Waiver-exemption: tracking & thresholds

[Nick]

The post is to inform the league that the CC/admins are in discussion regarding the existing waiver exemption policy in the BBKL.


Some concern over 'hoarding' has been brought up. The discussion includes comments like:

We don't want to impact injury depth, or force someone to give away developing prospects - but at the same time we're forcing teams to meet GP, goalie GS, and cap regulations and the top teams have the 'value' to wait on piece to develop in the minors, even if they are getting gp.

i've had complaints about this recently

They are complaining about lacking the wherewithal to plan ahead and acquire an advantage. Basically it's a complaint about someone playing the game better than them.

We have a limited number of players, and a very limited number of starting goalies -> waiver exemption is the crucial aspect here. You can have as many players on your roster/bench/minors as you want -> but having players not exposed to waivers is the hoarding aspect which I think could use some addressing.

I believe our waiver policy is likely too lenient. It was designed as a matter of convenience without much thought and never really reexamined.

Generally speaking, i'm fully against punishing teams for collecting too many good assets..

we're currently bouncing around ideas regarding:
- lowering the GP threshold for the loss of waiver exemption
- active tracking of age threshold for loss of waiver exemption
- active tracking of GP threshold for loss of waiver exemption
- less traction regarding limiting GP in minors (of goalies or skaters) -> that's an acquired asset, and planning which are both parts of keeper-league GMing.


We appreciate everyone's comments, let's try and keep them constructive.

[Lee]

People need to man the fuck up and trade for assets instead of crying and threatening to quit if people don't trade them players.

Just my opinion.

I support an active waiver counter as well as a lower overall total. 82 games. One full season played.

[Tony]

I certainly wouldn't make any huge changes until the offseason

[Shep]

This discussion also includes such comments as

I remember when this league was fun.

[Shep]

I certainly wouldn't make any huge changes until the offseason

No changes with regards to waiver exemption should be made until the off-season.

[kyuss]

I certainly wouldn't make any huge changes until the offseason

that is a given as far as i'm concerned.. and hopefully for the rest of CC as well.

[Lee]

I certainly wouldn't make any huge changes until the offseason

No changes with regards to waiver exemption will be made until the off-season.

Fixed.

[shooker]

Love where this is headed. Tired of seeing bottom feeders have to pay ridiculous amounts for gp when other teams have a full roster sitting in the minors. Changing waiver exemption is a great idea. It will effect me I am sure but what ever.

I don't entirely agree with this

They are complaining about lacking the wherewithal to plan ahead and acquire an advantage. Basically it's a complaint about someone playing the game better than them.

not all these guys destroy the teams they now have. Rebuilding is about assets and when hoarding occurs they can't ever retain assets as they are forced to trade them for gp which are overpriced or sitting in the minors.

I'd love a different waiver exemption. something like 82 for players as lee said and maybe 40 for a goalie.

[Tony]

For the record I never made any of those comments ... whenever I make a remark about hoarding, it's toungue-in-cheek. I actually agree with Lee's statement.

[CAM]

This discussion also includes such comments as

I remember when this league was fun.

hahaha...fantastic. I remember when i had depth and could make fun of these crybabies. Now i can't. I can only cry.

[Lee]

This discussion also includes such comments as

I remember when this league was fun.

hahaha...fantastic. I remember when i had depth and could make fun of these crybabies. Now i can't. I can only cry.

Seems like a failure at acquiring multiple waiver exempt assets for a more expensive expendable asset

[Shep]

This discussion also includes such comments as

I remember when this league was fun.

hahaha...fantastic. I remember when i had depth and could make fun of these crybabies. Now i can't. I can only cry.

You can have my depth. Jokinen + Halpern.. 2 studs for 1 dud.

[Nick]

Yes. It goes without saying that we give as much notice as possible for any planning- related changes. I believe this would be an off-season change.

[Bruyns]

Just going to throw an idea out there that would help combat hoarding IMO.

There is already a minimum games played limit for the active roster so why not implement a maximum games played limit for the minors system? This would stop teams from hoarding a bunch of everyday NHLers in their minors and would force a team to move an active player from their minors or risk being penalized in a similar way to not meeting the games played minimum. Some thought would have to go into the maximum number, but lets assume it was set at 250. This would allow for a team to carry 3 players in their minors that play full seasons without being penalized or a bunch of players that play parts of the season. This still allows for depth and injury replacements, but stops teams from having a lot of NHL players in their minors that they won't trade to others unless they get overpayment.

The reason I like this idea is it takes the power away from the teams that are already the strongest. Right now some of the top teams have depth and some bottom feeders can barely field a full lineup each week. The current system forces the weak teams to look for NHLers and have to pay high prices that hurt the future of their franchise just to land some scrub who won't help in the long run, but will get GP and keep the team from being penalized. A rebuilding team doesn't want to trade a 2nd round pick for a terrible NHLer who isn't good enough to play on a contender, but they have to out of neccessity to meet the games played limit. If teams were penalized for hoarding too many NHLers in their minors than instead of sitting on them for a king's ransom they would be forced to trade them at a reasonable price or to the highest bidder in order to avoid being penalized.

Not sure how much of this has been discussed in the past, but a games played maximum in the minors seems like a simple solution that would help teams dress a full lineup and stop teams from hoarding players unless some poor sucker overpays and hurts their franchise in the long run.

[kyuss]

Not sure how much of this has been discussed in the past, but a games played maximum in the minors seems like a simple solution..

..to screw teams that ammassed depth over the years.

[Bruyns]

I disagree, I'm saying still allow depth to be kept in the minors, the maximum # could be higher than 250. Those teams can trade their players for upgrades or picks/prospects so they aren't being screwed and the current system already screws over a rebuilding team like mine where unless I trade a 1st round pick it is next to impossible to land an NHL player.

I haven't complained about the current system to anyone either, just bringing up a suggestion I feel addresses the issue at hand.

[Mike]

I disagree, I'm saying still allow depth to be kept in the minors, the maximum # could be higher than 250. Those teams can trade their players for upgrades or picks/prospects so they aren't being screwed and the current system already screws over a rebuilding team like mine where unless I trade a 1st round pick it is next to impossible to land an NHL player.

I haven't complained about the current system to anyone either, just bringing up a suggestion I feel addresses the issue at hand.

Yep, this was proposed in the CC as well.

[Chuck Norris]

Just going to throw an idea out there that would help combat hoarding IMO.

There is already a minimum games played limit for the active roster so why not implement a maximum games played limit for the minors system? This would stop teams from hoarding a bunch of everyday NHLers in their minors and would force a team to move an active player from their minors or risk being penalized in a similar way to not meeting the games played minimum. Some thought would have to go into the maximum number, but lets assume it was set at 250. This would allow for a team to carry 3 players in their minors that play full seasons without being penalized or a bunch of players that play parts of the season. This still allows for depth and injury replacements, but stops teams from having a lot of NHL players in their minors that they won't trade to others unless they get overpayment.

The reason I like this idea is it takes the power away from the teams that are already the strongest. Right now some of the top teams have depth and some bottom feeders can barely field a full lineup each week. The current system forces the weak teams to look for NHLers and have to pay high prices that hurt the future of their franchise just to land some scrub who won't help in the long run, but will get GP and keep the team from being penalized. A rebuilding team doesn't want to trade a 2nd round pick for a terrible NHLer who isn't good enough to play on a contender, but they have to out of neccessity to meet the games played limit. If teams were penalized for hoarding too many NHLers in their minors than instead of sitting on them for a king's ransom they would be forced to trade them at a reasonable price or to the highest bidder in order to avoid being penalized.

Not sure how much of this has been discussed in the past, but a games played maximum in the minors seems like a simple solution that would help teams dress a full lineup and stop teams from hoarding players unless some poor sucker overpays and hurts their franchise in the long run.

Goddamn Commie....

[Bruyns]

Lets all share the players and live in harmony lol

I'm sure I'd be singing a different tune if I was a stronger team so I understand why teams want to keep things as is.

[Nick]

I hear ya Bruyns, and you're not someone that previously complained at all.


there needs to be a balance in regards to this. Nothing wrong with a discussion if we can maintain a level of maturity.


How much is a reasonable amount of injury depth? Injuries happen throughout the year, and sometimes in bunches. You don't want someone who is a 1/2 timer as your injury depth, as the hockey gods are cruel, resulting in your part timer being down in the AHL, while your own main piece in injured.

We do have bench spots (which count on the cap and are generally avoided by contenders it seems) -> this isn't very reflective of most NHL teams carrying/traveling with scratched players every night.



NHL does not have a min GP, we do -> they also have complete control over who is active on their lineup, we do not. In a sub 25 team league I believe this is much less of a problem them it is here, where a team having a large number of full-time active players in the minors, means that another team does not have these players.

Situation is notably worse with goalies.


But -> to villainize the GM who saw the ability to acquire assets and did so, is incredibly incorrect. This is an open market and we're not a bunch of communists forcing equal teams.