Playoff Rosters

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

I've moved this discussion to the forum in hopes of jump-starting the rule discussions for next year and because this particular issue needs to be resolved with dispatch. I, for one, am im favor of locking the playoff rosters completely. This of course means no trades but also includes the addition of new players to one's team via free agency, waivers, or farm teams. This does not however prevent moving someone from injured reserve to the active roster.

With that said, I understand others' viewpoints on farm call ups. What's the point in having people on the farm if the manager can't use them? Aren't farm players already a part of the team? What if someone gets injured? All of these are valid points and I would be ameanable to allowing moves from the farm to the active roster in certain cases. But who decides what cases are acceptable? Do all injuries count or just the ones that definitely eliminates a player from competition. For example, what if a player is simply DTD? What if he might play and might not? Does this "injury" carry the same weight as a broken leg? Will there have to be evidence presented for the player's status before the move can be made? This inevitably would take too long and the usefullness of the acquisition will have been lost.

What about simply allowing the movement of players to and from the farm regardless of injury? This is simply another form of player streaming. It is the manager's responsibility to construct the team that he/she thinks is best capable of competing. If that tem underproduces or gets injured, oh well.

We will most definitely review these matters in further detail in the off-season, but for now look at what boston has done in the first four days of playoff action. He has made six moves in under a week. One of these moves was from the farm (Getzlaf). If he wanted him on the playoff roster, he should have done so prior to them beginning.

What then of protecting players? There is a trade-off when a manager wants to protect a prospect for free next season. For example, say that ovechkin was a prospect still or that he wouldnt lose his eligibility until the end of the playoffs was closer. If Derrick wanted to protect him for free next year, he would have to send him down before the playoffs started. This obviously means he would lose his services for the playoff run. This scenario would not come into play if moves to and from the farm were freely allowed. Boston can call up Getzlaf to help him secure better draft position for however long he wants and then tuck him away again on the farm.

Playoff teams should be your real team. Those are the players you're rolling with. Please respond and encourage others to do so as well.

[Nos - Sharks]

I'm not a fan of streaming players purposely in any capacity, whether it's in the playoffs or during the regular season. However, I think our league should emulate the real NHL as much as possible, what you can do in the regular season should be allowed in the playoffs. I also don't see this being a huge problem because where is Mark? Losing his match 8-1. I'll always look down on cheap grabs used to gain more points but in the end it's under the discretion of each individual manager to conduct their team any way they see fit.

I wouldn't be against some sort of limit (Andrew suggested 5 moves during the playoffs). You also have to take into consideration how you feel during the year when teams are grabbing players during the last couple days of their week trying to get more points, or to try and win the week, why is this ok? Does it not compromise the matches and league in the same way it would during the playoffs? If you feel it shouldn't be allowed during the season why is this only being brought up now?

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

nossharks said:

I'm not a fan of streaming players purposely in any capacity, whether it's in the playoffs or during the regular season. However, I think our league should emulate the real NHL as much as possible, what you can do in the regular season should be allowed in the playoffs. I also don't see this being a huge problem because where is Mark? Losing his match 8-1. I'll always look down on cheap grabs used to gain more points but in the end it's under the discretion of each individual manager to conduct their team any way they see fit.

I wouldn't be against some sort of limit (Andrew suggested 5 moves during the playoffs). You also have to take into consideration how you feel during the year when teams are grabbing players during the last couple days of their week trying to get more points, or to try and win the week, why is this ok? Does it not compromise the matches and league in the same way it would during the playoffs? If you feel it shouldn't be allowed during the season why is this only being brought up now?

I agree that our league should emulate the real NHL as much as possible but at the end of the day, the NHL isn't a fantasy league. Their "matchups" aren't decided on points in various categories that accumulate. They don't have a "free agent" pool like we do. Their games are actually played. Although the league should emulate the NHL as much as possible, we are going to have different rules in place in some areas because the natures of the two things are different.

I know where Mark is. Yes he is losing. No, he is not in the "main" playoffs and his actions cnnot affect the championship. But his actions can be made by any team at the moment. Whats to stop another tem from doing that during the championship week(s)? How would you feel if the team you were playing did that and won by 2 or 3 shots on goal? or two penalty minutes? That's what I'm saying.

Lastly, this isn't something I just now cme up with. I brought this up earlier before the season began to impose a move restriction during the regular season, but it was decided that a limit like that wouldn't be fair in a keeper where movement from and to the farm was common place. I agree with that. However, the playoffs are different. I didn't mention the playoffs earlier because i was under the mistaken impression that the playoff rosters would be locked. I have since reviewed the rules thoroughly and discovered that this is not the case. As I said in my previous post, there isn't a whole lot we can do about this year. The rules don't say anything about locking rosters or streaming players during the playoffs. This thread was made to enlicit responses concerning the rule for next year, a head-start if you will.

A move limit in the playoffs might seem reasonble, but it is still open to manipulation. What if a manager has all five of his avaliable moves at the end of the playoffs and uses them in a stremaing manner? These are all just things to consider. Thanks for responding so quickly although i shouln't have expected less from you. I hope more people weigh in over the next few days.

[Nos - Sharks]

All good points, but what can we do about it? There are so many scenarios that could occur that any rule, or lack there of, can be disputed. I don't feel a locked roster would be "fair" because of the nature of this league, it's a keeper, perhaps moves to and from the farm could be legal with the FA pool off limits during the playoffs. I see it like this, even if other managers stream players to win, will it be enough to win? If so, is it really worth winning that way? I can see the rest of the league casting out managers that played/cheated like that. Anyway, before we can discuss further I think we'll need the participation of some of the other members of the league, to see how they feel. I'll add more later if need be.

[Mark - Bruins]

turcopolis said:

We will most definitely review these matters in further detail in the off-season, but for now look at what boston has done in the first four days of playoff action. He has made six moves in under a week. One of these moves was from the farm (Getzlaf). If he wanted him on the playoff roster, he should have done so prior to them beginning.

I think Nos made some very good parallels about the regular season matchups during the end of the week and the playoffs. I think a limit of the number of moves would be a good idea during the playoffs. Also, Phil's points about saving transactions until the end of the playoffs could be solved by adding a clause:
- 5 transaction limit throughout the playoffs
- you are limited to 1 add/drop per round UNLESS an active player is placed on the IR list (DTD doesn't count since there is a chance they could play), in which case you can go over the limit of 1 for each player recently placed on IR

This gives you 1 add/drop per round and an extra one in case of injury. Thoughts? Suggestions?

Also, I made like 3 or 4 moves before the playoffs started. BEFORE any games were played. I don't understand why thats such a big deal. Its not like I'm purposely adding/dropping players everyday or abusing the current "good faith" policy of the free agent pool. Also, I made a farm transaction yesterday, when I thought everybody said we can do farm transactions.

Its not like I'm adding/dropping everyday just to get a playoff win. I made all but 1 of my transactions before the series with Winnipeg started. To prevent any further complications, I think we could add the rule I suggested above.

[Chris - Capitals]

I think the FA pool should be locked we have the farm system for just this reason of guys getting hurt and guys moving up and down. it really kinda hurts the guys that have strong young teams to lock the farm team moves. But I do understand why you wouldnt want someone to move people back and forth daily for the playoffs because it does kinda take away from the realism.....not sure where to go with this one just wanted to let everyone know i am here for the league and am on board for the offseason....this is somthing that really is going to need to be resolved during the offseason!!! Nice observation to bring it up Phil!

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

nossharks said:

All good points, but what can we do about it? There are so many scenarios that could occur that any rule, or lack there of, can be disputed. I don't feel a locked roster would be "fair" because of the nature of this league, it's a keeper, perhaps moves to and from the farm could be legal with the FA pool off limits during the playoffs. I see it like this, even if other managers stream players to win, will it be enough to win? If so, is it really worth winning that way? I can see the rest of the league casting out managers that played/cheated like that. Anyway, before we can discuss further I think we'll need the participation of some of the other members of the league, to see how they feel. I'll add more later if need be.

I understand what you're saying about the number of possible scenarios. I have considered that problem as well. With that said, in the regular season someone might "stream" players to "win" a week. But weekly wins don't matter in the regualr season. Category wins and losses are tallied and comprise your record. Given the sample size that the regular season consists of, it is highly unlikely that one category loss or tie instead of a win will determine a teams seeding or whether they make the playoffs. I say highly unlikely in comaprison to the playoff system. In the playoffs, it very much matters. The sample size is much much smaller than the regular season. One point can cost you a weekly win and in the playoffs, there isn't a chance to make that up. Also, there is no way to retroactively go back and change the outcome of the matchu if it is later concluded that "streaming" took place.

Along those same lines, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make a rule regrding streaming. That is one of the most subjective aspects of fantasy sports. Granted, some cases are more obvious than others, but it isn't alway cut and dry whether it took place or not, and without a rule regarding streaming, managers cannot be repremanded for it.

These are both reasons why I feel playoff rosters should be completely locked. I feel that since the sample size is so small and so many things are riding on every category in every matchup that this is the only fair action. Im not talking about fair in its usually perceived context. Of course it is not fair if one or two of your best players gets injured and costs you the title or a matchup. It isn't fair if the other guys team performs well above what should be expected. Im talking about fair as it relates to all teams. All teams have the same chance of incurring injuries or facing an overachieving opponent. It is not fair, however, for a team to win simply because they had more players playing games through acquisitons, farm or otherwise.

Every team has a farm and everyone has a right to call up players to be included on their playoff rosters, but after the playoffs start, that is your team. That's my take on the situation anyway.

[Nos - Sharks]

Didn't Harrison miss the playoffs by a couple of points? Regular season streaming affects the league in the same way it does in the playoffs. There's more at stake during the playoffs, sure, but somebody could miss the playoffs due to it, no?

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

Yes, Harrison missed the playoffs by nine points. That's 5 wins or 4 wins and a tie needed that he didn't get. To me, that's a lot to contribute to "streaming." I will concede, however, that streaming can affect the final regular season standings but not like it can in the playoffs. A single loss of week costs you the season in the playoffs. It it very unlikely and inprobable that streaming can cost you 9 points in a given week. That is the margin by which Harrison missed the playoffs. I t can, however affect a single category, and that is all it takes in the playoffs. The categories most likely to be affected by such an action are SOG and PIMS as those are the categories one is most likely to find help in our free agent pool.

With that said, a certain amount of streaming is acceptable in the regular season given that this is a keeper league and movement to and from the farm is required. A rule regulating this would be very difficult to draft and implement. Furthermore, during the regular season, one's farm is part of the team. Calling up players that can help you win a given week is, in my opinion, acceptable. This is not the case in the playoffs. This is just my opinion on the matter. Many arguments can be made to the contrary that are perfectly logical, I just don't agree with them. That is why I started this thread, to spawn discussion and ascertain the general feeling on the issue. So far, four people including myself have weighed in. I find that puzzling. I would think that with the playoffs having started, league activity would have increased, on the yahoo page as well as the forum. Maybe my expectations were too high. It has taken me two minutes to write this. I don't think two minutes from every league member is too much to ask.

[gopenguins]

I agree with the topic and issue raised, and do feel perhaps some move limit might be pretty effective. Certainly, it would make GMs and coaches think long and hard about whether they should burn a roster move on calling up someone to replace someone who has gone cold in the playoffs, or is carrying a DTD injury.

Not in this league, but in another league I played in, I lost the championship game pretty much solely on the fact that my opponent snagged Nashville backup goalie Chris Mason, who just started to play after Vokoun's major injury. Mason proceeded to produce unreal numbers and pretty much single handedly won all the goalie categories. Mason was a late FA pickup (as at the time Vokoun was a horse, playing 90-95% of the games if not more).

I didnt complain as I actually was probably going to make the same move but he beat me to the punch. I've no problem with it as it was fair and legal in our rules. However, its an example of how stop gap FA players can impact a game. The championship round lasted 2 weeks last year (it might be the same every year) and I seem to recall some frantic, daily roster moves, cutting people whose real life NHL team did not play, and signing perhaps inferior players whose NHL team might be playing 2 or 3 more times.

My post might be rambling, but basically, I am fine with farm movement, and injury signings, but I'd be fine with imposing a move cap regarding picking up 'rentals', or freezing the FA pool altogether. As long as everyone knows about it beforehand, it should not be a problem.

[Derrick - Senators]

Speaking from experience, a team can be ravished by injuries and right at playoff time. In no way shape or form can there be a "max" anything. I understand the need to stop streaming and renting players, but injuries are way too unpredictable and in no way can be estimated. Believe me, i can barely field a respectable (healthy) team each night Streaming players can be solved by just locking the FA pool. That is fine. However, locking or limiting all moves is too extreme. Whats the point of having a solid farm team if you cant exploit it (when necessary.) All your hard work from months past is good for what?

i believe locking the FA pool and only being able to make farm transactions simulates the NHL to the best of our ability while limiting the streaming of players AND rewarding those who have the best all around team.

[Nos - Sharks]

admin said:

i believe locking the FA pool and only being able to make farm transactions simulates the NHL to the best of our ability while limiting the streaming of players AND rewarding those who have the best all around team.

I agree with this and it seems fair enough.

[Andrew]

admin said:

i believe locking the FA pool and only being able to make farm transactions simulates the NHL to the best of our ability while limiting the streaming of players AND rewarding those who have the best all around team.

I posted pretty much the same thing yesterday... must not have hit reply I guess. The only other suggestion I had was allowing a couple of overagers on the farm team since the restrictions on prospects mean most of our farm isn't NHL ready. Allowing 2-3 overagers (who'd have to clear waivers of course) would give us some options to use in case of injury.

[Derrick - Senators]

This should go into effect when? immediately? next round? next year? whats the general feeling here. Thats just as important as laying the initial groundwork.