Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 11:22:28 GMT -5
The whole reason LTIR is required to have proof of injury is because of the waiver exempt call up/down. Otherwise only the IR would be needed. IR doesn't give you the ability to use the injured player's cap space that is the main difference. True.
|
|
|
Post by Koomzz (CHI) on Oct 8, 2015 11:26:42 GMT -5
The whole reason LTIR is required to have proof of injury is because of the waiver exempt call up/down. Otherwise only the IR would be needed. I thought you had to prove injury for IR as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 11:30:33 GMT -5
The whole reason LTIR is required to have proof of injury is because of the waiver exempt call up/down. Otherwise only the IR would be needed. I thought you had to prove injury for IR as well. Negative Ghost Rider. Other than the real NHL having him on IR, of course .. so i guess that could be proof. But i dont think its required to provide a link.
|
|
|
Post by TampaBayBolts (Josh) on Oct 8, 2015 11:40:32 GMT -5
For regular IR, player must be on IR For LTIR you must show proof he is long term hurt
Is my understanding
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 12:17:51 GMT -5
Is about being practical & as such it doesn't require the same documenting of evidence, but shouldn't be abused. it's the twitter feed that player X left practice early limping, and you don't have the time/opportunity to see if it's nothing, short term, or super serious, but You would rather dress someone in the minors who is waiver exempt - you don't get cap relief, you don't have to leave him on there for long term, all you get is an extra spot on the 23 man roster -> and if you're seen to be leaving a player who is not injured on the IR the RC will be forced to take action. This isn't for a player being scratched, needs to be *some* evidence of an injury, although for the first week the source is unlikely to be drilled into.
We need to remember this is fantasy GMing, and we want it to be fun. If we have guys trying to ninja the rules & find different ways outside of core concepts the RC will be talk with that member, and discuss the long term health of the league. By one guy putting his own success above the health of the league, and actually impacting it, we would likely see him/her move on.
|
|
|
Post by TampaBayBolts (Josh) on Oct 8, 2015 13:49:33 GMT -5
And another update:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 21:31:38 GMT -5
I don't know if this is even allowed, but I was hoping you guys would consider it (and tell me if this is the wrong place to table such an idea) but I would like to propose an amendment to the CBA.
1C. ii. You must dress 6-10 Wingers iii. You must dress 5-7 Defenseman
Essentially we're taking a little wind out of the defensemen sails and evening out their value with wingers. The way it stands now, dmen in our league are used more than they they are in real life which is creating a bit of a rostering issue (especially due to hoarding). Opening up the ability to dress 10 wingers, gives a bit more flexibility in dressing a full and active roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 21:37:02 GMT -5
I don't know if this is even allowed, but I was hoping you guys would consider it (and tell me if this is the wrong place to table such an idea) but I would like to propose an amendment to the CBA. 1C. ii. You must dress 6-10 Wingers iii. You must dress 5-7 Defenseman Essentially we're taking a little wind out of the defensemen sails and evening out their value with wingers. The way it stands now, dmen in our league are used more than they they are in real life which is creating a bit of a rostering issue (especially due to hoarding). Opening up the ability to dress 10 wingers, gives a bit more flexibility in dressing a full and active roster. So would we be able to play 13 FWDs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 21:39:04 GMT -5
I don't know if this is even allowed, but I was hoping you guys would consider it (and tell me if this is the wrong place to table such an idea) but I would like to propose an amendment to the CBA. 1C. ii. You must dress 6-10 Wingers iii. You must dress 5-7 Defenseman Essentially we're taking a little wind out of the defensemen sails and evening out their value with wingers. The way it stands now, dmen in our league are used more than they they are in real life which is creating a bit of a rostering issue (especially due to hoarding). Opening up the ability to dress 10 wingers, gives a bit more flexibility in dressing a full and active roster. So would we be able to play 13 FWDs? and only 5 D--it's just a half-baked proposal. I haven't really thought about the effects all that well.
|
|
|
Post by casperx22 (PHI) on Oct 28, 2015 21:43:19 GMT -5
I don't know if this is even allowed, but I was hoping you guys would consider it (and tell me if this is the wrong place to table such an idea) but I would like to propose an amendment to the CBA. 1C. ii. You must dress 6-10 Wingers iii. You must dress 5-7 Defenseman Essentially we're taking a little wind out of the defensemen sails and evening out their value with wingers. The way it stands now, dmen in our league are used more than they they are in real life which is creating a bit of a rostering issue (especially due to hoarding). Opening up the ability to dress 10 wingers, gives a bit more flexibility in dressing a full and active roster. So would we be able to play 13 FWDs? Long as you still keep the skater limit at 18 I can't think of a reason why this wouldn't work. For example, 3 centers, 10 wings, 5 defenders = 18 skaters
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 22:14:15 GMT -5
NHL teams rolling 5 D is extraordinarily rare. The Penguins did it towards the end of last year due to injuries and cap retardedness, and they were the laughing stock of the league. Allowing it here would be unrealistic. You used to see teams rolling with 7 D somewhat frequently, but even that seems rarer these days.
If defensemen hoarding is an issue (and I don't think it is), I'd prefer we dropped the D limit from 7 to 6.
Are there lots of ADHL teams short dmen this year? I haven't noticed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 22:38:06 GMT -5
some people are short starting D, and some people have starting D on the bench to avoid waiver situations but I don't think its the end of the world
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2015 23:08:41 GMT -5
I currently have 8 starting dmen. If someone is in need just hit me up
|
|
|
Post by TampaBayBolts (Josh) on Nov 16, 2015 10:00:19 GMT -5
Removed from CBA: Players may be slid up until the roster lock for Week 4 to get past the 9 game tryout period NHL teams use.
Eligible players may be placed on a slide at any time of the season assuming under 10GP. If they hit 10GP they are automatically called up and lose slide status. In season signings of ELC contracts may be slid if a player is eligible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 12:05:59 GMT -5
Bueno.
|
|