|
Post by IslandersGM on Jul 11, 2012 18:34:07 GMT -5
during off-season you should be able to drop players free of charge . Free agents may sign a new contract that you do like , be it length,amount etc and you may not trade player . This is why I did not protect Di Pietro and his stupid contract . With default contracts the player does not even have contract so why should you lose a half a million to drop them, even if they have contract and still qualify to be on minor team you should not have to pay to drop them. There are several people that are in many leagues with daily roster changes and they manage to set rosters so owners that are in only a couple leagues should have no problems if we have a small bench. Also when we made our 20 man teams we were not expecting that we had to pay salary of all regardless if we kept them all or not. I protected players that I either wanted to keep or use to trade in fill in rosters and planned to replace players on roster with players picked up in free agency. Until actual season starts we should only pay salary of players on our NHL rosters .
|
|
|
Post by FlamesGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 18:50:01 GMT -5
Not a fan of dropping free a charge It seems like people would just use players as rentals give them money then drop
|
|
|
Post by AvalancheGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 22:03:09 GMT -5
What about a rule where you could drop a non-prospect player only if he's sent to the AHL?
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 22:16:59 GMT -5
What about a rule where you could drop a non-prospect player only if he's sent to the AHL? Good point. What if you hade Sean Avery on your team? He was sent down. Do you have to keep him on your roster? If you cut him, then you have to pay half his salary too? thats lame.
|
|
|
Post by SharksGM (Trade Council) on Jul 11, 2012 22:22:35 GMT -5
during off-season you should be able to drop players free of charge . Free agents may sign a new contract that you do like , be it length,amount etc and you may not trade player . This is why I did not protect Di Pietro and his stupid contract . With default contracts the player does not even have contract so why should you lose a half a million to drop them, even if they have contract and still qualify to be on minor team you should not have to pay to drop them. There are several people that are in many leagues with daily roster changes and they manage to set rosters so owners that are in only a couple leagues should have no problems if we have a small bench. Also when we made our 20 man teams we were not expecting that we had to pay salary of all regardless if we kept them all or not. I protected players that I either wanted to keep or use to trade in fill in rosters and planned to replace players on roster with players picked up in free agency. Until actual season starts we should only pay salary of players on our NHL rosters . I did the same thing. I missed this in the rules. I agree that lots of adding and dropping sucks for realism, but having a bench doesnt necessarily mean you will drop guys. Having a bench will mean you WONT have to cut guys. I think you should be able to cut guys that are sent to the AHL, or send them down yourself. But only those types of guys who are actually sent down. Having a bench prevents you from cutting them. If you have a bench then being subject to half a guys salary you cut is FAIR. But not having a bench and being subject to half salary for cuts is NOT FAIR. You get what Im sayin? Without a bench cuts should be allowed. With a bench cuts shouldnt be allowed without penalty. I like benches and penalties. Benches add realism and doesnt let you hoard guys, it is like in the NHL. Guys like Milan Jurcina will be on the bench a lot like in the real NHL. Also, you'd be less inclined to cut guys and add guys and drop guys left and right, due to the penalty you'd face. SO there's more realism.
|
|