Rule Discussion

Please post all discussion here, we can vote in the offseason about any changes proposed here.

Rangers Salary Proposal:

Also, should we look into bumping the $1.75 million waiver rule?

Genius idea, Rangers.

Seriously, though, I think the change would be good for the league in the long run.

I'd also support a relative number for waiver eligibility.

If we implement a 2% waiver threshold, players who make less than $1.79M this year would be free to move between rosters without passing through waivers.

If we used 2.25% for the threshold, we'd be looking at $2.01M limit this year.

Personally, I'd support any move towards a relative salary cap/waiver cap, but in this case, I think the 2.25% number is more reasonable for the waiver limit.

Added 2 new rules, the salary cap penalties from the over the cap thread and a note in the participation section. Basically if you are a no show for 10 days without contact with any of the other gm's in the league, you will be replaced.

Sounds good.

If a team needs some time for personal reasons (sick, vacation etc) then they are to inform 1 or more of the mods and it will be the responsibility of those mods to let the league know of their absence.

----------


Do we still have the vacation announcement thread? Would that not be the most visible way to show you were away, everyone would know and could check it from time to time.

i don't know that there's a specific thread, but yeah that would be all that's needed. a simple, 'hey guys, i will be gone for a week.'

Not a specific thread but everyone was posting here. http://z3.invisionfree.com/MLH/index.php?showforum=13

Addition to the rules...

All positional roster spots (2C, 2LW, 2RW, 6D, 2G) must be maintained at all times on yahoo.

Just to be clear, this means we can't run 5D and use an extra F or G instead, right?

Gotta say, I'm not a fan of this change. I've built my team under the assumption that I'd be able to use four or five D. That's three years of moves that no longer work.

With a rule change as significant as this, is there any chance we could at least delay the change by a year? That would give my team and the other teams who weren't planning on this type of change some time to adjust.

I agree.

I'm not against the rule, but I can see where the Rangers are coming from. I think this is something we'll need to vote on.

Prevents tanking. Makes sense.

If the goal is to prevent tanking, there are better ways to do that.

I also just realized that the rule wouldn't allow teams to strategically bench their goalies on busy days.

If you don't mind me asking, Pens, where did this idea come from?

MTL and I had a discussion about it last year during the season and if I remember correctly, a few GM's also messaged me about it as well.

We'll put it to vote and see where everyone stands. We have 12 managers, if 8 vote yes then it's a go for this season. If not, then it will go into effect next season.

Wouldn't affect goaltenders. It only means that you need to field a minimum of 6 F, 6 D, and 2 G on yahoo.

I agree.

We will do whatever the poll shows the majority oour GM's wish for this season.

The positional requirements have been called out in the league rules since I started, but were not strictly enforced.

Personally, I do not believe there is any reason to delay the change for an entire year.

If a GM feels that their team structure is not right for this (normal Yahoo) format then a trade or two should be able to remedy the situation fairly quickly.

I'm just not a fan of rules for the sake of rules. If there's a good reason for a rule, then so be it.

The only reason I've heard so far is that this rule would prevent tanking. It wouldn't. A manager set on tanking would simply sign/call up players who aren't on an active NHL roster to fill those roster spots.

Is there another reason that I'm unaware of?

I assume it's to increase the value of defensemen in this league (which the addition of hits and blocks further does). They've otherwise long been pariahs in this league, particularly ones with large contracts. I've got no problem with increasing the value of a particular player position.

I'm also not really sure what you're worried about, though, Rangers, you've got way more depth at Defense than I do!

My team will be fine, but I have run the team under the assumption that I could roster as few or as many players at each position as I saw fit to maximize my team's scoring potential.

Also, I run a few other leagues, and I just prefer to leave roster choices up to the managers themselves. Doing go adds both strategy and simulation value.

FWIW, D will always be underutilized in a salary type league. They are paid for much more than offensive production in the NHL, so their salaries don't reflect their value from a fantasy perspective.