New Rule - Inactive Players

[Deleted]

I think if you buy out a UFA aged player, you should lose any right to sign him when he returns, especially if we are waiting until after the player has returned for a full season.

I could see it making sense if you have the players negotiating rights from the time they return in real life, until the UFA period following their first season back.

If you buy out an RFA aged player, you reatain their rights until they turn 27.

[Corey Scott]

I just realized a big problem with the new buyout for inactive players. Stupid contracts being the issue here. If a player isn't good enough to play in the NHL and hence goes elsewhere you should not get a free buyout.

To be specific, one person I am talking about here is Rob Schremp. He didn't defect/retire/receive a career ending injury, he simply sucked and ended up having to join a different league. I don't see why a gm should get a get-out-of-jail-free card for this. I also don't think his other two buyouts should be allowed either because they were bad contracts (imo) and should be penalized.

So yes, this is a direct reaction to me seeing Calgary's/Phoenix's. *note: I realize Calgary has no gm at the moment, so removing these players in this case might make sense to make the team more appealing. However this issue still should be fixed/looked at.

My solution would be that the player must have played at least one game in the NHL in the past year to be able to qualify for this inactive buyout for defecting to another league *(or have had an injury resulting in why they didn't play the year before). I would rather a stipulation that a player cannot be bought out for defecting to another league if his contract ends and he leaves the NHL for elsewhere, but this might not be as readily accepted. The Kovy incident is a good spot for this rule, but other then a player leaving mid contract I don't think any other form of "defecting" should lead to a free buyout here. It is generally common knowledge when a player wants to eventually go back to their hometown/another league and if you go signing someone to a 4 or 5 year deal here when they only sign for 1-2 in the NHL it is a risk you should be taking on that he won't leave the NHL.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

edit: An add on, if we really also want to be specific here, none of those players he bought out fall in line with any of the three requirements as listed as none defected/retired/suffered a career ending injury. In order to defect you need to be signed to a team, none of these three were because they were not good enough to be.


edit #2: On another separate issue here is a question. How do we determine what a career ending injury is? In the Sauer case (buyout for Pitt) he received a concussion and missed last year causing him to not get another contract. He hasn't retired and is actively (from what I know) trying to eventually get back to the NHL. When do we determine what is career ending?

[Deleted]

Kurt Sauer is attempting to return to the NHL. Mike Sauer is still under contract with the Rangers, and on their injured reserve list.

I agree 100% with what you are saying, but it's very difficult to evaluate whether a player like Rob Schremp went to Europe because he had no offers, or if he went by choice. In Schremp's case it's probably because it was his only option, but in other cases it can be hard to tell. How would Leo Komarov be handled for example?

I think the easiest, most streamlined way to do it is that if a player didn't play the prior year, and thus does not have a rating in the Sim, than you may buy that player out.

Yes, some teams will get out of bad contracts, but I think it's better to keep it simple and suffer that consequence. Just my opinion, but I can certainly see the downside.

[Jay Seo]

I agree with Brad - there's definitely a downside, but for simplicity and objectivity's sake, the rule is pretty good as it is. Determining why a player defected opens up a whole new area of ambiguity that'll cause lots of headaches for the league staff.

Even if some teams can get out of bad contracts this way, they won't be able to rely on the rule often enough to be a major issue, since they can't control which players defect/leave/retire or not.

[Corey Scott]

Aug 26, 2013 12:53:16 GMT -5 Jay Seo said:

I agree with Brad - there's definitely a downside, but for simplicity and objectivity's sake, the rule is pretty good as it is. Determining why a player defected opens up a whole new area of ambiguity that'll cause lots of headaches for the league staff.

Even if some teams can get out of bad contracts this way, they won't be able to rely on the rule often enough to be a major issue, since they can't control which players defect/leave/retire or not.

If we simply went with defecting only being someone leaving while being an rfa or while in the middle of a contract (as defecting is actually defined) then there would be no ambiguity at all.

[Deleted]

My argument would be that even a UFA player that leaves could be leaving by choice and not due to lack of opportunity.

When you sign someone to a contract you are taking the risk that their performance will drop, and they could even become a useless player. But when someone rapidly goes from useful to no rating whatsoever, it seems to be more out of our control. If Kovalchuk were to sign in Russia in the offseason rather than leaving NJ while under contract, I wouldn't expect a VHL GM to pay him 7 mil a year for a 55 rating.

[Vancouver Canucks]

Wondering if this rule is still available? Didn't see it in the rule book.

[Philadelphia Flyers]

Yes, it's a rule.

[Corey Scott]

Aug 15, 2013 15:09:12 GMT -5 Andre Deblois said:

The question of what to do with players who have not played a professional game in North America in the previous year

Just to be a stickler but the rule as written here quite clearly states it deals with players who had not played any games in North America in the previous year. Combine this with the talk about choosing not to buyout leading to 55 rating and it seems like this is meaning the previous nhl year.

Either we need this clarified or the buyout should be invalid, which imo it is.

[Buffalo Sabres]

Ok I'll take another look at it