Off-season Rule Changes

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Geographically, shouldn't Arizona and Winnipeg switch divisions?

Get out of here, interloper.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Geographically, shouldn't Arizona and Winnipeg switch divisions?

Yeah, I'd think so. I actually did hint at that at the very end of the post. And it makes sense, AZ used to play in the Pacific.

[Cheese]

Maybe we should juat bring in Las Vegas and Seattle!

[Blaster86]

I'd definitely take Seattle.

[JonDuke]

Unless I'm missing something, Flambers is getting Winnipeg cause "it made more sense".

and I agree...if Winnipeg comes back, they should go Central

[CMPunk]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Maybe we should juat bring in Las Vegas and Seattle!

I'll take Vegas, but only if I get that sweet, sweet expansion draft!

[rumy]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Yeah, I'd think so. I actually did hint at that at the very end of the post. And it makes sense, AZ used to play in the Pacific.

Agreed. Az in the Pacific makes more sense than Winnipeg.

[Jiri Hrdina]

On the mobile lines thing, Jon can provide an update, but I don't know if we will be able to pull it off. It's not as simple as thought, as we rely on core functionality that sits outside the sim. The guidance we got from the sim creator we that we should copy over our entire site with the new version from the sim - but again we have a ton of stuff that sits outside the sim including data and functionality.
Jon or Cheese can provide a further update if they have found a different path but that's my current understanding.

[Jiri Hrdina]

On re-alignment, need to finalize what we are doing here. I was hoping this would be an easy change to not create more work than is necessary.

Here is the simplest approach

Team Changes
- Arizona becomes Philly
- Philly becomes Winnipeg
- Boston becomes Nashville
- NYI becomes Arizona

Basically just do name changes and not worry about the geographic alignment of the divisions. Are we good with that? Or do people really care about the geo nature of the divisions?

[SportsJunky]

I'm good with it.

[TheScorpion]

Works for me!

[BagoPucks]

Unpopular opinion but I wouldn't mind the relocation of teams into their divisions. I know it's a lot more work but would freshen things up for the teams not moving. I am good either way but just thought I say something

[Harry Lime]

It might not seem like a big thing right now, but not mirroring the league might seem a little weird down the road. As bags said, it would be a mini shakeup that might be interesting to the whole league.

[Jiri Hrdina]

OK but appreciate that it's more work including for Cam who doesn't even play in the league anymore.

[rumy]

Perhaps we just rename the teams this year, and then in the next offseason we re-align? Gives us more time to prepare and execute. Not sure what all goes into it (and if it can happen simultaneously as RFA/UFA/etc. "season"), but if after the champ has been declared we'd have 4+ months to make the move.

Either way, I am fine with what is decided, but would prefer that we re-align at some point.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

OK but appreciate that it's more work including for Cam who doesn't even play in the league anymore.

Sounds like Cam made a poor choice and gets what he gets.

[Macho0978]

What OV are we talking here for signing ECHL players? Just trying to plan for when I have to sign Bedard, assuming it will be next off season, but it would be nice to know what OV we will be forced to sign guys at

[Tilley]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

What OV are we talking here for signing ECHL players? Just trying to plan for when I have to sign Bedard, assuming it will be next off season, but it would be nice to know what OV we will be forced to sign guys at

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is not an OV that requires an ECHL player to be signed. Once signed, depending on the OV, the player would have to be on the CPHL roster.

For example, when McDavid was drafted, the GM waited 2 years until his ECHL contract ran out even though McDavid was rated after his first year.

My suggestion would be to not sign Bedard until you have to (2 years) so that you will have him on a 1.35 mil contract for 3 years. This seems to be the way that most GMs with prospects that make the NHL directly after being drafted navigate the scenario.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Tilley

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is not an OV that requires an ECHL player to be signed. Once signed, depending on the OV, the player would have to be on the CPHL roster.

For example, when McDavid was drafted, the GM waited 2 years until his ECHL contract ran out even though McDavid was rated after his first year.

My suggestion would be to not sign Bedard until you have to (2 years) so that you will have him on a 1.35 mil contract for 3 years. This seems to be the way that most GMs with prospects that make the NHL directly after being drafted navigate the scenario.

Correct.
Though if Bedard has a good rookie season and has a good rating, why not sign him right away? Yes he gets to a bigger deal faster, but you get another year of service out of him.
But the decision is up to the GM. There is no obligation to sign the player except when his ECHL contract has expired.

[Swayze11]

Imagine having a rookie good enough to sign early.