BBKL policy for Centers and Wingers

[kyuss]

Read is actually playing W, lol...

the main credible sites for positions claim him a winger, Im not arguing to change the system but If a GM can appeal and prove that an undrafted free agent is playing W than that should be allowed.

just like for other 'bbkl rookies', after 26 games a GM can indeed appeal and prove through objective criteria he is playing Winger.

[bills09]

Agreed sources are flawed, which is why im proposing an earlier than 26 game review period for undrafted free agents.
26 games brings us into December which is nearly half of the BBKL regular season.
As all other players have a basis for why they are listed as a Center, these players do not.
Im not looking out for myself, but looking into a flaw within the rule.

Edit

Its the fact that there is a lack of discussion allowed from the rest of the league which is pissing me off.
Basically if you or Mik do not agree, its moot because most of us wont sit there and argue for an hour and a half with you guys to get a point accross.

CC is a joke now, you guys have done a lot for the league and come up with some great ideas, but its more than just you guys in here.
just my 2 cents for what its worth.

[bills09]

Read is actually playing W, lol...

the main credible sites for positions claim him a winger, Im not arguing to change the system but If a GM can appeal and prove that an undrafted free agent is playing W than that should be allowed.

just like for other 'bbkl rookies', after 26 games a GM can indeed appeal and prove through objective criteria he is playing Winger.

Other rookies have another form of basis to what the player is listed as; as Nick stated we use the position he was drafted as.
with undrafted rookies we use CBS, which has been proven to be wrong many times.
ie Steckel LW; Little LW last season.

[Nick]

No I just think its dumb to rely on CBS' Stock positions for undrafted free agents.

Any single source has it's flaws, that we agree on. However allowing all sources is a joke, so selecting one as a 3rd deciding variable is of least damage.

I propose a week 4 Early positional review for all undrafted Free Agents.

This is a new proposal, however 3 weeks of play isn't really enough to know where a player will be playing, especially when the first 2 weeks involves lots of roster changes and weird lineups that we simply cannot simulate.

Why did you choose 4 weeks? It's also pretty long list to check.

But it will be turned down because thats what the CC does now, zero discussion on the rest of the leagues ideas.
what a joke.

Really? founded on? Before you even posted this last comment I was in a conversation with 2 other GMs regarding the situation.


26 GP is not a long wait; an un-drafted free-agent that we don't have enough information on to accurately gauge positioning is not a hefty price to pay. Something made CBS select the positioning, I doubt whoever added Matt Read on the TSN/SNET/etc server really knows what position he'll be playing, hence 'Forward'.

CC is a joke now, you guys have done a lot for the league and come up with some great ideas, but its more than just you guys in here.
just my 2 cents for what its worth.

What issue have we ignored... there are more members in the CC then Mik & myself

[bills09]

Meh denied not surprised.

Keep up the good work boys.

[kyuss]

Can I ask why 26 games was chosen? Seems pretty arbitrary...

any GP threshold we might have picked would have been arbitrary; you just need to establish one that makes some sense, albeit arbitrary.

In this case it ended up being exactly 26 cause that's the number of GP in a single season that cancels rookie eligibility in the NHL; as Nick explained we were looking for a precise number in the 21-29 range, so 26 was a good fit as a number to qualify in-season stats (FOR).

[Nick]

Meh denied not surprised.

Keep up the good work boys.

Billy we're having a conversation on it no? My comment doesn't = denied, but you haven't really said much as to why it's a better option, or explored how it would actually work.

[bills09]

Meh denied not surprised.

Keep up the good work boys.

Billy we're having a conversation on it no? My comment doesn't = denied, but you haven't really said much as to why it's a better option, or explored how it would actually work.

Nearly half of the bbkl regular season seems long to me is all..

[kyuss]

Other rookies have another form of basis to what the player is listed as; as Nick stated we use the position he was drafted as.

again, draft positions on nhl.com can be flawed as well.. for example as a result of it i'll have Reid Boucher as C until he'll meet GP requirements (so for at least the first 26 games of his NHL career).

If CBS positions are perceived around the league as a significant problem despite applying to such a limited number of players, we might as well pick a supposedly less flawed source that would apply to those rare cases.

Bottom line, it would need to be one single source, no need to add even earlier (unreliable) updates, adding on the workload and complicating the system.


P.S. 26 is much closer to 1/3 (23) than to 1/2 (35).

[Nick]

That's the first time you (Billy) have made that point; December 2-5th most teams should be reaching 26. However getting the positioning right is tough, allowing any source isn't an option, so we had to make choices on what to consider and in what order, un-drafted rookie's obviously weren't our primary concern when making the rules, however they were covered and the decision (not just by Mik & myself you'll recall) was that should the player not be measurable under a/b/c and draft position information is un-available, we'll be using CBS as the single source.

No CBS is not perfect, neither is any one of the sources you listed, but it is easier then the other sources = chosen, and they also don't change mid-season. Do we know how and when TSN/NHL/etc make a change?

So let's think (writing without editing or plan here) about an earlier appeal for position switch:

3 weeks of play, 1 week transition = week 5 new positions ... roughly 15GP in. essentially a 1/5th review, however the first 8GP really are a poor sign of where a player will be lining up, which means it really is only 7 games where suddenly injuries, even small ones, can have a very large impact. Now add in energy and time required to do the check (how many GMs even bothered to check their own guys???) and it doesn't seem worthwhile to me. It also adds more opportunity to be taken advantage of; when it suits the GM they'll raise hell to get it changed, yet when someone's winger becomes a centre at 15gp, but they then go back to wing -> it'll be no fun.

as always the CC is happy to hear other opinions and thoughts.

[Shep]

Why wait until the issue occurs to you, and not bring it up when the ruling was being discussed/presented?

[armandtanzarian]

Why is the CC a joke because all of a sudden you find out that you have a player who may be negatively affected by a ruling that was made and presented in the offseason? Mik and Nick are not the CC. They are just super active members who try and clearly state why a rule was made and the reasoning behind it. I am pretty sure with 100% confidence, you were part of the CC when this policy was made and announced to the league. You may or may not have participated in developing it. I do not remember any strong opposition to the issue you seem to be against atm.

[bills09]

Why is the CC a joke because all of a sudden you find out that you have a player who may be negatively affected by a ruling that was made and presented in the offseason? Mik and Nick are not the CC. They are just super active members who try and clearly state why a rule was made and the reasoning behind it. I am pretty sure with 100% confidence, you were part of the CC when this policy was made and announced to the league. You may or may not have participated in developing it. I do not remember any strong opposition to the issue you seem to be against atm.

it is not the rule in itself that I have an issue with just a small part of it, im over it.

[armandtanzarian]

Ok. I had some conflicting players as well that I knew would not be centers on Boston if they made the team but NHL.com had them as C. Knight and Spooner. It sucks but we had to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Like you said though...old news

[bills09]

Ok. I had some conflicting players as well that I knew would not be centers on Boston if they made the team but NHL.com had them as C. Knight and Spooner. It sucks but we had to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Like you said though...old news

those guys are drafted so we would go by position drafted, and we dont go by nhl.com regardless.
The issue I brought up was about undrafted free agents.

[armandtanzarian]

Ok. I had some conflicting players as well that I knew would not be centers on Boston if they made the team but NHL.com had them as C. Knight and Spooner. It sucks but we had to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Like you said though...old news

those guys are drafted so we would go by position drafted, and we dont go by nhl.com regardless.
The issue I brought up was about undrafted free agents.

Yea we do. NHL for drafted, CBS for undrafted. Isn't that posted in the first post of this thread?

[Nick]

it's not exactly the player search on NHL.com -> it's the draft source that NHL.com has catalogued.


And Billy - the CC discussed the topic, and it was found that the system in place is sufficient. Your example actually showed how subjective the positional listing of players on many sources is, and as such us waiting until we know enough to accurately adjust his position is a good call. Early adjustment eligible, and 26gp is a good re-measure point.

[fedro91]

Can anyone change Hecht winger to center please. he s still listed as a winger in cbs.

[Nick]

Can anyone change Hecht winger to center please. he s still listed as a winger in cbs.

Can you show us the # Frank. We are not responsible for doing your homework for you.

[Shep]

Can anyone change Hecht winger to center please. he s still listed as a winger in cbs.

Can you show us the # Frank. We are not responsible for doing your homework for you.

Buffalo
a Tim Connolly
a Derek Roy
a Jochen Hecht
a Paul Gaustad
c Cody McCormick FOR = .356