|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Jul 4, 2016 13:15:04 GMT -5
fair enough... but if I felt I made a legitimate claim on a player (which in this case, is an opinion that's backed up by multiple GMs) and the commish just took him off my team? I'd be a little pissed off too... Probably so, but I bet the commish would be equally pissed or perhaps even more pissed if you repeatedly found ways to buck his signing off on a rule/matter (defected player +' code of conduct) and continually put your self before others to win, even when there is nothing to win e.g. a dead issue.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Jul 4, 2016 13:18:31 GMT -5
fair enough... but if I felt I made a legitimate claim on a player (which in this case, is an opinion that's backed up by multiple GMs) and the commish just took him off my team? I'd be a little pissed off too... Probably so, but I bet the commish would be equally pissed or perhaps even more pissed if you repeatedly found ways to buck his signing off on a rule/matter (defected player +' code of conduct) and continually put your self before others to win, even when there is nothing to win e.g. a dead issue. Maybe so, maybe so... but then it becomes, 'We disagree, we both are pissed, but I'm commish, so you're suspended' and I think that's where people are having a problem accepting the chain of events... I clarified this when I stated there is a difference between a GM disagreeing and voicing his opinion vs a GM going rogue. When you decide to take matters into your own hands and become a malcontent , threaten the league's continuity e.g. Longevity create sh*t storms and shoes shows, you have become a Rogue GM. Even now, you and I are having dialgoue that has a difference of opinion, and I did not disable your account. Hell, you and I had a rough patch way back. If I was a knee-jerk and based my decisions on one event, you wouldn't be here. But that's not how I roll. I'm not saying my actions are perfect or right, but if I do something that appears extreme, it's likely because someone showed their @ss for a while,
|
|
|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Jul 4, 2016 13:23:25 GMT -5
The Radulov thing is a joke, and that's not to disrespect anyone. It's just to say that the process wasn't fair and it still isn't fair. Nobody held Radulov for a full season - he was held by Pitts for 8GP. The rules were re-written about 4 times, always with the aim of preventing him from going on the WW if he ever came back. The only reason we stopped debating this "dead thread" is because it was hypothetical. If it were up to me, I'd send Radulov to our last place team as a WW move.
Every other player with this status (Burmistrov, Kovalchuk, Sobotka) - were players that were held for a full year. Consistent with our rules.
1. DEFECTED PLAYER RETURNS TO NHL - The "Kovalchuk" Rule:
- As of 07/11/13, a player who defects, but was owned for at least 1 season by the most recent GM, can be claimed by the most recent GM upon said players return to the NHL. Said GM can either claim the player or release him. If released, he will be put on a waiver wire to determine who will own him.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Jul 4, 2016 13:27:50 GMT -5
The Radulov thing is a joke, and that's not to disrespect anyone. It's just to say that the process wasn't fair and it still isn't fair. Nobody held Radulov for a full season - he was held by Pitts for 8GP. The rules were re-written about 4 times, always with the aim of preventing him from going on the WW if he ever came back. The only reason we stopped debating this "dead thread" is because it was hypothetical. If it were up to me, I'd send Radulov to our last place team as a WW move. Every other player with this status (Burmistrov, Kovalchuk, Sobotka) - were players that were held for a full year. Consistent with our rules. 1. DEFECTED PLAYER RETURNS TO NHL - The "Kovalchuk" Rule: - As of 07/11/13, a player who defects, but was owned for at least 1 season by the most recent GM, can be claimed by the most recent GM upon said players return to the NHL. Said GM can either claim the player or release him. If released, he will be put on a waiver wire to determine who will own him. HEAR, HEAR!
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Jul 4, 2016 13:28:38 GMT -5
The Radulov thing is a joke, and that's not to disrespect anyone. It's just to say that the process wasn't fair and it still isn't fair. Nobody held Radulov for a full season - he was held by Pitts for 8GP. The rules were re-written about 4 times, always with the aim of preventing him from going on the WW if he ever came back. The only reason we stopped debating this "dead thread" is because it was hypothetical. If it were up to me, I'd send Radulov to our last place team as a WW move. Every other player with this status (Burmistrov, Kovalchuk, Sobotka) - were players that were held for a full year. Consistent with our rules. 1. DEFECTED PLAYER RETURNS TO NHL - The "Kovalchuk" Rule: - As of 07/11/13, a player who defects, but was owned for at least 1 season by the most recent GM, can be claimed by the most recent GM upon said players return to the NHL. Said GM can either claim the player or release him. If released, he will be put on a waiver wire to determine who will own him. The defected player list started with Kovalchuk - an unprecedented situation. Even Sobotka's situation was not e same as Kovalchuk's and Rads was unique as well. The rules put together based off of everyone of their scenarios and may change if another defected player has a new wrinkle. So instead of debating over who is worthy or not, I grand-fathered everyone. There's only a handful. I believe Van and other stated there should be no protection. I decided there should primarily because of the caliber of player Kovalchuk was. So on numerous levels, everyone who has such a player was grand-fathered, even Sobotka. That is how things came to be like it or not. It was all done on the fly and retro-active to Kovalchuk's time. So I don't wanna here about how it was fair or it is fair. It is what it is. And it is over. So if anyone feels the need to post 500 things about it, have at it. Nothing will change.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Jul 4, 2016 13:30:29 GMT -5
Probably so, but I bet the commish would be equally pissed or perhaps even more pissed if you repeatedly found ways to buck his signing off on a rule/matter (defected player +' code of conduct) and continually put your self before others to win, even when there is nothing to win e.g. a dead issue. Maybe so, maybe so... but then it becomes, 'We disagree, we both are pissed, but I'm commish, so you're suspended' and I think that's where people are having a problem accepting the chain of events... I clarified this when I stated there is a difference between a GM disagreeing and voicing his opinion vs a GM going rogue. When you decide to take matters into your own hands and become a malcontent , threaten the league's continuity e.g. Longevity create sh*t storms and shoes shows, you have become a Rogue GM. Even now, you and I are having dialgoue that has a difference of opinion, and I did not disable your account. Hell, you and I had a rough patch way back. If I was a knee-jerk and based my decisions on one event, you wouldn't be here. But that's not how I roll. I'm not saying my actions are perfect or right, but if I do something that appears extreme, it's likely because someone showed their @ss for a while, Honestly, Im sure it's a simple error, but everything after 'acceping chain of events...' was not written by me...
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Jul 4, 2016 13:32:20 GMT -5
No worries... I tried quoting you and it went to edit.
In all seriousness, it's been real on the discussion, but it is the 4th of July and I do have family plans like many others. For those celebrating, enjoy the holiday!
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Jul 4, 2016 13:35:47 GMT -5
Maybe so, maybe so... but then it becomes, 'We disagree, we both are pissed, but I'm commish, so you're suspended' and I think that's where people are having a problem accepting the chain of events... I clarified this when I stated there is a difference between a GM disagreeing and voicing his opinion vs a GM going rogue. When you decide to take matters into your own hands and become a malcontent , threaten the league's continuity e.g. Longevity create sh*t storms and shoes shows, you have become a Rogue GM. Even now, you and I are having dialgoue that has a difference of opinion, and I did not disable your account. Hell, you and I had a rough patch way back. If I was a knee-jerk and based my decisions on one event, you wouldn't be here. But that's not how I roll. I'm not saying my actions are perfect or right, but if I do something that appears extreme, it's likely because someone showed their @ss for a while, Honestly, Im sure it's a simple error, but everything after 'acceping chain of events...' was not written by me... The difference, for me, is that Kovalchuk was (is) under the same contract. Radulov was clearly, CLEARLY, a free agent. You had him for 8-9 games? And now you own him for life? As the commish, and as the recipient of the benefits of this 'rule'... Again, optics are not good. I don't mean to imply you're cheating or whatever, but maybe you're not the right person to preside over this situation?
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Jul 4, 2016 14:04:12 GMT -5
May I just add, I love this league, and I hope it lasts for a long long time. I'd sign a now-illegal front-loaded 14 year contract if I could.
|
|
|
Post by Chris (DET) on Jul 4, 2016 15:17:44 GMT -5
Personally, I think who ever rosters Radulov is in for a big disappointment anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Luke (TBL) on Jul 4, 2016 17:12:32 GMT -5
Whoever gets Radulov will be a top team and not a struggling franchise who has no infulence on the rule book
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Jul 5, 2016 16:04:50 GMT -5
MIKE:
As many of you know, Mike was disabled on PB. His Fantrax access was active with some restrictions after he refused to comply with the release of Radulov - we were not going to play a game of Rad ping-pong. Later that night it dawned on me that he passed on all of his remaining picks so he would have been a complete disruption to the draft process for son extended period of time beyond the outburst. Historically speaking, Mike does not quickly cool once excited. Today I came to the conclusion that I would unlock his account after the draft was complete, especially since we are rolling along.
There is no guarantee that Mike wants to return or will. That is his choice. I am simply giving a little more clarity to some. If anyone is confused and still does not understand what happened, let me try to be succinct. Everyone is free to voice opinion. We will always discuss and vote on matters. In rare cases, I will use my commissioners power. The later has become less and less as the league has become more seasoned, the original GM's can attest to this. Knowing this about opinions and discussion, please do not confuse any of the aforementioned with going rogue. Whe a GM does that, they go on a warpath and incite others which can be destructive to a league. There is a right way to go about doing things and there is a wrong way. I am embarrassed that I had to do things the way I did. But I am equally saddened that Mike chose to go about things the wrong way, especially being a long-standing GM familiar with both sides of the fence. And make no mistake, I've had intimate conversations with Mike about rogue GMs over the yeas and he signred off on many of them as I formed my opinion as to their behavior. Furthermore, I because of the aforementioned, I was more angry with him than I likely would be anyone else here because he knows what is expected and probably knew he'd piss me off by going about things this way. Perhaps I am at fault because I gave him more slack over the years, mellowing out. But I thought he would eventually self-correct. But clearly not. Moving on...
DEFECTED PLAYER LIST / THREAD :
The Defected Player list came about for a host of reasons. Much to the disapproval of several GMs, the rules had to be gradually added primarily because each defector had a unique wrinkle to his or her case and they each defected at different times. Age and contract status varied enough among them all, so that contract status could not be used as a working standard. The only commonality between them all is that they were all defected, established NHL players. These were players of value, and not just prospects. To my knowledge, GMs would have rostered each one of them if permitted to use a roster spot. The strategy of using a roster spot for such players was frowned upon because it going down that route would have opened a can of worms as to whether it should be one slot or two slots, perhaps more for storagimg players? And that could have led to competetive issues, the opposite effect of fodder cycling for example.
The entire discussion on the Defected Player list ended up going know where = tires spinning. Things cannot always go unresolved. The league as a whole failed on seeing it through. When I sealed the Defected Player thread with a list of names, the case was closed. All players listed were grand-fathered with the rules established set to affect future players who would defect, unless some other future would add a new wrinkle by which time he would be grandfathered in with the rest of the defected players.
As far as those arguing GMs get to keep players for life, that is a horrible argument. If you want Rads, Offer me something when he is not currently in he NHL!!! Exactly, you wouldn't offer anything. Since drafting him in he league's inaugural draft I think I still have yet to get a season out of him. Now if a GM owns a defected player and has his hopes pinned on a return, let them. It is a very rare thing to happen due to the number of former NHL players who return from defection and how infrequently they do return. The odds of it happening are definitely Worth raising hell over. If you thimk the deck is stacked, all you have to do is draft or pick up a player who makes his mark in he NHL and then be forced to drop him due to defection and simply wait for his return. That's right, there is no science to it. It is all pure luck if they return and misfortune if they go.
|
|
|
Post by Chris (DET) on Jul 5, 2016 16:20:39 GMT -5
Personally I think anytime a player is released from a roster, he's free game via waivers. There should be no "holding" anyone once you release them to the waiver pool.
If they are minors eligible, you can choose to hold them via that way. If they aren't minors eligible, you can either waste a roster spot for them or let them go.
The waiver process is the only real fair way to bring them back into the league if those player choose to return. The worst teams should get first crack at them and it goes up the waiver wire order.
Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Jul 5, 2016 16:37:52 GMT -5
Personally I think anytime a player is released from a roster, he's free game via waivers. There should be no "holding" anyone once you release them to the waiver pool. If they are minors eligible, you can choose to hold them via that way. If they aren't minors eligible, you can either waste a roster spot for them or let them go. The waiver process is the only real fair way to bring them back into the league if those player choose to return. The worst teams should get first crack at them and it goes up the waiver wire order. Just my $0.02. I understand that. Some held that view. And that contingency wanted to roster them which was okay at first glance until the envelope had to get pushed with how many roster slots. We definetly had that convo before you came aboard. I don't mind discussing. But when discussion gets exhausted and a resolution needs to happen, I tend to step in and become the bad guy to some. I've leaned it comes with the territory and not everyone will be happy. But I appreciate you and others who may agree or not agree, voice their opinion and don't let too much water rock their boat. Bottom line, we age a good league. No need for mountains out of ant hills.
|
|
|
Post by David (NJD) on Jul 5, 2016 21:34:49 GMT -5
yeah we had these talks back in the first or 2nd season where people were holding players and made their teams only have 23 active players if not less. as you can tell it was a very competitive league (nothing has changed lol). this really led some gms to being upset that there were easier matchups than others. this lead to the discussion around this rule as well as compensation for lost players. However no one liked the idea of giving draft picks as compensation so over time it morphed into you retaining the rights but not losing a spot for those players. A small plus!
what I find crazy is this issue has been quit for 2 years give or take but now that someone came back it got blown up. But ofcourse by only one GM. yes a lot have commented and voiced their opinion but mainly seems following the blowup from Mike. Most didn't like it but accepted the commish ruling.
sorry if this sounds rude or the wrong thing to say but just spewing from memory late at night which is never good lol. We know I didn't like Mike but still sucks to see a 2 time champ leave over one player. especially since that player is Radulov who half this league has probably cursed in other leagues for bailing lol.
|
|