Rule Proposal:

[Chicago Blackhawks]

I think that we should look at a rule proposal here in the VHL for LTIR players. I know their are few instances of this, but rather then losing the contracts in the future, maybe we should look at a LTIR Cap Exemption.

Arizona, New Jersey and Colorado having guys like Landeskog, Couturier and Price on their roster, at the super high cap hits are obvious examples of this.

Price will likely never play again so maybe that would fall under the complacency buyout?

But guys like Landeskog and Couturier who could come back and still have term on their contracts. Maybe they shouldnt count against our cap.

Obviously these select few players (I'm sure there are more (possibly less notable players) would have to be approved by the league to be cap exempt?

Obviously lots of different options here, but like If a player missing more then 72+ games (Due to Injury only), and has a salary over $2,500,000 here in the VHL, could be eligible for this exemption?

[Vegas Golden Knights]

I would be in favour of a rule like this. I think it’s unfair to penalize teams for injuries that are out of their control. Maybe if Arizona could use that cap space for Landeskog elsewhere, he doesn’t choose to retool but instead run it back? Just one example of how that cap space could be utilized differently but there’s lots of examples where these season-long injuries have impacts:

Minnesota had this happen to them with Kucherov recently which impacted their season

Montreal just traded Pacioretty for a small return when he could have stashed him to wait & see if he bounced back

I could have kept Muzzin last season & stashed him on LTIR this season in lieu of having to trade assets to shed his contract.

I’m sure I could find more it I researched it but these are just examples that quickly come to mind. In short, I’md be in favour of implementing a LTIR exception

[Seattle Kraken]

I don't like the idea of letting teams stash players for free, even if they are injured. Player injury is not much different than signing a guy to a big contract and having him have a bad year.

Just one example that comes to mind is Jeff Skinner after he scored 40 goals. After that, he had 2 horrific seasons where he was essentially useless, but has since bounced back and is good again.

[Montreal Canadiens]

ya i think there are provisions for a case like Price, in the other instances the option of trading the asset for cap relief is always an option.
I believe landeskog could have been bought out for free as well and would just come back as a UFA if he ever has a rating again.

[Florida Panthers]

This was already discussed a couple years ago, we decided it didn’t make sense and that the way things are now is fine.

[Chicago Blackhawks]

Jul 14, 2023 9:13:57 GMT -5 Seattle Kraken said:

I don't like the idea of letting teams stash players for free, even if they are injured. Player injury is not much different than signing a guy to a big contract and having him have a bad year.

Just one example that comes to mind is Jeff Skinner after he scored 40 goals. After that, he had 2 horrific seasons where he was essentially useless, but has since bounced back and is good again.

Player injury is much different then having a guy who is capable of producing but isnt. That is part of the gamble of signing those big contracts.

Buffalo doesnt get cap relieve in the NHL if Skinner isnt producing but Colorado does for Landeskog, Philly does for Ellis, Montreal does for Price ect ect,

I'm not saying that we need to make these changes, but it does greatly impact how a team moves forward.

And all I'm suggesting is a case-by-case basis LTIR, approved by the staff. I mean here in the VHL, we are probably looking at less then 10 players in this position, but that greatly impacts cap situations.

Let me ask this,

Hypothetically Arizona keeps Landeskog on his roster, and he is rated 54 for the final two years of his contract. What is a fair contract extension price? If we are paying him for his past performance (VHL Ratings), he should easily come in under a million (Seeings he isnt LTIR eligible) he should not command a contract based on his NHL performance in 2024-25).

[Florida Panthers]

Jul 14, 2023 15:56:57 GMT -5 Chicago Blackhawks said:

Jul 14, 2023 9:13:57 GMT -5 Seattle Kraken said:

I don't like the idea of letting teams stash players for free, even if they are injured. Player injury is not much different than signing a guy to a big contract and having him have a bad year.

Just one example that comes to mind is Jeff Skinner after he scored 40 goals. After that, he had 2 horrific seasons where he was essentially useless, but has since bounced back and is good again.

Player injury is much different then having a guy who is capable of producing but isnt. That is part of the gamble of signing those big contracts.

Buffalo doesnt get cap relieve in the NHL if Skinner isnt producing but Colorado does for Landeskog, Philly does for Ellis, Montreal does for Price ect ect,

I'm not saying that we need to make these changes, but it does greatly impact how a team moves forward.

And all I'm suggesting is a case-by-case basis LTIR, approved by the staff. I mean here in the VHL, we are probably looking at less then 10 players in this position, but that greatly impacts cap situations.

Let me ask this,

Hypothetically Arizona keeps Landeskog on his roster, and he is rated 54 for the final two years of his contract. What is a fair contract extension price? If we are paying him for his past performance (VHL Ratings), he should easily come in under a million (Seeings he isnt LTIR eligible) he should not command a contract based on his NHL performance in 2024-25).

why wouldn’t the contract be based on his NHL performance? Every VHL contract is based on NHL performance lol That makes no sense at all…contracts are not signed based on what players do in the VHL
Also every contract is signed knowing players can get injured and be useless, it happens and it sucks but that’s the way she goes sometimes.

[Chicago Blackhawks]

Jul 14, 2023 16:26:56 GMT -5 Florida Panthers said:

Jul 14, 2023 15:56:57 GMT -5 Chicago Blackhawks said:

Player injury is much different then having a guy who is capable of producing but isnt. That is part of the gamble of signing those big contracts.

Buffalo doesnt get cap relieve in the NHL if Skinner isnt producing but Colorado does for Landeskog, Philly does for Ellis, Montreal does for Price ect ect,

I'm not saying that we need to make these changes, but it does greatly impact how a team moves forward.

And all I'm suggesting is a case-by-case basis LTIR, approved by the staff. I mean here in the VHL, we are probably looking at less then 10 players in this position, but that greatly impacts cap situations.

Let me ask this,

Hypothetically Arizona keeps Landeskog on his roster, and he is rated 54 for the final two years of his contract. What is a fair contract extension price? If we are paying him for his past performance (VHL Ratings), he should easily come in under a million (Seeings he isnt LTIR eligible) he should not command a contract based on his NHL performance in 2024-25).

why wouldn’t the contract be based on his NHL performance? Every VHL contract is based on NHL performance lol That makes no sense at all…contracts are not signed based on what players do in the VHL
Also every contract is signed knowing players can get injured and be useless, it happens and it sucks but that’s the way she goes sometimes.

Then why not have a protection, like the NHL, where we can use LTIR for these rare examples. (Im not talking about 25 game injuries, it should have to be 75+ games missed and a rating to reflect that).

We are picking to follow NHL production for a contract, but not have the protection that the NHL has if a player misses major time?

If McDavid announces he cannot play in the NHL for 2023-24. It is within Edmontons right to put him on LTIR and go out and spend his 12 million on two players to help them, whereas here its just, shit happens and bad luck. Again its nothing to me, but just like the idea of healthy discussion here.

[Calgary Flames]

Just a simple question, but seeing that this is fantasy hockey, how is this different than putting someone on IR in a regular fantasy hockey, football, baseball etc league where you can acquire players to field a competitive roster?

[Montreal Canadiens]

one thing to think of is maybe expanding the non active free buyout parametres. Instead of 100% did not play maybe its played less then 10 games or 6 or 7 whatever. I would have gladly done that with patches because after 5 games in the NHL his VHL rating does not reflects his true worth. Or have a veteran clause, in the event of a season ending injury his vhl rating is weighted more on the previous seasons stats.