For the Injury Protection rule we need to return to the
original intent of FP protection when an FP is seriously injured. The criteria is as follows:
a) FPs only (up to 2 - in which case you in trouble)
b) The FP MUST be catastrophically injured or sent to the minors or holding out (i.e. > 1 month) such that the Player being listed on a official injury report (Nhl.com, yahoo.com, etc) is moot. For Examples refer to Stamkos over the last two years, Drouin in year one as a FP, Crosby's concussion year.
c) FP demotion for a prospect has NO penalty with respect to loss of a Waiver Draft pick
d) The League Founder (Cam) owes you a beer since FP DEATH is a very rare event phenomenon, but if and only if your FP is out for 50% of the season or longer.
e) Upon a FP's return to he must returned to the roster and prospect demoted.
Please send your vote to me via email (private) or post on the Blog
Thank you
Bob
I vote YES ... please YES .. as Mike Getta says perfectly, this rule got bastardized ;-)
ReplyDelete(note - if an FP dies early in season .. he'll probably miss more than than 50% of the season... Rob, come on man - you're an accountant - make your proposal a little more mathematically accurate ;-)
ReplyDeleteHighlanders vote yes.
ReplyDeletePersonal Vendetta vote NO, especially as written without any hard definition of when an FP is eligible.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly would it work? What is the definitive source for injuries? One website may say player is out until January and another may say week to week. What if my FP has been day to day injured for the last month? I think putting arbitrary time/severity limitations on the IR rule is a mistake. We have a mechanism to deal with injuries and it has costs pre-WD2. Let the GM decide whether or not to use it. If we believe that cost is too high, I would support adding clause C to the current rule and removing the WD pick cost for protecting FPs. I realise that the last month or so of the season the IR rule gets used a lot, and not always for injured players, but I am fine with that. It's usually post trade deadline, so it's not like you could trade for a replacement player anyway.
In general, I am in support of rules that allow more use of prospects and this proposed change will reduce prospect use.
Agree with mr Mann
ReplyDeleteAgree with Darrell. No thanks.
ReplyDeleteIntent of the IR rule was never to 'promote' prospect use -- it was to provide legitimate compensation to a GM if a player unusable because of injury. I thought it was meant for just FP injury but could be used for any injury i guess. but intent was never to use it the way it is now with an un-injured player being allowed up.
ReplyDeletebut that's fine - we can basically say no penalty for prospect promotion after WD2 rather than calling it injury protection
(correction --> ... never to use it the way it is used now with an un-injured player allowed to go on IR)
ReplyDelete**DARRELL et al - I do 100% agree with you thought that injury status can't be vague - we'd have to iron out a really solid way to allow a gm to use the rule when needed
ReplyDeleteDarrell et al...I am willing to make the definition of FP injury more specific and proper sourcing.
ReplyDeleteThe Shadow votes YES.
ReplyDeleteUncertain of Rob's vote as he only left a comment
Bob you have received all my votes individual by email.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, sorry!
ReplyDeleteI vote NO.
ReplyDeleteCovered well in Darrell's response.
Except that Darrell's response doesn't relate to an IR rule but rather a free prospect promotion rule. Which is essentially what the IR rule is right now after WD2 but was never intended to be
ReplyDeleteI think we at least should change name of the IR rule - even if it stays exactly the same as how it is being used right now ... as it isn't an IR rule
Let me be more clear.
ReplyDeleteEliminate Rule 35 since it is used incorrectly, and carries a heavy cost for having solid Prospects.
Introduce limited Prospect movement, say after 6 weeks being on roster (benched or not), GM must decide to waive a player to make a spot for that Prospect, or that Prospect must be waived (status reset to FA for next WD or ED, which ever occurs first).
I like your thinking but i think if you waive the prospect - he could retain prospect status for next WD or ED.... if the prospect has any kind of value, the GM should be able to trade him.
ReplyDeleteI am open to that.
ReplyDeleteEither way, the GM has a price to pay, but not as steep as a WD slot, or he can make a ...TRADE.
Brian for Bob:
ReplyDeleteResult: 4 No, 6 yes, 1 Abstain, 1 Quitter = 4/12 Proposal does not pass
thank you for participating
Bob