|
|
Post by onetimer on Dec 17, 2010 9:43:04 GMT -5
How can Nabakov be picked up when in the first line in the rules for picking up a free agent it say's he has to be signed by an Nhl team. Nabakov is not signed to any team therefor he should not be allowed to be picked up until he signes, if he does.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowley on Dec 17, 2010 11:58:58 GMT -5
I assumed it was okay as it is the same as Radulov or a UFA. If a player is "signed by an NHL team, drafted by an NHL team, and is not on any GM's roster" he is good to be signed. He is essentially a UFA who was drafted by an NHL team but is not currently signed how I read it.
If the move was offside, I'm happy to figure out an alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by seadawg on Dec 17, 2010 12:43:25 GMT -5
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Nabby pick-up is legit. I think the rule is only slightly mis-worded and that changing 'is' to 'was' in the following reference would clear up the confusion:
|
|
|
|
Post by onetimer on Dec 17, 2010 15:41:28 GMT -5
Here is what it says in the rules,copied and pasted from rules, the first line in the rules.As for Radulov that was in the draft not a free agent.
" A free agent available for waivers shall be described as any player who is signed in the N.H.L. ".
The difference is that Nabakov does not belong to any team and is not signed to any Nhl team.
If this is the case what is the difference if i put in for one of the top rookies for next years draft. He doesn't belong to any Nhl team the same as Nabby.
You can say is ,was, but the fact is that it says is...
I do not think this is a proper pick up according to the rules.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2010 16:04:46 GMT -5
Rule is the rule. I agree with onetimer only because I do not want to stray from our rules and allow exceptions based on "potential" typos.
If we decide as a group that this should be changed; we should vote on it for next year's season.
|
|
|
|
Post by onetimer on Dec 17, 2010 16:18:14 GMT -5
I agree with a vote for next year. Once the rules start being bent it is a sure sign of trouble in the pool.
To be honest i would have put in for him (not that i would of got him) except for the wording that this rule states, so i did not put in for him because of this. We do need to have this resolved for future cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowley on Dec 17, 2010 18:17:37 GMT -5
I think I'm reading it different. It says "A free agent available for waivers shall be described as any player who is signed in the N.H.L., is drafted by an NHL team, and is not on any GM’s roster during the “Waiver Period”" Nabokov was drafted by an NHL team so I thought he was available. Either way, I'm not to concerned as I doubt he'll sign this year. I do think its unfair if one-timer read the rules different and therefor did not bid on him. Leave it to the KHL to find holes in hockey pool rules  I know there are a number of pool discussions around what to do here. |
|
|
|
Post by onetimer on Dec 18, 2010 9:55:28 GMT -5
I will not be returning to this pool next season. I have been in other pools that had this same situation as we have and i found out that once the rules were not adhered to it became a free for all and the pool became a mess and a headache and soon after folded. Good luck to you guys. If you can fill my team go ahead and do so. It's been fun thanks Onetimer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 15:44:45 GMT -5
You're quitting over someone signing Nabokov? You said it yourself even if you put in for him you wouldn't have got him...
It's amazing how sensitive people are... Like signing Nabokov was going to turn his team into a powerhouse! lol...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2010 17:59:05 GMT -5
Yeah Onetimer... we had a slight misunderstanding. No need to be rash and decide to quit. With the right people and the right guidance, a pool can run really smoothly. Can't judge one pool from another!
|
|
|
|
Post by cowley on Dec 20, 2010 12:53:01 GMT -5
Don't quit buddy!
We just read the rules differently. As I said, I'm fine with changing my move. If playmaker wants to reverse it, thats fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Dec 21, 2010 14:12:49 GMT -5
I assumed it was okay as it is the same as Radulov or a UFA. If a player is "signed by an NHL team, drafted by an NHL team, and is not on any GM's roster" he is good to be signed. He is essentially a UFA who was drafted by an NHL team but is not currently signed how I read it. If the move was offside, I'm happy to figure out an alternative. This is exactly right. |
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Dec 21, 2010 14:13:35 GMT -5
Here is what it says in the rules,copied and pasted from rules, the first line in the rules.As for Radulov that was in the draft not a free agent. " A free agent available for waivers shall be described as any player who is signed in the N.H.L. ". The difference is that Nabakov does not belong to any team and is not signed to any Nhl team. If this is the case what is the difference if i put in for one of the top rookies for next years draft. He doesn't belong to any Nhl team the same as Nabby. You can say is ,was, but the fact is that it says is... I do not think this is a proper pick up according to the rules. The difference is that those rookies have not had their NHL rights owned and do not meet the minimum games rule. It is a proper pickup. |
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Dec 21, 2010 14:15:41 GMT -5
I will not be returning to this pool next season. I have been in other pools that had this same situation as we have and i found out that once the rules were not adhered to it became a free for all and the pool became a mess and a headache and soon after folded. Good luck to you guys. If you can fill my team go ahead and do so. It's been fun thanks Onetimer. How is this pool becoming a free-for-all? What rules have been bent? Nabokov was drafted by an NHL team and played the amount of games necessary to be picked up. You could pick up Wayne Gretzky in free agency if you wanted to right now. |
|
|
|
Post by akkei on Dec 21, 2010 17:10:41 GMT -5
To be honest, I have not paid attention to this rule before onetimer raised the issue. I took for granted that UFAs were eligible. However, I agree with onetimer on this and I think it's too bad this is even being disputed. The rule is pretty clear; a player must be signed in the NHL to be eligible. Maybe that wasn't the intention, but that is still what the rules say.
I don't see the point in waiting for the end of the season before addressing rules issues like this one (especially now that TSHC agrees to cancel his pick). If we all agree that UFAs should be eligible, then we should correct the rules and let Nabokov be drafted at the next opportunity. It's not like there are tons of UFAs that will suddenly be picked up after this rule is corrected.
P.S. The Radulov example is irrelevant IMO. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm quite certain that he is still under contract with the Predators. So he would be eligible for free agency if he wasn't already on a GM's roster, no matter how you read this rule.
P.P.S. If being drafted is a requirement, does that mean that undrafted players like Martin St-Louis will never be eligible free agents? That doesn't make much sense either. If the rule is how playmaker interprets it (or rather how I think he interprets it), then the only eligibility requirements should be: (1) the player must not be on another GM's roster; and (2) the player must have played at least 25 games in the NHL (20 for goalies).
|
|
