League Disparity

[Sensfanjosh]

So I'm wondering why is it that the league can create a set number of waiver exempt players I'm allowed to keep? Where does my incentive to draft and develop players come from then? I actually think its brutal that we're even considering imposing limits like this. I also notice that a lot of the people bringing this up happen to be the teams that have hit the trade wall once they realize they've moved all their assets for NHLers and cannot make more moves, or those who have shallow depth systems. You guys have made your beds now sleep in them, not sure why those who have built deep rosters should now be penalized for their work to draft and develop.

[tyler]

So I'm wondering why is it that the league can create a set number of waiver exempt players I'm allowed to keep? Where does my incentive to draft and develop players come from then? I actually think its brutal that we're even considering imposing limits like this. I also notice that a lot of the people bringing this up happen to be the teams that have hit the trade wall once they realize they've moved all their assets for NHLers and cannot make more moves, or those who have shallow depth systems. You guys have made your beds now sleep in them, not sure why those who have built deep rosters should now be penalized for their work to draft and develop.

I agree, changing our waiver exempt rules is crushing to teams who have built a dynasty.

[Matthew]

I'm actually planning on building th exact type of deep team mik has. Imposing this rule would hurt me in the long run. I just happen to agree with fraser.

This isn't a cap on waiver exempt players. It's a cap on # of nhl games being lost to the minor leagues.

I find it odd the people who want more regulation on goalies seem to be on the opposite side of this argument an vice versa. We are an odd group of fools in bbkl.

[Sensfanjosh]

A cap on gp is a cap on players, they both force teams to trade away depth to teams that are unable to acquire it themselves

[Sensfanjosh]

I've been shopping Dominic Moore for a W for about 3 weeks and no one wants to pay up so I'll keep him, I'd love to move him to a team that needs a C and have reached out to guys willing to make a lateral move. Everyone I've approached either doesn't have room or wants me to downgrade, and at that point its their fault if they can't acquire players, but I'm not sure forcing me to move him for a less than fair return so my minor system gp doesn't exceed a limit is actually a solution to the problem of GMs being cheap or unable to recognize value.

[Matthew]

It would cap excessive gp in the minors. You think miks entire roster will get injured? Cuz right now he could replace his entire roster pretty much with minor leaguers. It just get people to transfer these players into a different form of value. It's not like he couldn't still have 10 minor league nhlers.

What happens when in a few yrs a few teams are carring 50 nhlers each?

[Matthew]

This wouldn't force u to trade Dom moore for cheap. Not unless u had an absolutely excessive amount of gp in ur minors - which I believe hurts the league.

[CasperX22]

I'm actually planning on building th exact type of deep team mik has. Imposing this rule would hurt me in the long run. I just happen to agree with fraser.

This isn't a cap on waiver exempt players. It's a cap on # of nhl games being lost to the minor leagues.

I'm sorry, but I can't help myself...

[CasperX22]

So I'm wondering why is it that the league can create a set number of waiver exempt players I'm allowed to keep? Where does my incentive to draft and develop players come from then? I actually think its brutal that we're even considering imposing limits like this. I also notice that a lot of the people bringing this up happen to be the teams that have hit the trade wall once they realize they've moved all their assets for NHLers and cannot make more moves, or those who have shallow depth systems. You guys have made your beds now sleep in them, not sure why those who have built deep rosters should now be penalized for their work to draft and develop.

Agree on all counts. It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed.

[Matthew]

This clearly isnt gonna happen given the number of people against it, but discussion is never a bad thing. it helps find the kinks.

[Nick]

Good discussion, but we don't have a real problem IMO, 2-3 years at the top isn't crazy, see if anyone does it for 7-10 though...

[CAM]

Good discussion, but we don't have a real problem IMO, 2-3 years at the top isn't crazy, see if anyone does it for 7-10 though...

Exactly. I had been in the top 5 teams since i entered league. My downfall is in full evidence now.

[KapG]

So I'm wondering why is it that the league can create a set number of waiver exempt players I'm allowed to keep? Where does my incentive to draft and develop players come from then? I actually think its brutal that we're even considering imposing limits like this. I also notice that a lot of the people bringing this up happen to be the teams that have hit the trade wall once they realize they've moved all their assets for NHLers and cannot make more moves, or those who have shallow depth systems. You guys have made your beds now sleep in them, not sure why those who have built deep rosters should now be penalized for their work to draft and develop.

Agree on all counts. It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed.

Agreed

[Shoalzie]

A full-time player will be waiver exempt for at most two seasons if they hit the GP limit in their 2nd year. You'll see the odd situation like what Mik has where he's got too many NHLers and he's got the ability to stash away extra players...and young productive players at that. With the rules as they are constructed, he's not doing anything wrong.

To create a contrarian argument...if he was sitting players that were waiver exempt and more productive than the guys he has in his lineup and he was one of the worst teams in the league...wouldn't that be considered tanking?

[Sensfanjosh]

A full-time player will be waiver exempt for at most two seasons if they hit the GP limit in their 2nd year. You'll see the odd situation like what Mik has where he's got too many NHLers and he's got the ability to stash away extra players...and young productive players at that. With the rules as they are constructed, he's not doing anything wrong.

To create a contrarian argument...if he was sitting players that were waiver exempt and more productive than the guys he has in his lineup and he was one of the worst teams in the league...wouldn't that be considered tanking?

To be even more contrarian what would he need to do to fix this problem? Give away NHLers? Again I think some onus is on the teams that need NHLers, I don't know how many times I've shopped depth NHLers over the years and been told that teams 'are not competing' so they don't need NHLers and so I've traded my depth to the competing teams which don't even really need it.

[Fraser]

A full-time player will be waiver exempt for at most two seasons if they hit the GP limit in their 2nd year. You'll see the odd situation like what Mik has where he's got too many NHLers and he's got the ability to stash away extra players...and young productive players at that. With the rules as they are constructed, he's not doing anything wrong.

To create a contrarian argument...if he was sitting players that were waiver exempt and more productive than the guys he has in his lineup and he was one of the worst teams in the league...wouldn't that be considered tanking?

I've been pretty swayed by the masses reading through this thread. But that is a damn interesting point.

[Shoalzie]

He's obviously not tanking but you get my point.

I'm sure Mik would prefer to have Kuznetsov, Panarin and Klingberg in his lineup because they would make him a better team. He'll do what's best for his team and things will sort themselves out.

[Sensfanjosh]

He's obviously not tanking but you get my point.

I'm sure Mik would prefer to have Kuznetsov, Panarin and Klingberg in his lineup because they would make him a better team. He'll do what's best for his team and things will sort themselves out.

No I agree with you regarding Mik, I was just saying its easy to call it tanking, but what do we see as a solution there? That's been my stance throughout this thread is that its fairly easy to look at Mik's team and bemoan the fact his best players might not even be on his team, but at one point do we look at the teams lacking star players and ask how it is that they are going about getting them? Being inactive, focusing on only acquiring top talent, and 'tanking' by not looking to trade to be competitive are the actual problems not the fact that Mik has drafted smartly and has made the deals he needs to to keep his team together, he, like the Bruins, LAK etc. in the past, will be forced to retool sooner or later, and if he isn't forced to then good on him for figuring out ways to be competitive.

[kyuss]

A full-time player will be waiver exempt for at most two seasons if they hit the GP limit in their 2nd year. You'll see the odd situation like what Mik has where he's got too many NHLers and he's got the ability to stash away extra players...and young productive players at that. With the rules as they are constructed, he's not doing anything wrong.

To create a contrarian argument...if he was sitting players that were waiver exempt and more productive than the guys he has in his lineup and he was one of the worst teams in the league...wouldn't that be considered tanking?

I've been pretty swayed by the masses reading through this thread. But that is a damn interesting point.

since you find this point to be damn interesting..

I guess it couldn't be considered tanking since I don't own 2016 NSH 1st rounder to begin with.

But supposing for a moment my team owned that 1st and was one of the worst despite being a cap team that is not dressing that trio (an unlikely scenario to say the least), if accused of tanking by the CC I would counter the obvious reason for not dressing those 3 players is the cap (which automatically makes not blatant that I'm not dressing the best lineup on purpose).

If instead for a moment my team owned that 1st and was one of the worst while not being a cap team that is not dressing that trio I would probaby get accused of tanking by the CC and I would have a hard time countering anything -> CC would dress those players

[Shoalzie]

A full-time player will be waiver exempt for at most two seasons if they hit the GP limit in their 2nd year. You'll see the odd situation like what Mik has where he's got too many NHLers and he's got the ability to stash away extra players...and young productive players at that. With the rules as they are constructed, he's not doing anything wrong.

To create a contrarian argument...if he was sitting players that were waiver exempt and more productive than the guys he has in his lineup and he was one of the worst teams in the league...wouldn't that be considered tanking?

I've been pretty swayed by the masses reading through this thread. But that is a damn interesting point.

since you find this point to be damn interesting..

I guess it couldn't be considered tanking since I don't own 2016 NSH 1st rounder to begin with.

But supposing for a moment my team owned that 1st and was one of the worst despite being a cap team that is not dressing that trio (an unlikely scenario to say the least), if accused of tanking by the CC I would counter the obvious reason for not dressing those 3 players is the cap (which automatically makes not blatant that I'm not dressing the best lineup on purpose).

If instead for a moment my team owned that 1st and was one of the worst while not being a cap team that is not dressing that trio I would probaby get accused of tanking by the CC and I would have a hard time countering anything -> CC would dress those players

I hope you know what I was getting at. Any reasonable thinking person knows how you've been managing your roster and understands it's not just that simple to plug in your best players because of the salary cap.