|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jun 2, 2009 2:29:47 GMT -5
So what the hell? Now my players are getting poached after I've clearly signed them as we always have? Why? Because I didn't sign them directly to my farm? What use would that have? It just causes more movement, unnecessary. Is this technicality really going to be enforced? You should be ashamed with the way you're conducting this league Derrick. Some technicalities slide by but something so obvious and something we've done for three straight years the same way is being thrown the book? Please. Do your own research guys, it's not too tough. I hope everyone can now finally see the double standard being exercised by Derrick. I don't even care about the players, keep them, but this is shady BS and you should in no way be proud.
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Jun 2, 2009 4:03:56 GMT -5
I looked at the team pages and I could use some clarification because I'm a little confused.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jun 2, 2009 12:02:04 GMT -5
Section 8, Article D of the rulebook states:
D) No free agent signing is allowed before June 1. After keepers are submitted on June 1, any prospect not from the current year’s draft class, and with 10 games or less NHL experience may be signed to a mangers respective farm team providing there is an open roster spot. Open prospect signing will resume once the current years Prospect Draft has concluded.
Nos' Farm Transactions per the San Jose Sharks roster page:
After keeper submissions, 19 players occupied the Worcester Sharks roster. The rule clearly states the players with 10 NHL games or less must be signed to the farm, providing there is a roster spot available. As you can see, Nos attempted to sign 7 different prospects without calling up or releasing any players thus making this a direct violation of Section 8, Article D.
As far as the "thats how we have always done claim" is concerned, this sub-rule in question was added two seasons ago and everyone but Nos seems to be aware of it as exhibited by recent farm transactions.
5 players signed, 5 players recalled. 3 players signed, 3 players recalled. 7 players signed, 0 players recalled. Do you see the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Jun 2, 2009 16:56:02 GMT -5
I understand that. I personally feel that the ability to sign any prospects before the prospect draft is something we can get rid of.
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jun 2, 2009 19:54:31 GMT -5
Lame. If you want to get really technical you can say that you signed those players to your own farm before you moved players to your big club from your farm and thus should also be void. Whatever, you need all the help you can get I guess. I just find it funny that some technicalities, larger ones, are overlooked and this isn't. I get it though. if you're a top team the rules are enforced to their fullest extent, if you're not a top team then some things can and will slide. This is also an unnecessary rule, written poorly, it just causes more movement and again I ask...what use is that? What use does this section of the 'rule' have? Enjoy my scouted players though.
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jun 2, 2009 19:55:29 GMT -5
I understand that. I personally feel that the ability to sign any prospects before the prospect draft is something we can get rid of. I agree, might as well scrap it, the essence of the FA Frenzy was killed anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jun 3, 2009 2:19:15 GMT -5
What is the significance of this rule? Why is it written this way? I'd like it explained to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Jun 3, 2009 9:42:31 GMT -5
As far as the "thats how we have always done claim" is concerned, this sub-rule in question was added two seasons ago and everyone but Nos seems to be aware of it as exhibited by recent farm transactions. I think this rule was never really enforced nor was every manager aware of its existence (until recently). For example, last season this situation occurred and there wasn't any problem or even any mention of it: Leafs sign Luca Caputi (LW, Pittsburgh), Andreas Nodl (RW, Philadelphia), Jakub Kindl (D, Detroit), Harrison Reed (RW, Carolina), Michal Blunden (RW, Chicago), and release Magnus Kahnberg (RW, St. Louis). and The San Jose Sharks sign Fabian Brunnstrom. The San Jose Sharks sign Patrick Maroon. The San Jose Sharks sign Luca Caputi. The San Jose Sharks sign Matt Beleskey. The San Jose Sharks sign Dustin Jeffrey. The San Jose Sharks sign Andreas Nodl. The San Jose Sharks sign Chris Terry. The San Jose Sharks sign Artem Anisimov. both teams signed players NOT directly to the farm. personally, i didn't even think of this rule when i recalled players & signed prospects this week (i just prefer having the more "experienced" prospects on my roster so i don't have to toy with my farm team later on). if you also noticed, later on June 2nd I signed a couple guys directly to my roster, not thinking much of this rule. Since we've been flexible with rules in the past about major things (e.g. managers forgetting to state a player is being sent to farm instead of being released and claimed by others), I'm kind of surprised about the lack of flexibility over something more minor like this technicality.
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Jun 3, 2009 9:44:45 GMT -5
I understand that. I personally feel that the ability to sign any prospects before the prospect draft is something we can get rid of. i never really cared for the rule, either. but since its allowed i guess i'll participate in it because i know others will.
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jun 4, 2009 4:13:43 GMT -5
As far as the "thats how we have always done claim" is concerned, this sub-rule in question was added two seasons ago and everyone but Nos seems to be aware of it as exhibited by recent farm transactions. I think this rule was never really enforced nor was every manager aware of its existence (until recently). For example, last season this situation occurred and there wasn't any problem or even any mention of it: and The San Jose Sharks sign Fabian Brunnstrom. The San Jose Sharks sign Patrick Maroon. The San Jose Sharks sign Luca Caputi. The San Jose Sharks sign Matt Beleskey. The San Jose Sharks sign Dustin Jeffrey. The San Jose Sharks sign Andreas Nodl. The San Jose Sharks sign Chris Terry. The San Jose Sharks sign Artem Anisimov. both teams signed players NOT directly to the farm. personally, i didn't even think of this rule when i recalled players & signed prospects this week (i just prefer having the more "experienced" prospects on my roster so i don't have to toy with my farm team later on). if you also noticed, later on June 2nd I signed a couple guys directly to my roster, not thinking much of this rule. Since we've been flexible with rules in the past about major things (e.g. managers forgetting to state a player is being sent to farm instead of being released and claimed by others), I'm kind of surprised about the lack of flexibility over something more minor like this technicality. Nicely put. It is indeed odd that this technicality would slip by when the previous two incidents were let go. If those weren't let go I'd be fine with the decision. What happened to intent? Why is the rule even in place like this? What purpose does it serve?
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jun 4, 2009 13:44:46 GMT -5
The rule of signing prospects with 10 games or less NHL experience is to allow activity for those managers who like to "scout" during the off-season while waiting for the upcoming drafts. It provides a nice balance since players from the current years draft can not be drafted.
The rule that players must be signed directly to the farm is the first part of a two-rule system that will (implemented in this year's rulebook) prohibit managers from hoarding players to and from their farm directly manipulating the "you must have an open spot" roster requirements. Once again, this is to provide a happy medium while still insuring league activity and well-being.
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jun 4, 2009 20:31:37 GMT -5
The rule of signing prospects with 10 games or less NHL experience is to allow activity for those managers who like to "scout" during the off-season while waiting for the upcoming drafts. It provides a nice balance since players from the current years draft can not be drafted. I understand that but that's not what I was asking. What I asked was what the purpose of having to sign these players to your farm team is? Why does that matter? Why can't players be signed to either just as it is all the rest of the year? The rule that players must be signed directly to the farm is the first part of a two-rule system that will (implemented in this year's rulebook) Cool, but this is a new rule and should in no way be implemented on this situation. prohibit managers from hoarding players to and from their farm directly manipulating the "you must have an open spot" roster requirements. Once again, this is to provide a happy medium while still insuring league activity and well-being. How is what I did considered 'hording players'? I had open roster spots, I signed players. I can't sign more players than anyone else. What we're arguing over is the technicality that I didn't sign players directly to my farm, which I've said before, I don't believe I should have to. Is this ruling final? I don't want to spend much more time on this but thought there might be a chance of an overturned decision once all the facts were present as well as the precedence that was set earlier in the year with two other instances of rule leniency. If this is the ruling, fine, not much more I can do anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Jun 5, 2009 2:38:17 GMT -5
The purpose of having to sign these players directly to your farm should be made clear with the addition of the new rule in the 2009 Rule Book. It is simply to provide a happy medium amongst all facets of the game and the offseason.
More often than not, managers will recall the maximum amount of prospects to their active roster from their farm. From there, they proceed to max out their farm roster again by signing the max amount of prospects, only to trade those players or drop them at a later date.
So for clarification, only prospects with nhl/ahl experience, or minor leaguers may be called up to a teams active roster before the conclusion of the current years prospect draft. The intent of any signing should be in good faith, not because managers want to maximize their gain, or take a "wait and see" approach hoping a prospect pans out before summer's end.
As far as you (Nos) being subject to the new rule, that is not in any way the case. While you may not agree with the rule (part 1) or even understand why it is in place, the fact still remains that it is/ was in place. That is the rule you were subjected to. I dont see how anyone can claim otherwise, it is pretty clear cut. All players must be signed to farm providing there is room, you did not have room, therefore you can not sign players.
With that said, I am not going to carry out the ruling against you. Your players will be returned assuming you make the necessary transactions. However, this is an issue of principle. Yes, we as a league have been fairly lenient en route to obtaining a perfect league and smoothing out all the rules, but you specifically have been rather anal in following every single rule to a T, pointing out every fault in the system without ever offering any real solution. Let this be a learning experience.
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Jun 5, 2009 2:58:55 GMT -5
I'm all for following the rules the way they're written but my argument pertains to other instances where rule leniency was obtained for other clubs. Had they been schooled also I'd have nothing to say. Having said that, thanks for over turning the ruling, I appreciate it. I also now understand the implemented 'hording' rule more clearly and it's a good one.
|
|