Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Leagues and Games > Calgarypuck Hockey League
Ivrnet

View Poll Results: Should we retain or remove the buyout penalty for retiring players?
Retain 13 46.43%
Remove 15 53.57%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2021, 10:26 AM   #1
Jiri Hrdina
Moderator
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default Retirement Rule Vote #2 (Buyout)

The GMs have voted to implement the following changes to our retirement rule.

Moving forward the definition will be as follows:
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.

The rule will be applied as such:
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.


The purpose of this rule is to establish if we should remove the buyout penalties or not.

The current buyout rule is stated as follows: No buyout is required for retired players UNLESS acquired via UFA BY THAT TEAM in the same season or preceding off-season.

What we are voting on here is whether to retain that or eliminate it such that if a player retires, there is no buyout penalty, under any circumstance for the team that owns the player.
Jiri Hrdina is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
Old 01-12-2021, 10:45 AM   #2
SportsJunky
Uncle Chester
 
SportsJunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exp:
Default

Initially, I was considering doing away with the buyout rule. The more I think about it now, I'd like to see us keep it in place. Closer to real life I think.
__________________
Be better.
SportsJunky is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 11:04 AM   #3
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
Exp:
Default

IMO this rule doesn't do much. GM's simply sign UFA's that have value and if they fear retirement will flip to another team for an asset and avoid the buyout.

I don't think a buyout in this case is really necessary.
MJK is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 11:12 AM   #4
Tilley
Retired Aksarben Correspondent
 
Tilley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Spokane, Washington
Exp:
Default

I like the buyout. 1) It forces GMs to assess potential retirees during the UFA signing period and 2) it encourages trading so that GMs can flip a possible retiree for assets and avoid the buyout.



To me this is a part of the game that demonstrates a GM's skill. Mitigate the risk of a buyout to acquire cheap, usable assets.
Tilley is offline  
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tilley For This Useful Post:
Old 01-12-2021, 11:35 AM   #5
Hanna Sniper
Franchise Player
 
Hanna Sniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Exp:
Default

There’s players I don’t bid on because I consider them a retirement risk

Other teams would have bid on x players if they knew that rules would be relaxed and there was no risk for signing players.
__________________
- Say No to Vertical Video -
Hanna Sniper is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 12:09 PM   #6
devo22
Franchise Player
 
devo22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Austria, NOT Australia
Exp:
Default

voted "remove" but it's a close one for me.

maybe some kind of age rule would make sense here? Because I have no problem with the buyout for old guys at all. But if you look at fairly recent retirees, I don't think a GM should be punished if a guy like Niskanen unexpectedly hangs em up at 33 for example. Guys like Steen, Crawford and so on are on the wrong side of 30 so I think that's a different story.
devo22 is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 12:20 PM   #7
BagoPucks
Powerplay Quarterback
 
BagoPucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

I think as an arm chair GM consequences that are manageable are nice. All the buyout does is increase the value of RFAs in my mind. I think if a league wants GMs to push for winning and not just collecting players then we need to stop reducing the value of veterans who have a place on a winning roster.

I voted remove. Not close for me.
BagoPucks is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 12:21 PM   #8
simmer2
Franchise Player
 
simmer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

To me it doesn't make sense why there is a buy-out penalty...but I could easily be missing something.

What was the rationale for the buy-out penalty in the first place?

I think there is a built-in penalty where if a player retires half way through the year, you now have to go and replace that person.
simmer2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 12:25 PM   #9
JonDuke
Franchise Player
 
JonDuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I like it as is and Tilley said it better than I could.
JonDuke is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to JonDuke For This Useful Post:
Old 01-12-2021, 12:48 PM   #10
Jiri Hrdina
Moderator
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo22 View Post
voted "remove" but it's a close one for me.

maybe some kind of age rule would make sense here? Because I have no problem with the buyout for old guys at all. But if you look at fairly recent retirees, I don't think a GM should be punished if a guy like Niskanen unexpectedly hangs em up at 33 for example. Guys like Steen, Crawford and so on are on the wrong side of 30 so I think that's a different story.
These rules need to be simple to monitor and execute. Having age cut offs, including because of our how our calendar works - isn't that.
Jiri Hrdina is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiri Hrdina For This Useful Post:
Old 01-12-2021, 12:49 PM   #11
Jiri Hrdina
Moderator
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer2 View Post
To me it doesn't make sense why there is a buy-out penalty...but I could easily be missing something.

What was the rationale for the buy-out penalty in the first place?

I think there is a built-in penalty where if a player retires half way through the year, you now have to go and replace that person.
The rationale was to create a consequence and risk element for signing UFAs to over priced deals.
Jiri Hrdina is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 02:20 PM   #12
Jiri Hrdina
Moderator
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

dead heat so far!
Jiri Hrdina is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 05:25 PM   #13
Jiri Hrdina
Moderator
 
Jiri Hrdina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Exp:
Default

Tied 11-11. Let's get everyone voting.
Jiri Hrdina is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 05:58 PM   #14
simmer2
Franchise Player
 
simmer2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Exp:
Default

I voted no. I don't think a GM should be punished for something they don't have control over and can be random. And the ages are getting younger for these types of signings.

I think losing a guy with ratings is enough of a punishment as it means you have to fill a hole in a lineup.
simmer2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 06:12 PM   #15
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
Exp:
Default

If the vote is this close it tells me it prob shouldn’t be a rule. But still a few votes to go I think.

But I voted to remove.
MJK is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 07:00 PM   #16
TurdFerguson
Franchise Player
 
TurdFerguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer2 View Post
I voted no. I don't think a GM should be punished for something they don't have control over and can be random. And the ages are getting younger for these types of signings.

I think losing a guy with ratings is enough of a punishment as it means you have to fill a hole in a lineup.
well, to be fair this only applies to players signed as a UFA and retire on the team that signs them. It is meant to add a consideration to someone offering a 3 year deal to Zdeno Chara, for example, just to win the player in UFA even though it is highly unlikely that player plays out the contract. Risk/Reward - that's why I like it. That GM can get out of that if he is able to move him in the league - which means their probably has to have some value left. Make a bad decision, get punished. I understand that this season there have been some unexpected retirees but don't let 1 bizarre season paint the entire picture.
__________________
All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity - Gordie Howe
TurdFerguson is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 07:04 PM   #17
MJK
Franchise Player
 
MJK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: N/A
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
well, to be fair this only applies to players signed as a UFA and retire on the team that signs them. It is meant to add a consideration to someone offering a 3 year deal to Zdeno Chara, for example, just to win the player in UFA even though it is highly unlikely that player plays out the contract. Risk/Reward - that's why I like it. That GM can get out of that if he is able to move him in the league - which means their probably has to have some value left. Make a bad decision, get punished. I understand that this season there have been some unexpected retirees but don't let 1 bizarre season paint the entire picture.
It's still so subjective and speculative. We are a sim hockey league and not in direct conversation with the player or his agent so we really have no idea what is going on outside a couple twitter posts.

It's time to take it away. Some players we suspect may retire and others come out of the blue.

The cost of losing that player is enough IMO.
MJK is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 07:13 PM   #18
TurdFerguson
Franchise Player
 
TurdFerguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Disagree, but I understand why many don't want the consequences. This part of the rules has never really been a subject of discussion duringy term here. I'd be curious how many times a season it actually gets actioned. 1?

I don't really care that much, I just don't see good reason to change it.
__________________
All hockey players are bilingual. They know English and profanity - Gordie Howe
TurdFerguson is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 07:16 PM   #19
SportsJunky
Uncle Chester
 
SportsJunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Exp:
Default

I'm a little surprised that the "remove" side is ahead in the poll. I like the punitive aspect of the buyout. Don't swing for the fences by signing an older player if you can't take on the risk.

I'm fine either way though.
__________________
Be better.
SportsJunky is offline  
Old 01-12-2021, 09:41 PM   #20
Quigz17
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Quigz17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Exp:
Default

Remove.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Quigz17 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 AM.

Calgary Flames
2019-20




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016