The Official Royal Oak Fearsome Beavers Thread

[Zach6668 513]

That's the thing. We know certain players are gonna be good, but we only get them for a total of 6 years guaranteed on the big club. This makes one want to try and get them during the prime of their careers. Usually that isn't in their first 3 years.

Damnit, beat me to it.

[SBriand 4]

Excuse me but this is the OFFICIAL Royal Oak Fearsome Beavers thread. If you want to commend me on my GM skill or propose a trade then feel free to post. If you want to trash talk, so be it. But everything else needs to go!j/k

[strategy 4]

I dunno, I feel like it should be retroactive since we're talking about a change that at least partly forces the bottom teams to be doing their best to compete rather than sit on assets for the future. I know that's a nonstarter for you though, so I don't know where to go from here.

I'd be cool with making it retroactive in 2012, because that was kind of the plan anyway (stop hoarding then). I just feel like I've traded for enough draft picks and stocked enough on the farm based on this system that it'd really screw me over to tweak values so drastically with a retroactive rule change.I feel like 2012 is enough time, and few enough draft picks have been moved in that year...

[TheDaveyG 6]

Damnit, beat me to it.

You explained it better though.

[SBriand 4]

The ROFB has one draft pick this year.With the 73rd overall pick in the FCHL 2010 Entry Draft the Royal Oak Fearsome Beavers choose Sebastian Wannstrom of the St. Louis Blues. Boom or bust baby!

[Fenxis 99]

its an easy fix. player plays 80 games in the NHL, you gotta call him up. If you cant decide after a "year" of NHL whether hes worth a roster spot, too bad.Ive never agreed with the FCHL rules for farm players as they were originally setup, but at least they were improved in recent yrs with the 5yr max and the 28player max. Neither really solved my issues with it, but I understood I was in the minority coming from a position of someone who traded away all things farm/draft.

I like the max per year callup > counting the number of NHL games. Why? Because the GM/Owner still has control over when they can call-up players whereas with the 80 games you are at the whim of NHL GMs. Doesn't really matter... teams will start to max out their farms next year.Obviously we need to meet for beers (in Ottawa - Capital of the FCHL of course ) and go through everything.

[Zach6668 513]

I like the max per year callup > counting the number of NHL games. Why? Because the GM/Owner still has control over when they can call-up players whereas with the 80 games you are at the whim of NHL GMs. Doesn't really matter... teams will start to max out their farms next year.Obviously we need to meet for beers (in Ottawa - Capital of the FCHL of course ) and go through everything.

Jeff and I were just talking about this on MSN. I've kinda reversed my opinion, and I don't think we need to force call ups. I think the system we have already kinda automatically forces it at certain points.Something definitely worth discussing further, though.

[SBriand 4]

Goddammit!

[Fenxis 99]

Jeff and I were just talking about this on MSN. I've kinda reversed my opinion, and I don't think we need to force call ups. I think the system we have already kinda automatically forces it at certain points.Something definitely worth discussing further, though.

I agree that we need to stay away from 'forced' call-ups... especially when we are in a system where you can sign players for 5 years. Policing it is a pain in the ass, etc, etc.I'm not in favour of anything invasive as the max farm size does force some roll-over but the system is open to abuse by the "rules lawyers". I'd be more comfortable with a max call-up of something like 3-5 if for no reason other than to prevent flagrant abuse.

[Zach6668 513]

There are rules for keeping players on your farm longer than 6 seasons already, fwiw. We just obviously haven't had to deal with it, and won't for another couple years.Also, if there were any rules at all, IMO, defense and forwards would need to be separately addressed.

[ajs510 122]

I guess I wasn't thinking about the 5 "built in" forced callups or drops that will be starting for most guys next year or the year after, the system will probably sort itself out given some time.

[serge 904]

the FCHL doesnt have the "Jonathan Toews rule"??

[Zach6668 513]

No, but at this point, you can only keep a player on your farm for 6 seasons.We do have max farm limits like the AHL though, so there should be some people forced off the farm.The biggest difference, Serge, is we can only sign players to one contract before they automatically go to auction, so it's not really good to be forced to call up someone super early, say a defenseman, even if he progresses quickly, you still miss out on their prime.Also, you can't call up from your farm for the playoffs or anything, so nobody is stashing anyone just waiting to make the playoffs.

[serge 904]

i really like the rule that you can only sign player to one contract.It would make sure there is a lot of prime UFAs every year.Its the one part the AHL that is hindering true competition and a team to compete really quickly.I agree that some people think the best way to build is thru draft, but its not the only way to put a winning team together.While the 3 year contracts help in the future, this would be so much better

[SBriand 4]

mother****ers

[digitalmonkey 929]

I'd like to see a "Franchise Player" designation in the AHL. It sucks that I will lose a guy like Stamkos and Bob will lose a guy like Ovechkin before they reach 25.

[serge 904]

I'd like to see a "Franchise Player" designation in the AHL. It sucks that I will lose a guy like Stamkos and Bob will lose a guy like Ovechkin before they reach 25.

I would be ok with one franchise player..oh and nothing sucks about screwing Bob..

[ajs510 122]

I'd like to see a "Franchise Player" designation in the AHL. It sucks that I will lose a guy like Stamkos and Bob will lose a guy like Ovechkin before they reach 25.

I wouldn't mind the FCHL doing something like this either, as long as it was a player that was drafted and the regular raises were applied at contract time. I like that idea a lot, actually.

[Zach6668 513]

I've thought a lot about that too, then you get rewarded for a guy you draft, who, if they are legit franchise players, can be guys who are re-signable, and worth the money they'll get for say 2 5-year contracts.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

Sorry, hate the "franchise" tag. I get the nice emotional attachment part, but it wont play out well in fantasy. If you cant afford it, you cant have it. No one is stopping you from bidding on Stamkos when his contract is too much for you to resign on your own, and no one is gonna stop Bob from keeping Ovechkin, which Im betting is what he will end up doing unless someone does something stupid and overpays. The salary cap is a necessary part of fantasy teams in dyanasty leagues.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Sorry, hate the "franchise" tag. I get the nice emotional attachment part, but it wont play out well in fantasy. If you cant afford it, you cant have it. No one is stopping you from bidding on Stamkos when his contract is too much for you to resign on your own, and no one is gonna stop Bob from keeping Ovechkin, which Im betting is what he will end up doing unless someone does something stupid and overpays. The salary cap is a necessary part of fantasy teams in dyanasty leagues.

I don't think it has much to do with emotional attachment. It has more to do with drafting a guy and having to use him before he peaks.

[MapleLeafpoker 1,462]

I don't think it has much to do with emotional attachment. It has more to do with drafting a guy and having to use him before he peaks.

Were you suggesting the tag be put on a farm player, and you wouldnt have to call him up?I thought you meant the tag being used to be able to resign him on your main roster without going over the cap. If you mean franchise tag on a farm player to make him exempt from the Toews rule, then yes, I like that argument. I wouldnt like it to resign guys youve already used in your lineup.But you called up Stamkos last year to get in before the 5year contracts were reduced to 3, you didnt have to call him up right away.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Were you suggesting the tag be put on a farm player, and you wouldnt have to call him up?I thought you meant the tag being used to be able to resign him on your main roster without going over the cap. If you mean franchise tag on a farm player to make him exempt from the Toews rule, then yes, I like that argument. I wouldnt like it to resign guys youve already used in your lineup.But you called up Stamkos last year to get in before the 5year contracts were reduced to 3, you didnt have to call him up right away.

I'm talking about labeling a player as a franchise player when he is called up. So I would have labeled Stamkos as my franchise player and called him up.I think the AHL is going to see drastic changes in the next few years and I think we're gonna see that the changes (higher starting salaries, 3-yr limit, etc...) were over-compensation.

[ajs510 122]

Were you suggesting the tag be put on a farm player, and you wouldnt have to call him up?I thought you meant the tag being used to be able to resign him on your main roster without going over the cap. If you mean franchise tag on a farm player to make him exempt from the Toews rule, then yes, I like that argument. I wouldnt like it to resign guys youve already used in your lineup.But you called up Stamkos last year to get in before the 5year contracts were reduced to 3, you didnt have to call him up right away.

I'm thinking more along the lines of being able to resign your designated franchise player beyond the 5-year FCHL max.

[MapleLeafs 142]

Sorry that this is being brought up in your thread Steve, but you have to admit, it beats what happened around page 4 of Adam's thread.Anyways, I like the franchise player idea... to some extent. I'm not in love with it, but it has potential. To be honest, I think what we have now in FCHL is a great system. Call your player up, have him play his "rookie" fantasy season, and then sign him to a 5 year contract. I pitched this idea to Daniel for AHL and he shot it down quick, saying it's not fair that you lose your players so quickly. This is far from the truth. You're not forced to lose your players, you just have to win them in the auction and pay them market value, just like any professional sports league.