Ever promote an FP and have that player sent back to Junior by his NHL club - here might be a solution to that problem.
A Future Prospect that is promoted prior to the start of the season, not counting mandatory call-ups, would have their $1.00 salary paid and counted under the cap. If that player is sent back to Junior by his NHL club, a WCHL team will have the option of also sending that player back to “Junior”. In this instance, the $1.00 is still counted against the cap, however the player will not lose a year of eligibility off of his initial FP contract.
A Future Prospect that is promoted prior to the start of the season, not counting mandatory call-ups, would have their $1.00 salary paid and counted under the cap. If that player is sent back to Junior by his NHL club, a WCHL team will have the option of also sending that player back to “Junior”. In this instance, the $1.00 is still counted against the cap, however the player will not lose a year of eligibility off of his initial FP contract.
I think that once a player is up, they should stay up. This is loophole that could be exploited.
ReplyDeleteAgree. I think if you dress them for less than the required weeks (i think its 8?) they should not lose a year on their contract. same as demoting, but saves the headache of moving players up and down. still counts against the cap and you have them their for your emergencies.
ReplyDeleteThe way this way envisioned is this: you call up an FP. He gets sent back to junior on the 10 games in. Well, you have already paid for him. You can send him back if it is prior to (say) week 5 (8 is too many), and you have a spare at that position. You lose that dollar, but not the year. All else remains at it was.
ReplyDeleteI am for this idea. I think it would induce more people to promote prospects prior to them notching nearly 160 games. Like Steve Downie...140 games? My team is no different, I have guys over 100 as well. People complain about a lack of depth, the fewer players socked away in FP rosters the better.
I kinda like this idea. It might get the FPs flowing onto team rosters a little more quickly. That said, would people risk that $1 if they weren't sure.
ReplyDeleteIf Dave thinks it will be a headache moving players back to the "juniors", we could go with something like Rob suggested. But there should also be a max to the number of games a player can play to qualify for the year not counting. Ie. the player can't play 80 NHL games, but you've only dressed him for 4 weeks because you have better options at the positions, and expect not to have the year count.
Also to move a player back to "junior" you must still have room on your farm, or drop another prospect to make room.
Ya, what I suggested is that at a fixed point in OUR season he either stays up or goes back. Like week 5, no matter how many/few weeks you've dressed him or games he's played.
ReplyDeleteI just figure this is a way to reduce the number of FPs that end up accumulating more that 100 NHL games while still sitting in our farms. There were 12 of those this last year, plus 1 IR callup at the end of the season that finished the year with 161 games (how was Voracek not mandatory after last season!?!?) making 13 total. Every single one of them could have been brought up and tested last year. I figure at least 75% of them would have stayed on the main roster. At least. If they play their 70th game while up in that 5 weeks, well then he stays up, no matter what.
There were also 2 G that have now accumulated 80+ games in the farm. Twice our standards. 14 FPs that could have been making a difference and adding to the oft complained about depth.
Everyone has to make this decision as GM... let's not candy coat it for those that make a poor decision.
ReplyDeleteI don't look at it as candy-coating, I look at as getting them off the farm roster sooner. If there is a reduced element of risk, people will promote them faster...non of this 140/130 games crap.
ReplyDeleteAnother solution, beyond the scope of this is to reduce the mandatory threshold...60 perhaps. 60 would result in as extra 10 FPs being mandatory promotes. An increase of 33%. Though among the 30 that are already mandatory, I reckon at least 6 will simply be released. Shit to chew on.
We've talked about reducing the threshold numerous times, and it has been tough to get a consensus.
ReplyDeleteIs their any option to have mandatory call-ups occur immediately? Say as soon as game 80 is played, the player is automatically called up. It wouldn't count against your salary cap, but the players time clock would start, and increase the flow of FP's.
So you gain the benefit of a free dollar player for a certain number of games, at the expense of immediate callup.