I propose that Franchise Players be granted the right to be waived. This shall include both waiver wire and waiver draft. I further propose that upon being waived that the former FP lose all status.
Rationale:
If a Franchise Player is doing so poorly that they do not deserve a spot on the roster for whatever reason, the GM should be allowed to deal with him as if he were any other player. Sometimes the FP will have sufficient value to be tradable. Sometimes, not so much. Regardless, it should fall to the GM to solve the problem as best he or she can.
Having just finished a season with an under-performing FP, I can honestly admit that it was not fun having to save a spot on my roster for him through the waiver drafts. And I'm here to have fun.
20 comments:
Having undergone the same angst with the same FP, plus another suck of an FP, I whole heartedly support this proposal.
Having seen other GMs go through much the same angst, and probably wishing they could just kick them to the curb, I hope others see the merit of this proposal.
Being able to waive a franchise player is sort of missing the point of what a 'franchise player' is. They represent long term/financial investment in a player, precisely the kind of investment you can't simply waive when convenient.
There are already a variety of mechanisms to address an injured or sucking franchise player;
- Trade for someone else
- Draft a new one (which has its own subset of; draft someone's RFA, draft an elite UFA, or draft your own prospect/RFA)
- Use the IR rules to drop them off the roster and promote a prospect at the same position without penalty.
I feel your pain, I had Kariya during all of his 'curse you Gary Suter!' years, so I know what it is like to have an FP suddenly become almost worthless a few games into the season. But revising the rules so that the players who are supposed to represent the most important members of our franchises can be summarily waived is not the way to deal with that pain.
While I agree with the principle of long-term commitment to an FP, the NHL affords greater options than the FuNHL with our limited lineup. I'm willing to accept the option to waive an FP during the season, like any other player, either to bring up a prospect (NOT using IR) or to waive to claim another player, or waived at WD. Obviously once released he becomes a UFA to anyone who claims him,and the owning GM cannot do so until 2nd round of WD.
I'm not thrilled about it but I would support it. I might consider a restriction on frequency so GMs don't repeatedly dump FPs, may maximum once every 3 years?
Another issue not yet mentioned is that it would violate the 'must have 2 FPs' rule.
Can anyone think of a real world example where a franchise caliber player was ever waived by an NHL team? It just doesn't happen.
As I indicated in my e-mail response to this proposal. I could support it - as per Dan.
It's buying out the contract, Cam.
Is it ideal, no. Would it be better to use IR, make a trade, etc - sure, but if GMs feel they want this option I don't see this impacting the league in the same way as other proposals might. I think it would be an unwise decision but I could say that about many of my own trades :-)
I get that it is buying out the contract - but mid-season? Never. Happens.
Yes, if you draft Yashin you are stuck with him until the designated buyout period. Could be some sort of Interesting rule for extended I.R where maybe you only lose the 1st WD Pick and buddy stays there for the season?
Wasn't Daigle a "Franchise" buyout?
DiPietro could be viewed much the same way.
Believe me, I am all for the linking of NHL concepts to FunHL concepts but Franchise Player in the NHL is a sportswriter adjective, NOT a type of contract.
As for the 2 FP rule, obviously that would need to be ammended for this proposal to pass.
I would support this rule. An FP who isn't pulling his weight becomes a lot heavier because of the special status allotted them, and allowing a GM to waive them if necessary seems very reasonable.
A GM in the FUNHL should be able to "Buy out the contract" on an FP. Since they can't draft another FP until the beginning of the next season, the limited trading opportunities should balance this out.
Status aside, an FP is just another player on our rosters, and we should be able to do what we see fit with them.
FP status does not make them elite or untouchable, at lest it should not.
Maybe the solution to this, AND to Mike's worry about overly frequent FP swapping if you can "easily" bump up to #1 pick in the draft if picks are traded, is to increase the "COST" of drafting a new FP?
Painful, I know, but it is a reflection of the big bucks and years NHL clubs put into stars (like NJ tried with Kovalchuk - nice try, but he's not going to be playing in 17 years)
For example, keeping an FP you draft them in the final 2 rounds, 21 and 22. If you replace, you do so with picks in rounds 1 and 2, so there is a 20 round hit for drafting a new one. Something to consider if you want to open ED slot trading in rounds 1 and 2 but do not want a revolving door on FPs...
We already do that Dan.
What we are trying to do is to make it a bit more simple to deal with FPs.
Dropping them like any other player is great.
Making it possible to replace one to make the pool more enjoyable for prople is more challenging.
Corey has really hit it on the nose with the ability to move your ED slots in the first two rounds, but only if one of the GMs is replacing an FP.
It is not ment to be in place for GMs to simply move up in slots.
Actually we don't Mike - Right now there is an 8 round penalty for drafting a new FP. If we want a greater deterrent, we could increase it anywhere up to 20 rounds.
This is more of a Proposal #2 issue anyway...
All in all I tend to agree with Doug - not sure this has an overly large down side.
One consideration to include in the terms though - if we are allowing a team to divest themselves of an FP by waiving/dropping them mid-year, do we still require an FP trade to include equal numbers of FPs going each way?
For example - I waive Turco at WD2 last year. I then make a trade with Bob to acquire Luongo - do I have to send him an FP, or can the trade simply result in Bob being the one with only one FP and the need to draft a new one, rather than myself?
And if we want to relax the restriction, can any team trade an FP without one coming back? I would say NO in STRONG terms so as to avoid stockpiling FP caliber players. Which means either we continue to require equal #'s of FPs on both sides of the ledger in any trade involving FPs, OR we only allow the trade to be made without an FP coming back if that team is already down to one FP (or to put it more simply, no team can ever have MORE than 2 FPs on the roster, including IR)
Excellent point Dan. I shall endeavour to solve the problem by changing the proposal to include setting the FP limit to 2.
Doug said: "Believe me, I am all for the linking of NHL concepts to FunHL concepts but Franchise Player in the NHL is a sportswriter adjective, NOT a type of contract."
I think this is simply false. Look at any NHL team and you will see a hierarchy of contracts - with the biggest being those who are 'franchise' players.
NJ is negotiating with Kovy at the moment for what is clearly and unambiguously an FP contract.
I have yet to hear of a single example of an NHL team that waived one of its two highest paid players.
It simply never happens.
So it is clear that this proposal does not track with the NHL.
Further, it also damages trading opportunities.
Consider that a GM with an injured or massively sucking FP has an incentive to make a trade to replace him - as there is no other mid-season method for changing him out.
But under this proposal we will see lazy GMs simply waive their highest paid player over a hang-nail, rather than making the effort required to improve by making a trade.
So this proposal is both not reflective of how the NHL works, and it discourages trades.
Total. Fail.
Yashin was dumped by the Senators for sucking his thumb.
DePietro is sucking his thumb in limbo.
Gaborik has been sucking his thumb for many years, and is now just licking it.
Luongo was sucking his thumb in FLA.
These and, I am sure others, are a few examples of FPs (or former FPs), that have been moved on by thier respective organizations.
Why do you think a GM does not have the right to move an FP when and where they want, be it trade, waivers, or IR.
After all, they are a player on the roster. We should let GMs deal with any player on thier roster as they see fit.
Do not shackle a GMs hands and make things worse for them if they are already having a tough go of it.
If Gretzky can be moved, anyone can be moved (or dropped).
How does restricting a GM from moving an FP make for more competition? If there is a better player available for a GM to replace a FP with during the season, by all means, let that GM do what they deem necessary for thier club.
You would be snuffing out trades by forcing GMs to hold onto sucking FPs instead of replacing them with better performing players.
I do not care how much a player (of any status) gets paid, if they suck (for what ever reason), or are horribly injured for a long period fo time, I would move them for immediate help.
That makes my team more competetive.
Feel free to hold on to a FP(s) who is under performing, or is injured for the unforseable future, and see what that gets you.
If no other GM wants a FP like that, let me open my own door to improve on him.
CH... But under this proposal we will see lazy GMs simply waive their highest paid player over a hang-nail, rather than making the effort required to improve by making a trade.
Since we do not deal in monetary figures in the FuNHL, that statement has no bearing on what we are trying to acomplish with this proposal.
Who wants to commit to a floundering FP, and throw away any hope of improving and staying competetive?
A player is a player is a player. Lets treat them as such.
If you suck, you get shipped somewhere else. Simple.
I dont think there is an NHL example of an elite player that was having an off year and just waived mid season. Only thing that comes close is Nylander in wash but he is hardly an "FP".
Yashin to NYI was a trade.
Diepietro is still on NYI but perma hurt.
Gaborik wanted out of minny and left as ufa.
Luongo forced florida to trade him.
Gretzky was traded.
Corey.. would there be a penalty incurred for the priviledge of waiving out your FP or do u feel they are just treated as a normal player at WDs?
Chris, I see no reason to invoke punitive measures upon a GM who is dropping a Franchise Player mid-season. The 8 round loss at the entry draft when they draft a new Franchise Player is more than sufficient penalty.
Post a Comment