Proposed Addition of Protection Waiver

[Mark Des Cotes]

Hi fellow CFHL GMs

I need a seconder for this proposal so that we can put it to a vote.

I’d like to propose a rule change for next season. The March waiver is pretty much a waste as seen by how many GMs opted out of it this past season.

I propose replacing the March waiver with a Protection waiver instead, leaving waiver picks for October-February only.

If this proposal passes, every team will be awarded a single Protection waiver along with their monthly waivers. This Protection waiver could be used during ANY waiver week, in addition to the regular waiver pick for that month. It could be traded like any other draft or waiver pick.

The Protection waiver would allow a GM to remove the protected status from a single player on their roster allowing that player to be placed on the GM’s minor team lineup for the remainder of the season.

For a player to be eligible to have his protection status removed, he must not have been played on a lineup since the end of the previous waiver draft.

This change to the rules would help teams who have protected players not being used because of unprotected players better than they are. It would allow GMs to dress stronger minor teams.

Will someone second this proposal?

[Richard_Tardiff]

I would support that if the player had to be acquired via trade and protection removed when the trade is made.

Allowing us to pickup a player from someone else that they protected but is only a depth player on the new franchise.

[Richard_Tardiff]

Cow Pucks would second Marskmen amended suggestion:
1. M-Waiver becomes P-waiver
2. Each franchise could unprotect a player acquired via trade, when the trade is announced to Chris (admin).
3. Players could not be swapped for the sole purpose of unprotecting (McDavid A for McDavid B and unprotect them).

Some discussion was done by email, here's what happened for any interested:

Me to Mark:
The protected players are a bit of a problem at times. The idea is good but I wouldn't want to allow a GM to keep a player in August and then unprotect his own player in October. So I suggest a tweak. Administratively, the M-waiver could be changed to P-waiver. When a trade is made, to remove a players protected status would be part of the message to Chris and he'd remove the P-waiver for that franchise and protected status on the player. Should not add much admin at all since a trade would already need to be actioned.

Mark's reply:
Just so I understand Rick, you’re suggesting a change to my proposal so that the protection status can only be removed via a trade?

If that’s the case, we would have to add a rule stating that a player cannot be traded for his counterpart for the purpose of being unprotected. So no trading McDavid (A) for McDavid (B) so that both can be unprotected.

Each Team would only have one protection waiver unless they acquire one via trade.

I like this suggestion. I just want to see more access to better players in the minors. Since we all end up with protected players who are not playing to their potential this would allow them to become useful again.

[Mark Des Cotes]

I'm good with Rick's suggested changes and since he's seconded the motion that means we have to put it to a vote.

Proposed Rule Change:
1. Eliminate the March Waiver
2. Each team receives a single Protection Waiver (can be traded)
3. When you acquire a protected player via trade, if you possess a Protection Waiver, or receive one via the same trade, you can have his protected status removed. This MUST be part of the trade and cannot be applied after the trade is processed.
4. Players cannot be un-protected if traded for their counterpart (Player (A) for Player (B)).

[Terry Turcotte]

Outlaws vote against proposed change, not a true protection waiver.. too many stipulations! A protection waiver should be used to benefit a GM’s team! At his discretion.
Outlaws Out

[Chris_Savard]

Bulldogs are against.

The protected status was given so that arguably the 11 best players on each team were ineligible to play in the minors

This was done to try to maintain the integrity of the majors and have each team dress their best lineup each week. I won’t mention names, but I lost a division banner and the associated winnings because a GM purposely didn’t dress his best lineup.

In my mind there should be no way that McDavid or other stars should be able to play in the minors. Our current system has worked well for years and I dont think it needs changing.

AGAINST

[Joe Raso]

I am against this rule change

[Greg_Nolan]

I am against the proposal.

[Glenn_Austen]

My thoughts:

I agree that our current system is limiting and can create lineup challenges which might at times actually prevent us from putting forth our BEST lineup in the majors (due to our inability to start protected players in the minors), the X-Men are also against the proposal as it is written. We need a simpler solution to the issue.

I would prefer to see a system wherein we could start no more than 1 protected player in the minors.

In a scenario where Edmonton plays 1 game, for example, and another team plays 4, I could see wanting to start McDavid in the minors if my other 2 quality centers played 4 games versus his one. Goalies seem to be a particular hot position for roster issues relative to protected and unprotected status, and there are situations where owners are forced to start injured or ineffective protected goalies in the majors while the better goalie is assigned to their minors. This flies in the face of the mandate to always start your best lineup in the majors, and can serve to undercut the competitive integrity of the majors.

Permitting owners to start NO MORE than 1 protected player in the minors would provide owners with some situational roster flexibility to enhance major league play while also keeping things as simple as possible - easy to monitor and easy to manage.

As I guess this is a separate proposal from what is being voted upon in this thread, can I get a second for this proposal?

[Josh Graham]

Highlanders are against the proposal and thus will vote no. Our focus should always remain on ensuring that the keeper head-to-head is as competitive as possible. I don't wish to see protected players slowly being drawn into our minor system. Like many, I dressed injured players in my top 11, only to ensure that my farm team was dressed.

I would like to propose a 16 round draft (11 keepers + 16 eligible draft picks = 27 on roster) and have 3 waiver picks available for use at any time of the year. These waivers could not be traded and could be used only if needed. Our roster would be capped at 30 players, but it could carry fewer if the GM decides to do so. A GM could make a selection in a "waiver room" during the week, and Admin. could upload that player onto the roster and strip away one waiver selection. The player could then be used for the following week's games - as we do now. Admin. would simply have to monitor waiver activity during the week.

With two of each player, there should be plenty of talent to go around. Seattle will be here in two short years lol.

A deeper bench + 3 possible waivers will give plenty of flexibility to dress both teams (injury free) and may reduce frustrations over player injury/demotion/contract stalemates etc. A GM could still trade protected players, bench/farm players and draft picks as usual.

In the end, this is just a suggestion. Fine if it never comes to fruition. I enjoy the league as it is. Happy rest of the summer to all.