (71 OVR but old as Cheese), and Mattias Timander on D open for selection. Up front I would possibly lose guys like Shane Willis. No one special.

Looking at this now that doesn't even seem like enough choice. If we took it down to 9 forwards and 5 D then a guy like Trevor Letowski comes open from my team. A better pick probably for an expansion club.

Anyhoo I just did this to kinda play around with the scenario. Seems to me that assuming there is an age restriction (which I think there would be), most teams wouldn't lose key assets. Depth players and marginal prospects mainly.

[CaptainCrunch]

As a player agent and an executive on the dark temple of the CPHLPA, we're happy that some of our union brothern trapped in the AHL will be given a legit shot at the CPHL.

Praise money

[Thunderball]

I think its gotta be 23... too many good 23 year old prospects that building teams have been hoarding away will be lost, and thats not fair to punish teams with plans like that.

Also, does this reopen the idea of giving each team a "vintage" player?

[liamenator]

I like this idea...
However, being a club with mostly guys under 25, I will have a lot of excemptions I think, so protection lists arnt as big an issue with me.

I agree with Thunderball I think that the excemption age would have to be 23 and under, as with the NHL.. perhaps with a clause in there about having to protect and U23er who has played 'X' amont of games in the CPHL.

Im not a fan of adding vintage player to the actual CPHL.. but perhaps a summer league of vintage teams would be something to look at, if there was interest and/or time. Seeing Dave 'the Hammer' Schultz go toe-to-toe with Probert in his time would be priceless!!!

[MJK]

I don't like the idea of bringing in vintage players at all. I wouldn't want to play if this happened. I like the way we have it now with the regular players and I think the realism of this league would be hurt if we decided to make a major change by bringing in players from the past.

[Cheese]

I dont think youll see Vintage players guys. tranny was simply suggesting there are many ways around the idea that adding another 50 players is easy to get around. We could also extend the average overseas player term to 3 years from 2 before they are considered retired. There are literally a thousand ways to make it work.
A commitee will be drawn soon...led by transplant, who has your best interests at hand. He will select guys/gals he thinks can help the situation and assist with the rules.
Will there be some bickering/pain/retirements/quits? Perhaps...as he said we cant please everyone. In the grand scheme adding an additional 50 CPHL players wont be a biggie. If as I said we extended the Euros to 3 years it would add well over a hundred players.
That being said...I do suggest that every GM start looking seriously at their rosters now and try to ascertain a protected list of some type. I posted links to past NHL drafts...some type of modified CPHL draft will be close to those.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm sitting down, hoping to keep my balance, as I try not to fall off this fence that I sit atop.

I skimmed the thread, it's interesting. I'll comment when my first exam is over. I dunno... I like the idea, but I'm afraid of possible problems (I don't know what they might be exactly)... so I'll have to think about it... until then, this fence is pretty high

[Sample00]

Well, I will wade into this conversation for the first time since the announcement was made as I wanted to have time to think about this rationally.
My first impression was, I dont care for the idea. My second impression was, I still dont care for the idea.
I cant really put my finger on it as to why..but this is the best I could come up with:
I like having the same teams we have now. They equal to that of what is in the NHL. If we add other teams such as the ones suggested, what would be the point in having the regular teams, why not just have a team in Dog Leg, Saskatchewan.
I know this is fantasy hockey and understand that, I just am the type that prefers a lil realism to it with regards to the mirroring of the NHL.
Having said that, if yuo guys decide that you want to include these new teams, thats fine. I will still play regardless, but you were asking for opinions and I thought I would throw my two cents worth in.
Let me reiterate again, I am not in favour of adding two totally fantasy teams to our league.
regards
Axel

[MJK]

I like having the same teams we have now. They equal to that of what is in the NHL.

Thats basically what I said as well. I am not a fan and I know some other gm's out there agree with me, they are just scared to speak up... That being said, if it is going to happen I will live with it.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by mjk123@Apr 7 2005, 11:24 AM

Thats basically what I said as well. I am not a fan and I know some other gm's out there agree with me, they are just scared to speak up... That being said, if it is going to happen I will live with it.

"Scared to speak up"

Holy smokes people...what is there to be "scared" of?

I ASKED for ALL opinions/thoughts/suggestions.

It's quite allright to disagree with us on this...its why we asked. Maybe we havent seen some of the potential pitfalls....and by discussing it now and addressing all concerns, it makes it about 100 times easier for us to do what is proper.

If someone here doesn't like the idea....say so fer god sakes. (Of those that are "scared" to say anything that havent already)

Step forward, be heard. It helps EVERYONE when doing so.

[KevanGuy]

Originally posted by mjk123@Apr 7 2005, 09:24 AM

Thats basically what I said as well. I am not a fan and I know some other gm's out there agree with me, they are just scared to speak up...

LOL!!!! Sounds a little over dramatic to me.

[Wonder_Boy]

WINNIPEG JETS!! Are you serious... I dont know if this is possible.. But can I PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be the GM of the Jets.. Like I might just be the biggest Jets fan on here.. I am from Winnipeg.. so PLEASE!!! It would mean a heck of a lot to me..

[notoepik]

Originally posted by Wonder_Boy@Apr 7 2005, 02:20 PM
WINNIPEG JETS!! Are you serious... I dont know if this is possible.. But can I PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be the GM of the Jets.. Like I might just be the biggest Jets fan on here.. I am from Winnipeg.. so PLEASE!!! It would mean a heck of a lot to me..

You have my vote if goes through WB B-)


Sort of the same as Liam taking back the Flyers. That worked out well.