|
|
Post by Columbus on Apr 12, 2015 17:24:35 GMT -5
I want to hear some thoughts on an issue that i first noticed last offseason and would like to see discontinued.
Rule 1.11.1 NHL rosters
1.1a Your NHL roster is made up of 29 Spots and 4 IR spots. You may have less than 29 but no more than 29. IR does not count toward your roster so technically you could have 33 players under your control at once.
1.1b Rosters are made up as follows
4 Centers
4 Left wings
4 Right wings
6 Defense
2 Goalies
9 Bench
4 IR
Many teams last year left players on their IR throughout the break. This gives teams some advantages throughout the offseason that some teams may not otherwise have.
ESPN does not update the IR list during the offseason. This, according to the rules, technically allows a team to carry 33 players in the offseason instead of 29. The Injured Reserve is here to give teams the ability to keep a competitive roster DURING the season without losing key roster players.
I dont like this because it drains the free agency pool and gives teams more bargaining power in trades. It also gives teams salary cap relief in the long offseason.
Teams should have to make some tougher decisions on roster players when they are going through the resigning period. You may have only a few million in cap space. but hey my guy with a 6 million cap hit is IR eligible. Im gonna throw him on their and resign all my guys, then i can make some trades. You guys smellin what Im cooking
So Im proposing a change in the rules that when we officially start the offseason, the IR cannot be used and you can only have a NHL roster with 29 players
Thoughts???
|
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Apr 13, 2015 3:00:42 GMT -5
I am guilty of it but i am ok with making this change
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave - Sens GM on Apr 13, 2015 8:03:05 GMT -5
Makes sense to me. I am in favor of the change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom - Washington on Apr 13, 2015 8:32:41 GMT -5
I do it too but I don't have a strong opinion either way.
I will say I don't think it is right to call it an 'advantage.' As with all rules it is applied equally to everyone. Some years it may help some teams, some years others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom - Washington on Apr 13, 2015 8:34:25 GMT -5
I would like to add that if we make this change it should be a one-time roster reduction prior to opening free agency/auctions. I just think it is easier to worry about one time then the rest of the off season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm - Tampa Bay on Apr 13, 2015 8:38:14 GMT -5
I would like to add that if we make this change it should be a one-time roster reduction prior to opening free agency/auctions. I just think it is easier to worry about one time then the rest of the off season. I agree. All teams have equal access to all rules when they apply. I am open either way. I don't think it will make or break anyone. Sent from Samsung Galaxy S4 |
|
|
|
Post by Tom - Washington on May 6, 2015 7:39:45 GMT -5
Any further thoughts on this suggestion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Commish on May 6, 2015 12:49:19 GMT -5
I am gonna leave it alone for now i am more concerned about replacing people cause it seems the new guy ben is a no show as well
so we got st louis and nashville ownerless
|
|
|
|
Post by mustard (Montreal) on May 6, 2015 16:45:12 GMT -5
I am for Columbus' motion seeing as it is a clear advantage for teams who keep their players on IR well past the season. The reason why, Tom and Norm, it is unfair is because it gives an undue advantage to those who have players on IR just prior to the season ending. That should be obvious. We all have 4 IR slots but not all of us are able to put our players in them unless they're injured. If the max roster is 29, so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm - Tampa Bay on May 6, 2015 19:28:21 GMT -5
when did we lose nashville too.
waa
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave - Sens GM on May 7, 2015 9:05:59 GMT -5
Free agency is scheduled to open on May 18th. I propose that we delay the opening until owners have been found for the two available teams. Opening the free agent pool without owners for these teams would be unfair to any new owner, especially because these teams are already near the bottom of the standings. We will have to allow a reasonable amount of time for new owners to be found, but if we don't have anyone identified by end of May or early- to mid-June(?) then we will have to look at other options for these teams. I have heard contraction mentioned, but I think that should be the absolute last resort.
As for the IR debate - simply stating a date that the IR has to be cleared would be the easiest fix; perhaps the day prior to free agency opening. That way free agents can't be signed into a roster spot that is only open because an IR spot is being used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm - Tampa Bay on May 7, 2015 9:51:58 GMT -5
I suggest we say bye bye to these teams. And sick with the committed teams we have and move on. Tired of new owners coming new owners leaving.
Contraction is the way to go.
Sent from Samsung Galaxy S4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 19:04:45 GMT -5
My opinion has changed a bit. We have a really good group of owners here and that is not a easy thing to do. The same teams keep having owner issues so i am jumping on the side of contraction at this point. Would solve the revolving door of owners with those teams and bruins wont have to waste anymore time searching for owners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom - Washington on May 7, 2015 19:49:54 GMT -5
I do like the idea of a larger league but absentee owners is worse the no team at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm - Tampa Bay on May 8, 2015 13:35:31 GMT -5
Just so no one complains about having unfairness, I have removed my players from the IR.
So I dont have an advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustard (Montreal) on May 8, 2015 20:11:39 GMT -5
ben, NAshville owner, is going to set his lines and fix everything tomorrow. I told him to. If he doesn't, then we can move forward with everything. He's a friend who wanted in, but I don't know if he knows the whole shebang yet.
contraction would mean a larger free agent pool and honestly less fun in investing in potential. All our tems would be stacked to the extent that we would rarely look for an edge anywhere. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by mustard (Montreal) on May 17, 2015 18:24:28 GMT -5
Will this change take effect or not?
It is unfair to be holding up to 4 extra players you can essentially use as trade bait instead of having those players end up in the free agent pool. That's how people never get to improve their teams. We all know the vast majority of Ir players will be playing next season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm - Tampa Bay on May 18, 2015 7:07:36 GMT -5
Not this season anyway.
Mike already said in this post the answer.
Go see if you can find it. ..I'll wait.
Sent from Samsung Galaxy S4
|
|
|
|
Post by mustard (Montreal) on May 18, 2015 7:20:29 GMT -5
What are you talking about Norm?
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm - Tampa Bay on May 18, 2015 8:07:30 GMT -5
What am I talking about. Do you read these posts?
May 6th go read
|
|
