Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 8:54:30 GMT -5
Concerning Prospect players, currently if any GM brings one of these guys up from the farm team and then trades them they cannot be sent back down by the GM that receives them in a trade.
IE. I bring up Justin Pogge and play him for a game or two, then I trade him to Molson now Pogge has to take up a roster spot on Molson’s team.
I suggest a system where a GM receiving a player like that can have the option to place that prospect back down on their prospect roster provided they have not played 10, or 15 NHL games (or whatever number of games the league decides). This will give trade value to prospects that have been called up early. Comments?
|
|
|
Post by drury2396 on Feb 3, 2009 9:27:55 GMT -5
Eh, I don't know.
It's like Dave mentioned in his post, a player on the prospect team holds more value than a player on the farm because they don't eat up a roster spot. I think that's part of the reason you never want to bring up a player too soon.
A big part of managing a team in this league is knowing when to call up prospects, and altering the rule like that would take that part of the managing somewhat out of the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 9:45:47 GMT -5
I agree with JR, I like the rule as it is. I will state that as the rule stands we have to ask the person we are dealing with whether a young player is a prospect or not; especially since sometimes this is hard to figure out when looking a the team pages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 10:03:12 GMT -5
I personally also don't like the rule the way it is. It could handcuff someone very easily. I don't see any harm in giving prospects X # of games to remain a prospect and stay on either list. After X # of NHL games played. They can no longer be a prospect. I think it best to deal with this issue in the off season though.
|
|
|
Post by drury2396 on Feb 3, 2009 10:46:32 GMT -5
In the rules state:
-A prospect may only stay on a franchises prospect list for 4 NHL years for skaters and 5 NHL years for goalies. -A player will remain a prospect until he is dropped after 4 or 5 years respectively, or is called up onto a roster at any time.
So in a sense, they do have a limited number of time (not games).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 10:55:41 GMT -5
right but if I call up a prospect year 1 for whatever reason. Every other GM shouldn't get hamstrung for it. I shouldn't be able to put him back down on my farm team but another GM should be able to make a trade and then send him down to the farm team until that 4 or 5 years expires. just something I wanted to bring up for the off season discussions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 11:48:18 GMT -5
Rule should stay as is in my opinion. The rule change would help me but I don't think it should be changed.
|
|
|
Post by MotorCity Warriors on Feb 3, 2009 12:33:32 GMT -5
right but if I call up a prospect year 1 for whatever reason. Every other GM shouldn't get hamstrung for it. I shouldn't be able to put him back down on my farm team but another GM should be able to make a trade and then send him down to the farm team until that 4 or 5 years expires. just something I wanted to bring up for the off season discussions I agree with Anthony on this but it should be dealt with in the off season.
|
|
|
Post by drury2396 on Feb 3, 2009 13:10:12 GMT -5
Ok, we already have 2 legs now for the off-season agenda.
Thanks, fellas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 14:25:33 GMT -5
Just saw this thread and I realize that we will deal with this in the offseason, however, I feel like the rule on prospects should not be changed. I will use Gagner as an example. Last year he hit the league like a storm in the 2nd half. This year he is a liability (as in a non-producing roster slot) to many active rosters. In fantasy sports there is always decisions to be made. GMs looking at the short term would likely take the rewards of instant production. GMs looking longer term might have left him on the farm so that he could adjust to the league. Both decisions have consequences.
How much more value would a Turris have if he could be acquired and stashed back on the farm? Everybody thought he was primed for a huge rookie year. This has not panned out. Now he has minimal contributions and is being talked about as being another year or two away from significant contributions. Right now many of the team benches are pretty thin, but in a few years, some decent prospects might be dropped in an effort to add a veteran presence, to take a run at the money. I could call Boedker up from my farm as he is clearly outproducing guys like Jokinen, Vermette, and Williams. However, he potentially has more trade value if I leave him on the farm. Since I have a long term view, I would rather wait for him to get through the bumps that come in the early years to get the bigger production that comes in the prime.
I do not believe that it is very difficult to figure out which players are on the farm team and which are active. The GMs in this league are pretty good at keeping up to date rosters on the page. I always look to see who is on the farm, and this effects every trade negotiation in which I am involved.
I do not like a game standard in determining rookies. It allows for short term benefits without the consequences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2009 15:36:28 GMT -5
right but if I call up a prospect year 1 for whatever reason. Every other GM shouldn't get hamstrung for it. I shouldn't be able to put him back down on my farm team but another GM should be able to make a trade and then send him down to the farm team until that 4 or 5 years expires. just something I wanted to bring up for the off season discussions If you call up a prospect then he is no longer a prospect. In this league once he is called up, that's it, right. I don't understand what we are talking about. I think once we do that then what is too stop me from saying I changed my mind on a player I want to drop him back as long as he has not meant the game requirement I should be able to do that. If another GM can do that then why can't I do it. If I call someone up and then trade him the recieving GM has to keep him up. He he does not want to then don't trade for him. That is my two cents
|
|
|
Post by drury2396 on Feb 3, 2009 17:18:31 GMT -5
I agree with Tim and Dave.
We will still discuss it in the off-season, though.
|
|