|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Feb 16, 2013 16:27:46 GMT -5
See the thread located here (beginning with Post #169) for each argument and subsequent debate. Please DO NOT VOTE until you understand each side of the debate and ALL possible ramifications of said vote. Ie, rule changes. precedence, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 16, 2013 16:34:08 GMT -5
I voted for Carolina in this case because the way he has read the rule is the exact same way that I have and I believe many others have. Moves had been made by numerous teams to ensure that a player wasn't sitting on the development team with more than 10 games played. It sure sucks to lose a player that way but IMO that is exactly how the rule reads
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 16, 2013 16:38:20 GMT -5
Of note, the illegal signing of Mark Scheifele by Hurricanes GM Markus should also be included for reversal in this poll.
Since there is no active GM for Minnesota to raise voice, there is nobody to make previous remarks in regards to their defense. Its also worthy to mention, since there was no active GM, there was nobody to maintain the farm team during the period of time that Markus attempted to steal said player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Feb 16, 2013 16:43:38 GMT -5
Of note, the illegal signing of Mark Scheifele by Hurricanes GM Markus should also be included for reversal in this poll. Since there is no active GM for Minnesota to raise voice, there is nobody to make previous remarks in regards to their defense. Its also worthy to mention, since there was no active GM, there was nobody to maintain the farm team during the period of time that Markus attempted to steal said player. All players (including Drew Shore) would be returned to their "previous" owners. In addition, a very-detailed rule/rules would be added to the rulebook to prevent future discrepancies should the league decide in favor of the rule change. |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 16, 2013 16:52:13 GMT -5
I voted for Carolina in this case because the way he has read the rule is the exact same way that I have and I believe many others have. Moves had been made by numerous teams to ensure that a player wasn't sitting on the development team with more than 10 games played. It sure sucks to lose a player that way but IMO that is exactly how the rule reads Glad to see there's at least someone who understands that rules are there to be followed and there should be consequences for not following them. I also understand that the Boston GM will try his best to cover for his mistakes, but there's a quite a bit bigger picture here than that. Almost all other GM's in the league made sure their development teams were being used according to the rules and there were just a few people who neglected to manage their teams. I don't think those people should be given a get out jail free card when they're only in trouble because of their own mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Tyler - Jets on Feb 16, 2013 17:49:53 GMT -5
Relax in the chirps lol I vote Carolina but Schiefle does go back no GM to maintain Minnesota shouldn't hurt new GM in future
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 16, 2013 23:40:18 GMT -5
Should Carolina be allowed to keep Alex Galchenyuk? Absolutely not. He is Boston Bruins property. Think about the intended purpose of our Junior Farm Teams. They're there for projects, for newly drafted prospects to have a first home, and ultimately for more roster space giving a deeper fantasy experience. Alex Galchenyuk was the second overall pick this past Entry Draft. Meaning Boston had to finish 2nd last, a year of bottom feeding, to acquire this pick and less than one month into the season and he's allowed to be sniped? Poached? Come on people, this is too simple to have come to this. You also run into a problem with idle GM's like what happened with Alex and Scheifele.
The Junior Farm Teams are a new addition to the league and as such will have minor problems along the way that will need to be amended. This doesn't necessarily mean the rules are clearly stated nor does it mean this is how the rules should be interpreted. It means somebody found a loophole that needs correcting for the betterment and overall integrity of the NAFHL. Nothing more. I'm surprised Markus would want to acquire talent in this way but I can also sympathize.
Perhaps we should implement a system where the manager can still be punished if an illegal roster presents itself. For instance, since Markus found a violation and signed the player, Mark can then choose to either give up that player to Markus or make the roster change and lose a 3rd Round Entry Pick for the violation. That way Markus gets a little something for keeping up with farm teams (the possibility of signing the player he wants or depriving a team of a pick and ensuring better draft placement for himself) and Mark gets reprimanded for a roster violation. If no 3rd Round Entry Pick is available in the upcoming year it would defer to the second year, then third year, but if no 3rd Round Entry Picks are available for the following three years it defers to a 2nd Round Entry Pick for the upcoming draft and so on keeping it focused on a three year window.
I'm sorry, it's just not right, ethically and technically (amend it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 3:35:17 GMT -5
The Junior Farm Teams are a new addition to the league and as such will have minor problems along the way that will need to be amended. This doesn't necessarily mean the rules are clearly stated nor does it mean this is how the rules should be interpreted. It means somebody found a loophole that needs correcting for the betterment and overall integrity of the NAFHL. Nothing more. I'm surprised Markus would want to acquire talent in this way but I can also sympathize. Yes. Mark found a loophole thinking he can hold on to players in his development team until 150 NHL-games because he can't be arsed to manage his teams and there should be no consequnces for mismanagement. "Tomas Hertl (25th overall) will be entered into the 2012 Waiver Draft. No roster spot is/was available now/at the time of his drafting. Should he go undrafted, he will then be eligible to be freely signed upon the completion of the waiver draft." Brad lost Hertl a few days after the draft because he didn't have room to roster him. At that time Brad was the rookie in the league and had not been around for long. No hands were held that day and I fail to see how this is any different, especially when the GM in question has been in the league for as long as he has and certainly has no excuse for roster violations for 2nd time in a row.Last time the same shit happened Derrick said there will be no more warnings on the subject and players will be lost if it happens again: "No more warnings will be issued beyond this first one. Those teams found in subsequent violation will forfeit player/players to free agency and/or the upcoming waiver/entry draft." -Derrick. That's a direct quote from last year. The rules have been broken for the 2nd year in a row now. I understand the rule was new last year and it was completely right that people had time to adapt to it, but it has been 1.5 years since. The rule wasn't put in place yesterday, was it? This time almost all GM's save for a few put in the effort to manage their teams and actually use development teams like they're meant to be used: rostering prospects who're not NHL-ready. In fact, most GM's only keep players with 0 nhl games played in their development teams and promote the players as soon as they get a few. That's called, you know, management. If it was meant that you can roster 10 extra players to 150 NHL-games then we'd have 10 extra places in the normal farm. Also it's not like Mark didn't have time to get Galchenyuk out of his development team. Galchenyuk played his 10th NHL game thursday 7th of February vs Toronto. I placed my claim to Galchenyuk 14th of February giving Mark a full week to sort his mess. So there's your grace period. Brad was given nada, maybe two days at best if you consider the time it took for Derrick to update rosters. You cannot have illegal rosters for over a week and you can't judge two GM's who are both responsible for illegal rostering with different standards. Case can perhaps be made for Minnesota as it seems the team had no one to take care of it, but in Boston's case I don't see any reason for excuses. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Feb 17, 2013 9:59:10 GMT -5
Markus, you posted your argument in the other thread. Let the GMs vote in this one. We don't need another 3 pages of you complaining every time someone has a different opinion on this than you.Plus, thanks for being so generous as to waiting a whole week before being underhanded. That's a lot of class right there.
You keep on arguing the wrong thing. I'm not claiming you can keep a player on the development team for 150 games. I'm saying the rules don't say you can poach my players from that team.
Also, thanks for showing your inexperience as a GM in the league with the Hertl incident. Brad wasn't a "rookie" manager. He was brought back into the league a second time after issues of inactivity caused the Commish to remove him. The Commish was displaying "tough love" in that case to make sure Bad would stay active. To his credit, Brad has been doing a great job being an active GM. Maybe if you, Markus, were one of the inaugural GMs of this league, like me, you'd actually know what being an inactive GM means. I've seen a few GMs being punished or kicked out for being inactive & trust me, not making a move after 1 week falls short of what has been called inactive in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 11:53:12 GMT -5
Markus, you posted your argument in the other thread. Let the GMs vote in this one. We don't need another 3 pages of you complaining every time someone has a different opinion on this than you.Plus, thanks for being so generous as to waiting a whole week before being underhanded. That's a lot of class right there. You keep on arguing the wrong thing. I'm not claiming you can keep a player on the development team for 150 games. I'm saying the rules don't say you can poach my players from that team. Yes. Im sure you don't want to hear arguments against your flawed logic where you somehow hold on to rights of players who are illegally rostered in your development team and that they cannot be signed by anyone. No matter how many games they have played. Makes perfect sense. The fact that you even try to argue something so illogical is hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 15:13:38 GMT -5
Yes. Mark found a loophole thinking he can hold on to players in his development team until 150 NHL-games because he can't be arsed to manage his teams and there should be no consequnces for mismanagement. Is that what I said? I even presented a system where GM's would be held accountable, there would be, and should be, 'consequences' for violations. 150 games played? That's a bit much, it's only been 13 games and it's not as if anybody is saying it's 'okay' to go over, all I'm saying is that you don't, and shouldn't, automatically own the rights to Galchenyuk because of a simple prospect roster violation. Talent like that should never be exchanged in that way, it would make the NAFHL a circus. Brad lost Hertl a few days after the draft because he didn't have room to roster him. At that time Brad was the rookie in the league and had not been around for long. No hands were held that day and I fail to see how this is any different, especially when the GM in question has been in the league for as long as he has and certainly has no excuse for roster violations for 2nd time in a row.Last time the same shit happened Derrick said there will be no more warnings on the subject and players will be lost if it happens again: The Hertl situation was completely different. Brad didn't have any room to roster Hertl. He didn't even enter Brad's Farm System. Galchenyuk was drafted and sat on the Junior Team legally, Mark also had free roster space on his AHL affiliate. I was openly against stripping Brad of Hertl and even refrained from picking him in the Waiver Draft out of respect. I waited several weeks after the completion of the Waiver Draft to pick up Hertl, at that point I just figured nobody wanted him and I had some extra room so I signed him. The rules have been broken for the 2nd year in a row now. I understand the rule was new last year and it was completely right that people had time to adapt to it, but it has been 1.5 years since. The rule wasn't put in place yesterday, was it? This time almost all GM's save for a few put in the effort to manage their teams and actually use development teams like they're meant to be used: rostering prospects who're not NHL-ready. In fact, most GM's only keep players with 0 nhl games played in their development teams and promote the players as soon as they get a few. That's called, you know, management. If it was meant that you can roster 10 extra players to 150 NHL-games then we'd have 10 extra places in the normal farm. This is why I strongly urge the league to vote in an 'accountability clause' similar to the one I detailed. I think it's a happy medium in this situation. Also it's not like Mark didn't have time to get Galchenyuk out of his development team. Galchenyuk played his 10th NHL game thursday 7th of February vs Toronto. I placed my claim to Galchenyuk 14th of February giving Mark a full week to sort his mess. So there's your grace period. Did you send Mark a courtesy message detailing your intent to sign Galchenyuk? Was Mark aware? It doesn't matter how much time had gone by, Mark's intent is surely to keep his 2nd Overall Entry Selection and the reason for a roster violation can be put down to simple oversight. Brad was given nada, maybe two days at best if you consider the time it took for Derrick to update rosters. You cannot have illegal rosters for over a week and you can't judge two GM's who are both responsible for illegal rostering with different standards. You can judge them by different standards if each individual case is different, which these are. Brad was also given a second chance within the league and was perhaps being held to a 'probationary period' standard by the Commish. Case can perhaps be made for Minnesota as it seems the team had no one to take care of it, but in Boston's case I don't see any reason for excuses. I'm glad you've ceased claim to ownership of Scheifele and I absolutely agree that managers should be held accountable but losing a player like Galchenyuk in this fashion is way too harsh a punishment. I strongly urge the league to consider the clause I detailed, or one similar, it's fair for both parties. EDIT: Both of you need to take a breath, there's no need for such aggression, have some understanding for each other, you're both right and both wrong. Clearer heads will prevail. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Markus - Hurricanes on Feb 17, 2013 15:21:53 GMT -5
You can judge them by different standards if each individual case is different, which these are. Brad was also given a second chance within the league and was perhaps being held to a 'probationary period' standard by the Commish. . The cases are much more similar than what you're willing to admit Nos. In both cases there's a clear numerical boundary set in the rules to control the issue. In Brad's case it was the maximum number of players allowed in the roster. In Mark's case it was the maximum number of games played for a player to be eligible. The reality is that in both cases the rules of rostering players were broken and the effect of that should be exactly the same. Especially when Derrick said the very first time this happened what would happen the next time. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 17, 2013 15:32:51 GMT -5
Every time we have one of these situations a precedent is set in which it's just whoops my bad. I'm so tired of that, I keep an eye on all my prospects and look up what the rules state it states that after 10 games they are no longer eligible for that team at which point a move must be made within 2 days the moves were not made and at which point Marcus signed Gally case closed IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 17, 2013 15:37:56 GMT -5
As a matter of fact it was just recently done without knowledge to many that I lost a player in this same way however it was with our minor league team not the developmental team but it was of my understanding that the rules were the same for both teams.
Franson went over 200 games played and Derrick saw it and signed him off my farm team. How is this at all any different then that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 15:38:46 GMT -5
Every time we have one of these situations a precedent is set in which it's just whoops my bad. I'm so tired of that, I keep an eye on all my prospects and look up what the rules state it states that after 10 games they are no longer eligible for that team at which point a move must be made within 2 days the moves were not made and at which point Marcus signed Gally case closed IMO Case closed is it? You're happy to follow the rules set blindly without any deeper thinking involved? There's a reason rules are amended periodically. Slavery was once legal. Women voting was illegal. 'Rules' are changed, for good reason, in this instance it's way too harsh. To me it's unacceptable to believe this should take place, absolutely unacceptable. It's not 'oh well' either if a detailed 'accountability clause' is put in place. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 15:41:39 GMT -5
As a matter of fact it was just recently done without knowledge to many that I lost a player in this same way however it was with our minor league team not the developmental team but it was of my understanding that the rules were the same for both teams. Franson went over 200 games played and Derrick saw it and signed him off my farm team. How is this at all any different then that? It's different because Franson has played over 200 games. Galchenyuk has played 13. You don't see the difference? Galchenyuk was just drafted this summer and hasn't even played a full month of hockey yet. Franson has been in the league for years. You should have known better by that point if you wanted to keep him or not. This is a question of movement from farm systems. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 17, 2013 15:46:59 GMT -5
As a matter of fact it was just recently done without knowledge to many that I lost a player in this same way however it was with our minor league team not the developmental team but it was of my understanding that the rules were the same for both teams. Franson went over 200 games played and Derrick saw it and signed him off my farm team. How is this at all any different then that? It's different because Franson has played over 200 games. Galchenyuk has played 13. You don't see the difference? Galchenyuk was just drafted this summer and hasn't even played a full month of hockey yet. Franson has been in the league for years. You should have known better by that point if you wanted to keep him or not. This is a question of movement from farm systems. It doesn't matter the league operates by stating that the player in question is not eligible for that team at x amount of games once he hits that amount of games he's eligible to be signed as a FA which is exactly what happened here regardless of if its a player with 10 games or 200 games he's no longer eligible for that team and is a FA. And to point out that with the same manager it happened with another player last year at which point a ruling was giving basically stating no more claiming ignorance and hand holding by the league the fact that this has gone to a vote IMO is a joke. Because IMO if Mark gets Gally back then I should be able to say whoops I didn't realize Franson was over 200 games played I'll call him up to my team now. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 15:58:43 GMT -5
It doesn't matter the league operates by stating that the player in question is not eligible for that team at x amount of games once he hits that amount of games he's eligible to be signed as a FA which is exactly what happened here regardless of if its a player with 10 games or 200 games he's no longer eligible for that team and is a FA. What I'm saying is that he shouldn't be a FA, whether the rules say so right now or not. He is a prospect, not a well affirmed part of the NHL at this point. And to point out that with the same manager it happened with another player last year at which point a ruling was giving basically stating no more claiming ignorance and hand holding by the league the fact that this has gone to a vote IMO is a joke. Because IMO if Mark gets Gally back then I should be able to say whoops I didn't realize Franson was over 200 games played I'll call him up to my team now. No, you shouldn't be allowed to say something so nonsensical. Franson has played over 200 games and like I said, by that point you should have known whether you wanted to keep him or not. He's well asserted within the NHL. Galchenyuk's case is with farm team movement, not 'eligibility', I feel like a broken record here. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Feb 17, 2013 16:08:45 GMT -5
It doesn't matter the league operates by stating that the player in question is not eligible for that team at x amount of games once he hits that amount of games he's eligible to be signed as a FA which is exactly what happened here regardless of if its a player with 10 games or 200 games he's no longer eligible for that team and is a FA. What I'm saying is that he shouldn't be a FA, whether the rules say so right now or not. He is a prospect, not a well affirmed part of the NHL at this point. And to point out that with the same manager it happened with another player last year at which point a ruling was giving basically stating no more claiming ignorance and hand holding by the league the fact that this has gone to a vote IMO is a joke. Because IMO if Mark gets Gally back then I should be able to say whoops I didn't realize Franson was over 200 games played I'll call him up to my team now. No, you shouldn't be allowed to say something so nonsensical. Franson has played over 200 games and like I said, by that point you should have known whether you wanted to keep him or not. He's well asserted within the NHL. Galchenyuk's case is with farm team movement, not 'eligibility', I feel like a broken record here. How is it about movement? Was he called up to the farm team? Does it say somewhere in the rules that at which point a player plays 10 games he will automatically be moved to the farm team?? No we have a development team in place for players that have played less than 10 games after that 10 game period he's no longer eligible for the team and at which point in the farm system he can't play for that team and is a FA. I don't see how this is not cut and dry. The same ruling was made last year with Nudge' how is this suddenly a vote. And why does it matter how many games they've played 200 or 10 200 games isn't always a solid indicator on a players success fulness in years to come some players could not show anything till after 300 games or even later the fact is that this was ruled upon last year at which point the very same manager was told no more of this ooops I forgot or didn't see it and yet here it is again the fact that this is going to a vote when the Commish has already at one point made a ruling is a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Feb 17, 2013 16:10:10 GMT -5
This should be handled like UFA/RFA is, with offer sheets, over 200 games played the player is a UFA, RFA equals your entire Farm System but if you allow a player to go over 10 games played on your Junior Roster that player can be signed by another manager but the original owner has the right to surrender the player (maybe even for pick compensation) or 'match' which would mean giving up a pick for the 'violation'.
|
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.