Rule 6 explained, hopefully
Sept 8, 2014 0:26:46 GMT
Post by Dave on Sept 8, 2014 0:26:46 GMT
****This rule is no longer in effect. So, yeah, no need to read this.*****
TL;DR at bottom
When Astros came up with the rules for this league he threw in a few experimental ideas. One was rule 6. I think the goal was to give managers a greater ability to retain their marquis players (players with salaries of $10 and above). It did not work out the way that he’d planned.
Rule 6 stated that “a player who was $10 prior to the draft will receive a 1st rounder. If the manager has no first, compensation will be a 2nd and a 3rd. If the manager has neither of those, he cannot bid over $10 on a player (similar to RFA in NHL).”
So, basically, if someone outbid a manager for a valuable RFA, the original owner would get draft pick compensation for losing the player. The problem was that the compensation was too high because if a manager managed to “steal” a valuable player, he would have to pay the new (probably still pretty high) salary in addition to giving up his #1 draft pick.
A few managers anticipated that no one would ever want to pay such a high price, and therefore that expiring $10+ contracts would ultimately in many cases become $1/5 contracts the year after they expired. This happened with Martin Brodeur and …. Anders Lindback (they seemed good back then). They probably should have gone for about $6-7 dollars, but if you are going to pay $7, you might as well pay $10 so that you can get him for $1 the next season. So, the effect of rule 6 was that it warped contracts by making the $10 threshold very important. At least, that would have been the effect if it had been allowed to continue. So, the wheels were put in motion to cancel rule 6 last summer when it became evident that it was going to skew things majorly (I think there was a vote, I can’t remember). However, it wouldn’t have been fair to cancel it immediately since some managers had already strategically decided to sign some contracts based on the existing rule. So, we decided to wait year before fully cancelling the rule so that no one would be unfairly penalized.
That is why the contracts of Moulson, Semin, Eric Staal, and James Reimer (I was only just informed about the Reimer contract but it does qualify as far as I can tell) are still subject to Rule 6.
If anyone has questions about this, do that thing where you ask me the question. Also, if you think a contract qualifies but it’s not one of the 4 noted, let me know.
TL;DR: If you bid on and win Moulson, Semin, Eric Staal or James Reimer, you will have to compensate the previous owner with either a 1st round pick or a 2nd and a 3rd round pick in the 2015 prospect draft.
TL;DR at bottom
When Astros came up with the rules for this league he threw in a few experimental ideas. One was rule 6. I think the goal was to give managers a greater ability to retain their marquis players (players with salaries of $10 and above). It did not work out the way that he’d planned.
Rule 6 stated that “a player who was $10 prior to the draft will receive a 1st rounder. If the manager has no first, compensation will be a 2nd and a 3rd. If the manager has neither of those, he cannot bid over $10 on a player (similar to RFA in NHL).”
So, basically, if someone outbid a manager for a valuable RFA, the original owner would get draft pick compensation for losing the player. The problem was that the compensation was too high because if a manager managed to “steal” a valuable player, he would have to pay the new (probably still pretty high) salary in addition to giving up his #1 draft pick.
A few managers anticipated that no one would ever want to pay such a high price, and therefore that expiring $10+ contracts would ultimately in many cases become $1/5 contracts the year after they expired. This happened with Martin Brodeur and …. Anders Lindback (they seemed good back then). They probably should have gone for about $6-7 dollars, but if you are going to pay $7, you might as well pay $10 so that you can get him for $1 the next season. So, the effect of rule 6 was that it warped contracts by making the $10 threshold very important. At least, that would have been the effect if it had been allowed to continue. So, the wheels were put in motion to cancel rule 6 last summer when it became evident that it was going to skew things majorly (I think there was a vote, I can’t remember). However, it wouldn’t have been fair to cancel it immediately since some managers had already strategically decided to sign some contracts based on the existing rule. So, we decided to wait year before fully cancelling the rule so that no one would be unfairly penalized.
That is why the contracts of Moulson, Semin, Eric Staal, and James Reimer (I was only just informed about the Reimer contract but it does qualify as far as I can tell) are still subject to Rule 6.
If anyone has questions about this, do that thing where you ask me the question. Also, if you think a contract qualifies but it’s not one of the 4 noted, let me know.
TL;DR: If you bid on and win Moulson, Semin, Eric Staal or James Reimer, you will have to compensate the previous owner with either a 1st round pick or a 2nd and a 3rd round pick in the 2015 prospect draft.