Buds Board Keepers League

I don't want to see us continue to chase unusual circumstances from a given season and always change the rules reactively. Let's be proactive and get the rules to the point where we're satisfied for the long term but also doesn't restrict or hinder the creativity of our GMs.

I'll throw out the suggestion of 100 GP or 24-years-old as the new waiver thresholds.

You still get two full seasons for a young player or you get up to 6 years from their draft year to be able to send them down as you please if they aren't full-timers.

We're seeing more and more young players (21 and under) make the NHL so having looser waiver rules is only going to allow more talent to "stashed away". Mik hasn't been doing anything wrong...he's just ahead of the curve with his collecting of talent.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON I hope you know what I was getting at. Any reasonable thinking person knows what 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.

no worries, I didn't feel accused in any way and just felt like answering fraser's honest question.

I'm actually pleased by the positive way possible changes and arguments have been discussed in this thread.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONI don't want to see us continue to chase unusual circumstances from a given season and always change the rules reactively. Let's be proactive and get the rules to the point where we're satisfied for the long term but also doesn't restrict or hinder the creativity of our GMs.

I'll throw out the suggestion of 100 GP or 24-years-old as the new waiver thresholds.

tbh, I think having as waiver eligible 24yrs olds who have yet to play in the NHL would be dead wrong.

It already doesn't make sense that 26yrs olds entering the NHL for the first time are eligible for our waivers (while being exempt in the NHL), for that matter.

I've got a guy like Steve Moses who is too old by our rules to be waiver exempt and would have to clear waivers even though he hasn't played a game. But that's the rule and instead of potentially throwing away that waiver pick that I used to pick him and put him on waivers to clear a spot in my lineup for J.T. Brown....I prefer to keep him on my bench.

I understand, but it still doesn't make sense that he is not waiver exempt for us.

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON
That I'll pretty much call out and say that's a lie.

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1275 ... ec#p229321

Think if you were asking for at least 3 1st round picks from me there were def teams with cap interested sir. Stop with the silly games

not sure if your memory is that bad or if for whatever reason you feel the need to lie on this, but the proposal you rejected for Plekanec was different from what you reported above:
I did ask for a 1st + a prospect that was a first rounder + a player who is a former first rounder, BUT coming your way on top of Plekanec there were a 1st as well + a prospect that was traded soon after for a 1st, so if you want to count in terms of 1sts, one would have to say you rejected Plekanec + two 1sts for three 1sts.

kyuss wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONI don't want to see us continue to chase unusual circumstances from a given season and always change the rules reactively. Let's be proactive and get the rules to the point where we're satisfied for the long term but also doesn't restrict or hinder the creativity of our GMs.

I'll throw out the suggestion of 100 GP or 24-years-old as the new waiver thresholds.

tbh, I think having as waiver eligible 24yrs olds who have yet to play in the NHL would be dead wrong.

It already doesn't make sense that 26yrs olds entering the NHL for the first time are eligible for our waivers (while being exempt in the NHL), for that matter.

Tony wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONI don't want to see us continue to chase unusual circumstances from a given season and always change the rules reactively. Let's be proactive and get the rules to the point where we're satisfied for the long term but also doesn't restrict or hinder the creativity of our GMs.

I'll throw out the suggestion of 100 GP or 24-years-old as the new waiver thresholds.

tbh, I think having as waiver eligible 24yrs olds who have yet to play in the NHL would be dead wrong.

It already doesn't make sense that 26yrs olds entering the NHL for the first time are eligible for our waivers (while being exempt in the NHL), for that matter.

So why not just have an exclusion to that rule, that if they have 0 games played they are waiver exempt? That saves (And kind of replicates the NHL) the Steve Moses, etc. I think that would be fair... and place more importance in the waiver draft and KHL signees, etc.

would make sense, but I'm not sure that would be well received by some

how about 50-75 gp with no age limit? saves old players just making the show. remove eligibility from the first of the regular season. once they hit 50- 75 they have to clear waivers to be sent down. required a spreadsheet gp update after 60 games .

30 gp for goalies.

numbers are flexible.

how about we try to have a number (and a category) of waiver exempt players similar to the NHL?

If it were similar to the NHL we would be much more strict http://www.litterboxcats.com/2013/10/7/ ... a-panthers

NHL players can lose waiver exemption after 60 games and it isn't locked in for the year like ours is. Playoffs also count and Players older than 20 also have their AHL or games in Europe count.

I suspect you only thought about those that would become bbkl waiver eligible but not about those who would become bbkl waiver exempt.

Anyway, we can't make things as complicated as in the NHL (like with in season counting or their other more complicated stuff), but if we can get closer to their category of waiver exempt players in a easy manageable way, that would be fine imo (even in the case that would indeed mean reducing our overall number of W exempt players).

kyuss wroteCOLON

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON
That I'll pretty much call out and say that's a lie.

http://bbkl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1275 ... ec#p229321

Think if you were asking for at least 3 1st round picks from me there were def teams with cap interested sir. Stop with the silly games

not sure if your memory is that bad or if for whatever reason you feel the need to lie on this, but the proposal you rejected for Plekanec was different from what you reported above:
I did ask for a 1st + a prospect that was a first rounder + a player who is a former first rounder, BUT coming your way on top of Plekanec there were a 1st as well + a prospect that was traded soon after for a 1st, so if you want to count in terms of 1sts, one would have to say you rejected Plekanec + two 1sts for three 1sts.

What is a lie? Thank you for proving my point once again that NO non cap teams were interested in him. Only you would say I rejected Plekanec plus your 1st next year and a Zane for TT, Van 1st this year and Ek.

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON[

What is a lie? Thank you for proving my point once again that NO non cap teams were interested in him.

so apparently we agree as you're saying non cap teams were not interested in him?

Bruyns wroteCOLONIf it were similar to the NHL we would be much more strict http://www.litterboxcats.com/2013/10/7/ ... a-panthers

NHL players can lose waiver exemption after 60 games and it isn't locked in for the year like ours is. Playoffs also count and Players older than 20 also have their AHL or games in Europe count.

I agree compared to NHL standards we are pretty laid back in those terms but there are also good points brought up about guys never playing NHL games clearing waivers.

You could chase down all kinds of different scenarios but you run the risk of making things complicated even tho I agree with some of the points brought up in this thread

kyuss wroteCOLON

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON[

What is a lie? Thank you for proving my point once again that NO non cap teams were interested in him.

so apparently we agree as you're saying non cap teams were not interested in him?

No we agree that you said No non cap teams were interested, which was misrepresent by you but at least we also agree that you only understand English when it is beneficial to you.

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON[

What is a lie? Thank you for proving my point once again that NO non cap teams were interested in him.

so apparently we agree as you're saying non cap teams were not interested in him?

No we agree that you said No non cap teams were interested, which was misrepresent by you but at least we also agree that you only understand English when it is beneficial to you.

the problem is not understanding English, the problem has always been understanding you, both here and during trade talks.

Oh, and of course non cap teams were interested in Plekanec as long as that meant acquiring him for peanuts lol

kyuss wroteCOLON

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

lightupdadarkness wroteCOLON[

What is a lie? Thank you for proving my point once again that NO non cap teams were interested in him.

so apparently we agree as you're saying non cap teams were not interested in him?

No we agree that you said No non cap teams were interested, which was misrepresent by you but at least we also agree that you only understand English when it is beneficial to you.

the problem is not understanding English, the problem has always been understanding you, both here and during trade talks.

Oh, and of course non cap teams were interested in Plekanec as long as that meant acquiring him for peanuts lol

Now your statement is more accurate for arguments statements. Thanks you sir.

thom54 wroteCOLON

Tony wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONI don't want to see us continue to chase unusual circumstances from a given season and always change the rules reactively. Let's be proactive and get the rules to the point where we're satisfied for the long term but also doesn't restrict or hinder the creativity of our GMs.

I'll throw out the suggestion of 100 GP or 24-years-old as the new waiver thresholds.

tbh, I think having as waiver eligible 24yrs olds who have yet to play in the NHL would be dead wrong.

It already doesn't make sense that 26yrs olds entering the NHL for the first time are eligible for our waivers (while being exempt in the NHL), for that matter.

So why not just have an exclusion to that rule, that if they have 0 games played they are waiver exempt? That saves (And kind of replicates the NHL) the Steve Moses, etc. I think that would be fair... and place more importance in the waiver draft and KHL signees, etc.

I think the biggest problem with something like this is the tracking of it