60-man rule

[inferno31]

That guy obviously hits close to home with me but the Wings are also off-the-charts when it comes to getting value late in the draft.

We're entering the second season and the second year of accumulating talent. I'm fine with us continuing on with the same format but I think we all need to deal with tough decisions at some point where we have to say "this guy isn't going to cut it, I have to move on". So you strikeout with a prospect...they're not all going to be stars. If 4 years down the road, you have a guy that is stuck in the AHL and doesn't show any signs of taking the next step...then get rid of them. If someone wants to take them on in a trade...so be it. These guys have a shelf life...they can either be 15 year pros or they can become career minor leaguers or complete washouts after 3 years.

Agreed, but we should approach the NHL limit eventually. Anything less is silly.
The question now seems to be how fast should we approach it.
Everyone should have to make tough decisions, but it should be ~2ish players a year you decide on not 4+.

Also for rebuilding teams consider this their assets are in picks and prospects. Teams that are going for it have a good 23 man roster plus some prospects, these teams HAVE to keep a full NHL team and then have limit spots for their prospects accordingly. Its a tricky situation for them.

[Shoalzie]

Agreed, but we should approach the NHL limit eventually. Anything less is silly.
The question now seems to be how fast should we approach it.
Everyone should have to make tough decisions, but it should be ~2ish players a year you decide on not 4+.

Also for rebuilding teams consider this their assets are in picks and prospects. Teams that are going for it have a good 23 man roster plus some prospects, these teams HAVE to keep a full NHL team and then have limit spots for their prospects accordingly. Its a tricky situation for them.

In the end, we all have the same number of pieces to work with and I think we need to decide on it one way or the other...just don't change course in the middle of an offseason. If the idea is to incrementally increase the rosters from year to year to allow need draft picks to be worked in...that's perfectly fine.

[kyuss]

If 4 years down the road, you have a guy that is stuck in the AHL and doesn't show any signs of taking the next step...then get rid of them. If someone wants to take them on in a trade...so be it. These guys have a shelf life...they can either be 15 year pros or they can become career minor leaguers or complete washouts after 3 years.

fact is, some teams are forced to make decisions before 3yrs are passed from their drafts.. a guy like Datsyuk could have been cut after 2yrs by a team with too many players.
And 3 yrs are not always enough, especially when you have european players good enough to play in the NHL that you can't know if they will opt for N.A. or not.
I don't think i have any 4yrs minor leaguers on my team.. yet i'm above the limit even taking away the recent FA signings.. and you know what, when you take away the FA signings and suppose all europeans would cross the ocean i bet very few players on my current roster won't make it to the NHL at the end of the day.

[Shoalzie]

I wouldn't dare say that we scrap the draft or even shorten it...we obviously run into problems each year when 210 new players enter the fray. 210 players aren't leaving the league to make room either. If we look at an annual 3 round waiver draft...which doesn't necessarily involve new players...and a 7 round entry draft...that could be 10 slots needed to take on these new players. Are we going to continue to increase the rosters ever year or is there going to be a point where it stays a certain number and we all have to show some discretion with the players we have?

[inferno31]

I wouldn't dare say that we scrap the draft or even shorten it...we obviously run into problems each year when 210 new players enter the fray. 210 players aren't leaving the league to make room either. If we look at an annual 3 round waiver draft...which doesn't necessarily involve new players...and a 7 round entry draft...that could be 10 slots needed to take on these new players. Are we going to continue to increase the rosters ever year or is there going to be a point where it stays a certain number and we all have to show some discretion with the players we have?

Currently we are increasing rosters each year by 5 till we reach the NHLs 80/50 rule. However theres been talk of switching directly to the 80/50 rule next season (no changes this season), or changing it from 5 to maybe 7 spots a year. There look to be no changes this year, but in the future starting next off season.

We need to eventually get to that limit, which is what I think everyone agrees on. How we do it now is the issue.

[Shep]

It's not a problem now, but it'll definitely be a problem 2 or 3 years down the road.

[kyuss]

i guess this other thread needs to be linked here: http://www.bbklhockey.com/viewtopic.php ... 902#p10204

Looks like MSP and Inferno already brought up in the CC most of the points we are discussing in this topic.

I see it was already established this would be rediscussed one year later ( -> this offseason).. so, considering several teams are already in troubles with this number, why not increasing it now?
if we are going to change the yearly additional number from 5 to 7, why not doing it this offseason already? how would that change hurt any team?

I just find it funny that the people who decided this wont even consider a change in this even with this fairly large up roar on it..Im not saying increase it to 80 today but by next draft its not in there I feel we have made a very bad decision. For one we all started with 30 guys, so the guys we have accumulated are guys that we have some belief in. I would hate to let a guy go I drafted two years ago and is just about to get a start pro just to draft a new player or give away the draft cause I dont have any spots open. No matter what the rule is we will have to make choices at some point, but why force it soo soon. This is a fantasy league and one of the things that seperates this league is the depth. We all want to hit homeruns in our drafts and a home run imo is a later round guy not first two or three and unfortunatly with this limited roster size we will have to let some of those guys go.

couldn't agree more.. besides, i will add not every GM started in this league with 30guys.. there were some who joined later and who started with poor teams with 50 players already and no high picks...

[kyuss]

It's not a problem now, but it'll definitely be a problem 2 or 3 years down the road.

actually, for rebuilding teams it's already a problem.

[kyuss]

I think we can all admit to one another that we have some guys that could be dropped if it was truly necessary. Can anyone here say with a straight face that all their prospects or fringe players are earmarked for the NHL?

again..
take away from my rosters the FA i signed and the players in europe (that sure i would like to hold on, since they are already NHL caliber players that i can't know if they'll decide to cross the ocean or not): of the players left i think no more than 3 will fail to make the NHL; and good luck finding out who those 3 will be.

I realize picks and prospects are a big part of this league...not just the NHL talent...but everyone should know the roster limits and keep that in mind when they make trades. If you've got 12 picks, you should have room for 12 new players.

i think you're missing one of the points here: making room for 12 picks means cutting players that are better than most of those selected with the 12 picks.. so basically the picks become a problem rather than an asset. That's what really doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not against the roster limit going up from year to year but changing the rule now after it already has been decided just opens the door for more massaging of rules. We need to have some rigid guidelines to work within.

if you're talking about changes that would hurt some teams, i am with you.
But i fail to see how this change would hurt anyone.
Besides, it looks like this thing was bound from the start to be rediscussed during this offseason.

[Shoalzie]

actually, for rebuilding teams it's already a problem.

With all due respect to rebuilding teams...we've had roster limits since I've been here and that should be kept in mind when making deals...but how many assets does one team need to have? This is probably one of the big reasons why I'm against doing a full-on rebuild with my team...the limit of assets/players you can have. Unless I can get a few high picks for assets I have, there's not a lot of point to ripping the whole thing apart and hoping in a couple years a few of those prospects turn out to be decent players.

I'm not trying to get in the middle of this...I've said what I've wanted to say. I support what moves the league and the CC decides to do so I'm going to just let it take it's course. Would I like a few more spots to hang onto picks or fringe players? I think we all would but I'm good with having a limit and it's part of the challenge to put together a team within set constraints like a salary cap and a roster limit.

[Shoalzie]

if you're talking about changes that would hurt some teams, i am with you.
But i fail to see how this change would hurt anyone.
Besides, it looks like this thing was bound from the start to be rediscussed during this offseason.

I'm never against a rule change to benefit the league but I think it's a little late right now to change in midstream because I for one was someone who made it a mission to stay under the asset limit once the waiver draft and entry draft rolled around this summer. Do I lack desirable prospects? Yeah, I'll say that...I've got guys I can afford to pitch if I had to slash players off my roster and this spring/summer I've dropped a few NHL veterans due to the roster limit and the waiver draft. To me, I think it's a fair trade to drop my worst prospects or my valueless NHL players to allow me to the ability to draft new players.

My biggest beef would be that we've got teams that are rebuilding that had numerous picks towards the waiver and entry draft and now they just realize that they're up against the roster limit and they now want more flexibility. Would a rule change help me? It would help everyone...it just bugs me that now that we're more than halfway through the draft, teams are now just realizing that they've got too many assets in relation the rules that were in place. Let's establish things from the start so I know that I could had the ability to hang onto 65 assets instead of 60.

[Scott]

Shoalzie hit the nail on the head. I've said it from day one, asset management is a skill, fantasy hockey is a skill, drafting appropriately is a skill, praying for a miracle and hoarding the prayers.. not so much! If things were easy there wouldn't be much point in doing them. Prove you belong here and start by making better decisions for fuck sakes.

What will the "rebuilders" say when we finally reach the 80/50 limit and still have our annual drafts?

[kyuss]

Shoalzie hit the nail on the head. I've said it from day one, asset management is a skill, fantasy hockey is a skill, drafting appropriately is a skill, praying for a miracle and hoarding the prayers.. not so much! If things were easy there wouldn't be much point in doing them. Prove you belong here and start by making better decisions for fuck sakes.

What will the "rebuilders" say when we finally reach the 80/50 limit and still have our annual drafts?

LOL@this.

[armandtanzarian]

I like Scott's point of view on this issue. We are still a new league and a fantasy league at that. You show me one fantasy league in existence that has 30 teams and manages 80 man rosters. Why can't we stay the plan and build up to our goal through proper development and asset management. 1 player drafted in the 7th round that was successful doesn't change things. Only 50% of the first round in any given year will ever make it to the NHL. Think about that...It is exponentially less after the first. I am baffled by the opposition. We will eventually be at our goal to match the NHL. Using excessive picks as an argument doesnt hold water. What NHL team would go after approx 20 picks in the same draft year to take players of the same age and try and develop them all at the same time? exactly...use the picks for each upcoming draft accordingly instead of throwing a pile of shit at the wall and hoping a piece sticks all in one year. If you are near your limit, trade the picks to a team who needs them this year therefore getting more picks for the future with a higher return. just my opinion on the matter. I know i dropped players last year that i would have liked to keep but i was at the limit.

I would almost suggest doing away with the waiver draft and including all draft eligible plus everyone else in the same draft. Increases the value of the picks plus puts way more talent into the pool.

[Shoalzie]

It does take some kind of an investment to acquire picks and make picks to reload the prospect pool but at some point, we need to just say "well, this guy just isn't going to cut it". If you gave up a lot to get a draft pick and that particular pick is a guy that you think has value and a future but isn't showing it, then maybe you need to re-evaluate what you're looking for with players. If you traded a solid NHL player to get a 2nd round pick and the guy you draft has repeated injury problems or struggles in the AHL and appears to not have what it takes...well, you just have to try again.

My hats off to those who can acquire/accumulate highly-touted prospects while maintaining a contending NHL roster...it's cheaper to plug in a young guy to your lineup than it is to make a few trades to pick up a pricey NHL veteran. However, if you've got a pool of C, D or E-grade prospects...don't expect that those guys overnight become superstars. Some guys have can't miss written all over them but they can still bust. It's a risk/reward proposition with acquire picks and prospects. These guys aren't going to help you right now...you have to hope that a few of them become role players or second line scorers or maybe a decent goalie.


To go on a slight tangent...

Go through the history of the NHL with trades involving a star player going from a rebuilding team...you can see a lot of pieces going the other direction but many times they end up being major gambles that fail miserably. I look at the trade the Kings and Blues made involving Gretzky. Gretz ended up being a rent-a-player in St. Louis since he went on to sign with the Rangers that following summer but look at what the Kings got in return in a rebuild-driven deal. Craig Johnson, Patrice Tardif, Roman Vopat and a pick that turned out to be Peter Hogan.

Hogan never played an NHL game...played with 9 different minor league clubs over 6 seasons. Vopat played 4 seasons with 4 different teams and only scored 6 goals in 133 games. Tardif had 7 goals in 65 games. Johnson had a fairly lengthy NHL career spanning 10 seasons with 5 clubs but only scored 75 goals in 557 games. Look at all that the Blues gave up to have Wayne Gretzky for 31 regular season and playoff games...do you think that was a bad investment? He at least got you through one round of playoffs and took the Wings to 7 games in the Western semis.

He doesn't stay with the team but none of the 4 pieces the Blues gave up turned out to be much of anything. The Kings ended up with one player that stuck with their team for a significant amount of time and that was Johnson. 1 out of 4 assets turned out to be a semi-functional player for their team. Anyone that says the Blues didn't win that deal in a walk is crazy. Johnson eventually leaves LA as a UFA, Tardif leaves via free agency, Hogan never makes it to the NHL and Vopat gets traded for a pick that is eventually traded to acquire Eric Lacroix. Lacroix is later traded for Sean Pronger. Pronger plays 13 games with the Kings and leaves for Boston as a UFA. The Kings traded a guy that had ended up having a 102 point season for 4 disposal pieces. They could've let him walk in free agency instead and got as much in return.

[Shoalzie]

I would almost suggest doing away with the waiver draft and including all draft eligible plus everyone else in the same draft. Increases the value of the picks plus puts way more talent into the pool.

I think we should just tweak the waiver draft format to more of a supplemental draft or what the old waiver draft used to be. Take the standings as the draft order. With a list of unprotected or exposed players...a team can choose to take a guy or decline. Go through 3 rounds max...a team adds at most three guys or they can decline and take no one.

[kyuss]

I like Scott's point of view on this issue.

what exactly do you like out of the following crap?

..praying for a miracle and hoarding the prayers.. not so much! If things were easy there wouldn't be much point in doing them. Prove you belong here and start by making better decisions for fuck sakes.

What will the "rebuilders" say when we finally reach the 80/50 limit and still have our annual drafts?

i don't get why NHL teams making their selections are doing business while some of us are supposed to be throwing a pile of shit at the wall and hoping a piece sticks all in one year.. ?

I have confidence in every single guy i draft, if you feel like throwing a pile of shit at the wall when drafting i'm sure it makes it easier for you giving away your picks.. even if basically for free, since most teams have troubles with the 60 men limit and no one seems to want 2010 picks at the moment.

[armandtanzarian]

I am throwing shit at the wall and hoping for a miracle with every pick after the first round. You can call it business, i call it throwing darts blindly. That is with or without pro scouts. I would love to see all pre-draft scouting reports for players in one draft year and then compare them to where they are at present. It would be quite comical. Anyone who wants my 7th round pick is welcome to it. pm me.

[Shep]

I'm not even at the 60 max, and I could easily release 5+ players if I had to.

[Scott]

Mik, it really is unfortunate that you inherit a team in the position it was in but you've had months to adapt to the rules & guidelines of bbkl. Actually, you still have time too!

I'm really sorry you're having trouble getting down to the 60 men limit and trouble making a trade but everyone here has the same set of rules to follow and would have the same tough decisions to make!

Just going over your current roster, imo, I see at least 7 disposable pieces that have almost no shot of stepping foot on NHL ice unless they got jobs on an arenas ice maintenance team!! But again, that's my opinion.

This will be a good lesson learned for you, Tony, and others who weren't aware that asset management is the most important part of our league.. unfortunately it had to happen to a couple new guys. Like I've always said, you either get it or you don't!