Waiver-exemption: tracking & thresholds

[The BBKL Insider]

My Extras include:

Dougie Hamilton - i paid Erik Karlson
Troy Brodie - i paid Craig smith, and i paid Alreddson + top 15 pick for smith
CHris Kreider - i paid Olli Maata + Colton Orr
Damien Brunner - I paid Jussi Jokinen + marc macarron + Keith Aulie

i am not against trading extras, but i can't do it at a loss, you have to at least match what i've paid. I've told this to everyone that's inquired.

[KapG]

im happy with whatever is decided with for what its worth. Like I have no horse in this race at all.

[Nick]

makes no difference to me.

I don't think you mean that, and it does a disservice to the conversation to take that approach. A healthy discussion on waiver-exemption (as the thread title suggests) is a good thing.


We do need to realize the effects some of our previous decisions have.

We have a min GP rule which requires teams to acquire active bodies regardless of impact/quality
We have lax waiver-rules which allows for (lacking a better term) 'hoarding' in the minors - if it doesn't make your team better, why trade them?
We use every NHLer unlike virtually every other league - 30/30 mirror right - so we need to understand the impact.

We're saying, 'let market decide on value of all players' but then adding value to GP by saying, ' you must dress so many players ' -> there is a disconnect here. It's not demand/team build which is making GMs want these players, it's our rules.

[Bruyns]

I disagree with Chuck about GP being at reasonable prices. Sure Cliche has worked out for him, but he is 26 and just getting his first taste of the NHL. In 2 weeks he could be in the AHL for the rest of his career and then a rebuilding team has wasted an asset on a minor leaguer. Same with Gill a 38 year old defenceman that no team in the NHL wanted to sign, wow sign me up. He has one GP and is an injury away from never playing again. These aren't the type of players a team who needs GP will look for since there is no assurance they will play and if they don't then the team needs to go out and spend more assets to bring in players. Earlier in the season I couldn't get anyone to trade me an active D for a 2nd round pick and the ones offered to me for 1st round picks were terrible players the teams wanted to move. Same with Cs before trading Gudas for Eller I couldn't land a C and as a rebuilding team I'm not stupid enough to offer 1sts for a stop gap some other team doesn't want.

From my talks in this league it is almost impossible to get an NHL player this time of year who plays everyday and is not useless unless I'm sending an NHLer back which would defeat the purpose of adding GP. Luckily my GP will be OK this season after sacrificing a few picks for fringe players, but to say GP can be had at reasonable prices I take offence to.

I'd also throw my support behind more strict waiver rules next season. Active totals and reduced games.

[Lee]

GP can be addressed if you take the time to monitor player recalled, etc..

Some example:
Victor Bartley - claimed as a free agent
Antoine Roussel - claimed as a free agent
Will Acton - claimed as a free agent
Luke Gazdic - ^

Some recently recalled players claimed as free agents:
Chad Billins
Ben Chiarot - was sent down

[Shep]

makes no difference to me.

I don't think you mean that, and it does a disservice to the conversation to take that approach.

Whether we have 50 GP or 150GP for waiver eligible players, I'll just adapt and make it work.

Earlier in the year I almost had to have one of Galchenyuk or Landeskog in the minors for cap purposes. Had they not been waiver exempt I'd have just traded Matt Cooke for peanuts to make it work because fuck it.

Tom Wilson (drafted)
Darren Archibald (drafted)
Troy Bodie (acquired via trade)
Yannick Weber (paid 2nd + 3rd)

Those are my waiver exempt players I currently have in my minors that have BBKL stats this season. One of those is an NHL regular. I don't care what the result is because I don't have any players that I'm so called "hoarding". I have 1 injury call-up.

I waived Ben Eager earlier this year. Nobody made a claim. He's now played in 6 straight games for the Oilers because of Injury. He was available for FREE, and 29 GM's passed for one reason or another.

I have no sympathy for people scared to trade a 4th rounder for a Hal Gill, because he's too old.

[Bruyns]

It's not about sympathy it's about doing what's right to build a successful franchise. I don't need Gill and am perfectly fine for GP right now, but can you not see how a rebuilding team trading assets for a 38 year old no NHL team wanted is counterproductive? When you are rebuilding those picks are more valuable than an old D who might play 20 games so it is unfortunate some teams feel forced to hurt their team for the future to try and add a couple GP.

[Lee]

GP can be addressed if you take the time to monitor player recalled, etc..

Some example:
Victor Bartley - claimed as a free agent
Antoine Roussel - claimed as a free agent
Will Acton - claimed as a free agent
Luke Gazdic - ^

Some recently recalled players claimed as free agents:
Chad Billins
Ben Chiarot - was sent down

[kyuss]

Some example:
Victor Bartley - claimed as a free agent

actually, i'm positive you drafted him (not in the early going) in that Waiver draft some call useless.. cause i remember i was trying to get a late pick to draft him when you snagged him right before i could complete a deal.

Not that this changes your point though

[Lee]

Nope. First claim of the season as soon as soon as free agent claims were available.

[Shep]

It's not about sympathy it's about doing what's right to build a successful franchise. I don't need Gill and am perfectly fine for GP right now, but can you not see how a rebuilding team trading assets for a 38 year old no NHL team wanted is counterproductive? When you are rebuilding those picks are more valuable than an old D who might play 20 games so it is unfortunate some teams feel forced to hurt their team for the future to try and add a couple GP.

It's a 4th rounder. They are useless. There is more value in a 38 year old NHLer, rebuilding or not.

[Bruyns]

Again I don't need GP and I'm not complaining!!

I feel like I'm the only one who is speaking out about how hypocritical it is to force teams to add players and pay exorbiant prices, while not forcing teams to make players available at reasonable prices. I guess the GMs complaining about this behid the scenes don't want to speak up in this thread.

Wouldn't reducing the games played limit accomplish the same goal of stopping rebuilding teams from having to overpay and hurt their rebuild to add players that are of no use to them other than GP.

[Nick]

I hear ya FYI -> goal of the GP rule is to avoid excessive tanking. Instead of not dressing a competitive roster (acceptable tanking) it's to prevent not dressing an active roster (not acceptable).

[Lee]

In










deed

[Bruyns]

It's not about sympathy it's about doing what's right to build a successful franchise. I don't need Gill and am perfectly fine for GP right now, but can you not see how a rebuilding team trading assets for a 38 year old no NHL team wanted is counterproductive? When you are rebuilding those picks are more valuable than an old D who might play 20 games so it is unfortunate some teams feel forced to hurt their team for the future to try and add a couple GP.

It's a 4th rounder. They are useless. There is more value in a 38 year old NHLer, rebuilding or not.

We disagree on value then. That 4th rounder has a very small chance of contributing to my team in the future whereas Hall Gill has no chance of being a contributor to my team in the future so in the eyes of a rebuilding team 4th > Skillsy. I do agree that 4ths are pretty much useless, but Gill does not have a future in the NHL and serves no purpose for most teams since he doesn't play and has to be kept on the bench.

[kyuss]

First off, please don't get it twisted, I'm fine with the current rules and was only throwing out a suggestion

This seems to be a really touchy subject for some GMs apparently. I didn't think anyone was suggesting taking away what people have built. I thought it was a discussion about how some GMs sit on more players than they need to have as injury replacements. This artificially inflates the value of other NHL players causing rebuilding teams to pay through the nose for a shitty NHLer that another team deems not worthy of a roster spot. Player supply is limited and economics dictates supply and demand will determine price so teams can get away with asking unfair prices since they know teams will be penalized if they don't make GP and will be forced to cave and overpay for someone they don't even want.

...

"If you've got an excess of players, why do you have sell them for less than market value?" I have a problem with this from Shoalzie's post. I agree you shouldn't be forced to sell players for below market value, but do people fail to see the hypocrisy in forcing GMs to overpay to buy players? Why is it only the seller that gets market value and not the buyer?You are pretty much saying teams shouldn't be forced to sell below cost and at the same time advocating forcing temas to overpay with no other choice. This reeks of hyprocisy IMO. If you don't want to punish player hoarders why not relax games played limit so teams aren't forced to overpay unreasonable GMs?

good post.. which leads to what i pointed out yrs ago:
strict GP minimums put some rebuilding teams in a tough spot and risk to make the gap between teams even wider.

Lessening minimums has its drawbacks though, and they are making tanking easier and turning more RS matchups into walkovers, which definitely goes against league interest and competitiveness.
To break this toxic link you would probably need to alter how the top picks are awarded (like making a competition for it), but i think that's not going to be considered in this league because it would move away from what NHL does.

[Chuck Norris]

I disagree with Chuck about GP being at reasonable prices. Sure Cliche has worked out for him, but he is 26 and just getting his first taste of the NHL. In 2 weeks he could be in the AHL for the rest of his career and then a rebuilding team has wasted an asset on a minor leaguer. Same with Gill a 38 year old defenceman that no team in the NHL wanted to sign, wow sign me up. He has one GP and is an injury away from never playing again. These aren't the type of players a team who needs GP will look for since there is no assurance they will play and if they don't then the team needs to go out and spend more assets to bring in players. Earlier in the season I couldn't get anyone to trade me an active D for a 2nd round pick and the ones offered to me for 1st round picks were terrible players the teams wanted to move. Same with Cs before trading Gudas for Eller I couldn't land a C and as a rebuilding team I'm not stupid enough to offer 1sts for a stop gap some other team doesn't want.

From my talks in this league it is almost impossible to get an NHL player this time of year who plays everyday and is not useless unless I'm sending an NHLer back which would defeat the purpose of adding GP. Luckily my GP will be OK this season after sacrificing a few picks for fringe players, but to say GP can be had at reasonable prices I take offence to.

I'd also throw my support behind more strict waiver rules next season. Active totals and reduced games.

See and its that reasoning that bothers me. You want GP but when it presents itself its not good enough. The examples I cited are of reasonably priced GP that you didnt have to break the bank to get. Stop worrying about the guy who will retire in a year or two tops....or the guy that will liekly end up back in the AHL at some point. These GP arent meant to be longer term fixes - its a short term stop gap measure. The examples you've cited are prices I personally would refuse to pay. Like I said opporunities are there if you look. In alot of cases they aren't and you're being asked to overpay. It's up to you to decide to overpay now for the GP or wait it out and find a better deal. I took a chance on Cliche yes. If he pans out great, if he doesnt then whatever, all he cost me was a 4th + 5th. The chances of me drafting a meaningful NHLer with those picks are I believe less than 5%. Ill take the guy presently playing in the NHL vs a 5% chance I draft a guy who has enough talent, then develops properly and then is able to find a fit for him on his NHL club. Ill gladly take my chances on Cliche and so far I have not been disappointed. It all comes down to choices....

[kyuss]

Nope. First claim of the season as soon as soon as free agent claims were available.

ah, then i guess i failed to complete a deal (getting a pick and frreeing up a spot) to draft him and couldn't sign him as a free agent without completing a deal as well, cause i was at the limit, as usual

[Lee]

I demand the 50 contract limit to be increased to ... 75.

Seems like a good number.

Otherwise I quit.

[dave1959]

I've never been a fan of strict games played rules.

My thinking is to have strict tanking rules in place and enforce them.

It's not hard to tell when a team is purposely trying to finish last to garner first pick in the draft.

That's why a draft lottery for the bottom so-many teams is good to have in place.