Just realized after reading on Dobber's about Varlamov that our rule doesn't factor in any goalies. Any specific way you guys want to tackle this?

So you are correct my friend. Good point.

I suppose I would take Matt's first pick in September of 2009 should Varlamov fly the coop.

G



PS I suppose we do need to throw a few ideas around. Anyone got any?

In my league I did it by wins.

40, 30, 25. Anything less earns you nothing. If you wanted we could do 40, 30, 20.

40, 30, 20 sounds fine to me.

with players it goes
Option 1 (75+ points i think)- 2nd round pick
Option 2- 3rd round pick
Option 3- 4th round pick

so with goalies im assuming
40 wins- 2nd round pick
30 wins- 3rd round pick
20 wins- 4th round pick

this is fine with me.

im assuming that to get this pick they have to be using a keeper spot for the player that left. so to me this rule will only occur during the middle of the season.... because say zherdev says hes going to the KHL this summer, the team that owns him would most likely prefer to keep another player than use zherdev in the keeper spot only to get back a 3rd round pick or so.

so if im analyzing everything correctly this will almost never come into play. actually now im confused and its hard to explain.


to get compensated for this pick must you use a keeper spot? because what happens during the middle of the season if they leave? you get the pick the following year but do you need to allocate that player into a keeper spot during the offseason?

to me there should almost be 2 rules- 1 if they leave in the middle of the season (i.e. radulov) or 2 if they leave in the offseason

i bet i confused everyone lol...

I don't think we need to use a keeper spot, because most people would rather have a keeper spot than a draft pick (which breaks down to picking up someone that was let go from another team or some hotshot rookie who is upproven). I always thought he just had to have been on your team. And if he left mid season, well you keep him on your roster until the end of the year anyways. In my league I stated that if you drop a player and he later goes on to the KHL, well too bad you don't get the pick. If he was on your team when he went to the KHL then you get your pick.

e.g 1 Player leaves 2 months into the season

e.g 2 Player leaves with 1 month left in the season

e.g 3 Player leaves during the offseason


these are 3 scenarios that could happen, i don't feel the team should get rewarded with a draft pick in scenario 3 unless that was one of there keepers and they use up a spot to keep them.

exampl 2 should not get compensated as much as in example 2.

to me its tricky, i think we shoud just scrap the whole KHL rule, or revisit it when actual stars in the prime of their careers are going over there

No offense, but I think we are making it too complicated with these scenarios. If a dude is on your team and he bolts for the KHL, then you get a pick.

Well, let me mull it all over a tad. See if we can find a compromise.

One thing is for sure, if Varlamov goes, Green is immediately shipped to Desolation Row.

G

so if i guy on your team leaves during the offseason, you get a pick? doesn't seem fair since you will just keep another player instead of him. If the guy leaves with a month remaining in the season you would get compensated the same as if the guy left a month into the season, also doesn't seem fair (IMO).

I don't think we will ever see a person leave during the season unless something dramatic happens. And yeah, if I have a player that has been in my long term plans and he bolts for the KHL, I think it is fair to get a pick. I could have kept some other dude the whole time if I knew he was just going to leave.

As an example, lets say I have frolov and he's one of my keepers, this year I waste a keeper spot on him, and next summer when his contract is up, he leaves the nhl. Well I think I should get something, and its not like we are talking about a 1st round pick. We are talking about a 3-5th rounder. Its nothing much but atleast something for your troubles.

In 1963 the Softball Canada Rule book was 24 pages in length. Now its a couple of hundred. Sort of like the Charlton coin guide (that I remember as a kid). Careful here guys, getting more and more finite with a thousand sub-clauses... if this, then this, then this, therefore that...

In essence the league does a good job of balancing things up already with the Keeper rule setup the way that it is. You get to keep a player you had on your roster for a season, to replace a defector. Radulov is a relatively unique development. A star player, in his youth trucking off to Europe. Most of these players who go to Europe, have been unsuccessful here, and he was successful. What about old worn out guys that leave in the middle of the season? I realize they had to be good enough to get drafted in the first place, but we could be giving out a second rounder for some guy picked in the 12th? I tend to lean towards, its part of the risk. We don't want to have the potential in place to draft a Teppo Numminen, so that the owner can actually enhance their team the next year.

I agree with Scoop in that losing a player to injury, or to another league is the cost of doing business. No one gets compensated when they lose a player to injury. Do we begin to add clauses to determine compensation as to the degree of the injury too?

Are we trying to make this more difficult than it has to be?

Just my opinion. This in no way reflects the thoughts and opinions of the real brains behind the operation, that being Charlize

Well, I to, would opt for the simpler approach.

Yours truly
Greg