MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Actually what is the FCHL lottery structure ? IntExplrr has it wrong. Its actually this, PLEASE copy this! 15th: 3% 14th: 5% 13th: 7% 12th: 10% 11th: 15% 10th: 20% 9th: 40% .Stop rewarding tankers like me! Link to post Share on other sites
InternetExplorer 2,609 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 did you really take the #1 from the 9 seat? Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 did you really take the #1 from the 9 seat? Ya. Love that Steve. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Shoot Loose had Savard, Grebshekov and Frolov all signed to decent contracts last year. Without an exempt list that's a pretty shitty situation. Tough luck. Link to post Share on other sites
Dubey 1,035 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 a few thoughts 1. Losing a player, especially an injury proned player, like Savard or Crosby, to an injury is not really bad luck. It's simply a risk you assume when you draft or sign a player with a long injury history. There is no comparison to the Kovalchuk situation, which pretty much blindsided everyone. I'm in another keeper league where an owner made a huge trade to acquire Kovalchuk at last year's deadline, trading away a lot of premium assets,and he was in a position to keep him cheaply for 4 more years. I campaigned for the owner to recieve some kind of compensation, as it basically crippled his team for this year, but I lost the battle. 2. While I don't agree with an exempt list, I also don't think it's as big of a deal as you guys are making it out to be. Sounds like it's used pretty sparingly, and doesn't/wouldn't have a big impact on signing decisions, except in a few unique circumstances (crosby). 3. I think there should be certain circumstances where the commish can make a unilateral decision for the betterment of the league. for example, ifKovy had been signed for $17 for 5 years, I would be in favour of the commish voiding that contract in this case. Since literally nobody saw that coming. It was a plyer in his prime on a 10 year deal. WRT to Frolov and Grebeshkov. totally different scenarios. Neither had long term NHL contracts, and both had speculation that they would leave for the KHL. If you sign those guys for longer than their NHL contracts, tough shit, that's the risk you take. I would not be in favour of an exemption if Crosby had a career ending injury, as that is clearly a risk you take when signing Crosby long term. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 a few thoughts 1. Losing a player, especially an injury proned player, like Savard or Crosby, to an injury is not really bad luck. It's simply a risk you assume when you draft or sign a player with a long injury history. There is no comparison to the Kovalchuk situation, which pretty much blindsided everyone. I'm in another keeper league where an owner made a huge trade to acquire Kovalchuk at last year's deadline, trading away a lot of premium assets,and he was in a position to keep him cheaply for 4 more years. I campaigned for the owner to recieve some kind of compensation, as it basically crippled his team for this year, but I lost the battle. 2. While I don't agree with an exempt list, I also don't think it's as big of a deal as you guys are making it out to be. Sounds like it's used pretty sparingly, and doesn't/wouldn't have a big impact on signing decisions, except in a few unique circumstances (crosby). 3. I think there should be certain circumstances where the commish can make a unilateral decision for the betterment of the league. for example, ifKovy had been signed for $17 for 5 years, I would be in favour of the commish voiding that contract in this case. Since literally nobody saw that coming. It was a plyer in his prime on a 10 year deal. WRT to Frolov and Grebeshkov. totally different scenarios. Neither had long term NHL contracts, and both had speculation that they would leave for the KHL. If you sign those guys for longer than their NHL contracts, tough shit, that's the risk you take. I would not be in favour of an exemption if Crosby had a career ending injury, as that is clearly a risk you take when signing Crosby long term. Good points .. However your third point opens up a big can of worms...Where do you draw the line? When you open it up for interpretation thats where people get pissed off.. Needs to be black and white. So if Crosby is injury prone, what decides that? A set number of games he missed..Again its such a grey area..Is Malkin and Ovechkin's auction value drop now slightly because they are Russian? FWIW when our league started, KHL wasnt really a huge factor..You would see maybe one or 2 players leave...And not really significant players..In the last year we have seen a huge number of capable NHLers leave in favour of the KHL..From Kovalchuk to Kaberle, and everything else in between. But its good to have different views on little things we can argue on.. Fun stuff Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 If you sign those guys for longer than their NHL contracts, tough shit, that's the risk you take. This was my basic point, and pretty much everyone runs their team economics intelligently. If a Dan Boyle type signs a two year deal with the Sharks, you can pretty safely bet that his FCHL deal will mirror that unless it's super cheap to sign him (ergo, super cheap to buy him out). It's all cost/benefit, if it makes financial sense to run the risk, you run the risk. If a $5.75 buyout penalty on an $11.50 contract isn't worth it, then you don't sign a 33 year old Patrick Marleau to a three year extension when his current NHL deal only has one year left. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Good points .. .Is Malkin and Ovechkin's auction value drop now slightly because they are Russian? Yes...I think. Last auction Malkin cost $26.25, this year I got him for $19.75 and Ovechkin (the most valuable forward in our format last year) went for $22.25. It's fair to make the point that there isn't the have vs havenot disparity this season that there was last year (several teams were at max cap and several were at the cap floor...this year there's only one team at max cap and only one at the floor...lots of teams in the middle). *Edit* Two teams at the floor, I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
Dubey 1,035 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Good points .. However your third point opens up a big can of worms...Where do you draw the line? When you open it up for interpretation thats where people get pissed off.. Needs to be black and white. So if Crosby is injury prone, what decides that? A set number of games he missed..Again its such a grey area..Is Malkin and Ovechkin's auction value drop now slightly because they are Russian? FWIW when our league started, KHL wasnt really a huge factor..You would see maybe one or 2 players leave...And not really significant players..In the last year we have seen a huge number of capable NHLers leave in favour of the KHL..From Kovalchuk to Kaberle, and everything else in between. But its good to have different views on little things we can argue on.. Fun stuff Who cares if people get pissed off? It's a comissioners job to do what's best for the league. Democracy doesn't usually work in situations like that, as people end up voting with their own interests in mind. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafs 142 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 We don't really have a "min cap", it's more like a "min salary" As long as you have $45, you can spend it on as little as you want. You can carry 28 $0.25 players if you want, just as long as you have $45 to play with. Never made a lot of sense to me, as it only works one way and not the other. It's not like I can carry $125 in salaries, as long as I'm sitting with $85. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 It's a comissioners job to do what's best for the league. Democracy doesn't usually work in situations like that, as people end up voting with their own interests in mind. It's still nice to get that kind of call out of the way when everyone is thinking rationally and not have to make it a 'hard' call. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 We don't really have a "min cap", it's more like a "min salary" As long as you have $45, you can spend it on as little as you want. You can carry 28 $0.25 players if you want, just as long as you have $45 to play with. Never made a lot of sense to me, as it only works one way and not the other. It's not like I can carry $125 in salaries, as long as I'm sitting with $85. If we did away with cap (for the current season) it would doing trades a lot easier. Ie: if you leave the auction with unspent cap you 'lose it'. However, during the season you would be free to trade/callup/waiver/pickup etc anybody as long as you stay 45-85. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 the 45-85 rule isn't perfect, but i think it accomplishes what we want it to Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I'm not suggesting we do away with the 45-85 rule -- just tweak it to reduce the administrative headache. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 the 45-85 rule isn't perfect, but i think it accomplishes what we want it to I don't see any issue with it at all. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 i don't see any headache, administratively. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 i don't see any headache, administratively. How about unnecessarily having to add cap to every trade? Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That would be more of a nightmare if cap wasn't moving around keeping things somewhat sane. Remember when Mike sold off his entire future trying to win a title? His team was crippled for 4 years. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 How about unnecessarily having to add cap to every trade? meh, easy to do on the spreadsheet. i don't love the AHL version of it. I prefer ours. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That would be more of a nightmare if cap wasn't moving around keeping things somewhat sane. Remember when Mike sold off his entire future trying to win a title? His team was crippled for 4 years. You'd "still" have to have a min total salary of $45... just a minor tweak. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 meh, easy to do on the spreadsheet. i don't love the AHL version of it. I prefer ours. I still dont understand your terminology.. And tilts me when you use it in AHL, because I get confused even more.. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 You'd "still" have to have a min total salary of $45... just a minor tweak. I dunno, I think things work very well and competitively the way they are. I would vote against the change unless someone could make a compelling reason other than "it's a pain to adjust the spreadsheet" to allow people to go over the $85 hard cap. Link to post Share on other sites
Fenxis 99 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I dunno, I think things work very well and competitively the way they are. I would vote against the change unless someone could make a compelling reason other than "it's a pain to adjust the spreadsheet" to allow people to go over the $85 hard cap. what. the. ****. Instead of having a 45-85 'cap' you have a 45-85 salary during the current season. you can still trade future 'cap' if you want. stop reading more into this idea than what is being suggested (esp since i was one of the people who pushed for the cap in the first place!!!) Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 i also don't understand what you're suggesting Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 and as the person who (voluntarily) adjusts the spreadsheet 99% of the time, there's no pain in the ass with salary trading, to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now