Retirement news

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

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.

So the 3 options appear to be (so far)

1. Keep as is (which no one seems to want0
2. GM vote for each player
3. Any announcement of retirement triggers the player being retired, and if returns, it goes to UFA bidding with the original GM having the right to match and retain

If we go with #3 do we keep the buyout or not? In my view the buyout is an example of a rarely applied but complex rule that does add enough value for it's complexity.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

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".

100% True so why don’t we just ‘CPHL Retire’ them all and give first right of refusal and avoid a vote. We are the CPHL after all and not the NHL.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

- If a player announces their retirement, the league GMs will vote on if they are retired in the CPHL or not. The Gm of that player cannot vote, and 51% or more is required to carry the vote
- Players that announce their retirement at the end of the NHL season, will be allowed to complete their CPHL season in all cases
- We will eliminate the buyout penalty

This works. This is an ongoing ‘grey’ area and an immediate issue I think it needs to happen immediately.

[SportsJunky]

I'm fine going with option #3 with no buyout.

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by MJK

100% True so why don’t we just ‘CPHL Retire’ them all and give first right of refusal and avoid a vote. We are the CPHL after all and not the NHL.

I agree with this. No buyout penalty as well.

Would prefer no vote...better to have it be less subjective.

[Cheese]

#3. Just retire them.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Doug I've explained in a very transparent way why the rule has become difficult to apply, and acknowledged we should probably evolve it, and that we've tried to be consistent in how we apply in what has been a fluid situation, particularly this off-season.
You can disagree and I'm open to thoughts from all GMs on how they think we should handle. Perhaps we should vote on that. I'm open to all that. Perhaps we should simply vote on each player when this comes up and let the league Gms collectively decide.

What I don't appreciate is when you suggest that we are selective with application of our rules as that implies that we not being fair in how we manage this league.

If that's not what you are saying then please clarify.
If it is - and that represents how you feel then at some point you should consider leaving the league.

I work VERY hard to be fair and transparent with this league. If you don't think that's the case, then why continue to play a game that you don't believe is being fairly managed.

Again you can clarify what you are saying but when you say will be "interesting to see if the rules are selective" that's what it implies to me. And I take issue with that.

Let's be Fair

how many times in all my years in this league have I implied such a thing.

So what? maybe two times in almost two decades,

Its safe to say that I've been pretty much the league's cornerstone to tow the company line. How many times have I really disagree (disagreeing doesn't make one right or wrong)

Yet I've been threatened to be removed and suggested to step down both times. How open is something when they only times I have ever spoken up and disagreed I've been asked to step down

Its not an attack on you, it really is unfortunate. I wish you could see the other side and see how pro-Grant I've always been

[Jiri Hrdina]

How is implying that rules are applied selectively anything less than an attack on me as the commissioner?
We can disagree. Always.
It’s that implication that I object to

[savardandjokinen]

Gm vote.. there’s variables with each and every “retirement” it seems

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by savardandjokinen

Gm vote.. there’s variables with each and every “retirement” it seems

Variables that still add up to 'retired'.

Sure, we may think there's cap circumvention or LTIR stuff, but really we don't know. So a vote is just a bunch of GMs guessing at something where we don't have the facts.

Retired should be retired until we are told different.

[agulati]

I'm down for option 2 as suggested by Jiri. But, 3 is good as an option too. Or allowing the player to go on LTIR (added cap space if a player retires/in the lurch)

[Jiri Hrdina]

I'll give it another day for other ideas to be surfaced then we will vote. There will be 3 votes.

1. What rule we use
2. Should we do away with the buyout penalties
3. When we should implement it (now, retroactively, off-season)

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

How is implying that rules are applied selectively anything less than an attack on me as the commissioner?
We can disagree. Always.
It’s that implication that I object to

Its not personal and not an attack on you, trying to follow the rules

Both times I have stated so, yet you ignore it and ignore everything else make it about that.

Dude I have a lot of respect for you, You're one of the fairest people I've met on CP in my 19years on this forum.

Let me ask you this,

Since taking over the draft from CHeese, every year after your 3-5 hours hammering it for the league (us). When you close that draft, how many GM can you name that hang around every single time, well after they are finished the draft, and are still there to personally say thank you at the end of the draft? Maybe you're too tired from all the work to have noticed (understandable)

If you don't see that as respect and appreciation, then I don't know what more one I can say

I told you back then That I have a high level of respect for you, I've said it here but yet you hang on that and ignore everything else.

I don't know what to say, if you think I would attack you personally then you're sadly mistaken and unfortunate

[SportsJunky]

Sounds personal to me Doug.

[Hanna Sniper]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Sounds personal to me Doug.

I don't get it either, thanks

[MJK]

I think if we get back to the issue, we all agree we need a solid rule that’s black and white and IMO putting a vote in there is still ‘grey’. If we just retire them all at the end of CPHL season and eliminate the buyout penalty we solve our problem. First right of refusal to protect on the other end.

I get why some GMs want to vote but I think it’s an unnecessary step and one that could create bad feelings considering everyone can see in a poll who votes for what.

[Jiri Hrdina]

So your suggestion is let them play the cphl season then retire them at seasons end? Just clarifying
Traditionally we’ve only done that for players who retire when their nhl season is done or say they will retire at the end of the season

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So your suggestion is let them play the cphl season then retire them at seasons end? Just clarifying
Traditionally we’ve only done that for players who retire when their nhl season is done or say they will retire at the end of the season

It’s a suggestion but not sure it’s the right one. But it’s one that may solve all our issue here.

[simmer2]

I think retirements should happen when they come out. But starting next year (or the option to the GM). COVID has caused a lot of premature retirements that I don't think anyone saw coming.

[TurdFerguson]

If someone retires mid-season I think we either make them retire right away with no cap penalty OR we wait until the off-season to retire them, but then that player has to be bought out. If they retire in the off-season then they need to be bought out and do not play the upcoming season.

Limit the pain to 1 thing...either you lose the player or the cap, depending on the timing, but not both.

I think this applies to all retired players including LTIR and whatever the next loophole is. Everyone knows when someone is done. If for whatever reason a case emerges where the player comes back, then maybe that team is credited back the cap and the player, should they desire him?