KHL protection rule

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.

Jay1982 schrieb:

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.

I,ve ben lying on a beach in Lavato, Italy the entire day, so perhaps my brain is a bit sunbaked. I think Jay makes the decisive point here. If a team loses a good player to the KHL they deserve a pick coming back to them.

I also believe that in 99% of the cases players will leave during the off-season.

So I weigh in on the side that says the team wouldn't have to give up a keeper slot to get a draft pick. They're getting reimbursed something small for an asset they lost.

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

my opinion is to have no rule in place for the KHL.

vote....?

Well, I think that a vote would not be a bad thing. Brandon has suggested one option with scrapping the KHL rule altogether. I think the other option that we have is to keep what we originally had with the update concerning goalies. Anyone have any other ideas before we put this up to a vote?

G

I agree to scrap the KHL provision.

There we go. Two scraps of the KHL rule.

Any more?

woof

I do like the simple get a pick for a bolter rule. Nothing complicated about it. It's still not likely to be used again anyways.

razor schrieb:

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?

With injuries the player generally comes back and doesn't leave the country. Its apples and oranges really...

scoopNred schrieb:

What about old worn out guys that leave in the middle of the season?

I think there is also a difference here when you draft a dude who is old you expect him to not be around much longer. But if you are drafting someone in their prime or about to hit it, you'd expect them to be around for awhile. And it screws things up, that's what you are getting compensated for.




Regarding the making things complicated issue that has been brought up a few times....I really think that people are making it harder and more complicated than it has to be. People start insinuating provisions and clauses, why? And this is no offense to the people in question, but the ones who are saying lets get rid of it are the ones who are making it complicated by adding these "what if" and "why don't we then."

If a dude who gets X number of points in the season that just passed and leaves for the KHL then you get X round pick. Sounds fair and easy to me. Discuss.

I can see both sides of the argument. Perhaps we can leave the rule as it currently is (with said changes to include goalies), but make one simple adjustment to address Scoop´s concern. That being, if the player is 30 years or younger when he bolts for the KHL, the compensation applies. If he is 31 or older when he bolts, no compensation applies.

I don´t feel this is overly complicated, and it tries to follow the spirit of the original rule. I don´t think there´s anyone here that wouldn´t feel the pain if Kovalchuk, say, were on their team and then suddenly decided to leave for the KHL. A GM might build their team around a guy like that, and then POOF! he´s gone for good.

That´s why I think hanging on to this rule is a good one.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are the following:

Firstly, I love you.

Secondly, nice balance there Matt. Good solution I think. Please don't give Kovalchuk any ideers Matt. I would be in some kinda trouble without him on my roster.

G