Buds Board Keepers League

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.

Agree if they haven't had their shot at the some form of NA hockey doesn't make much sense

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONA 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.

Pulling in another argument -- could not this exact "onus on the team in need" not be used when teams need goaltending? A roster position you wish to put more regulation on.

kyuss wroteCOLON
That doesn't mean we can't further improve.
(See my next post when it comes, if I manage to put it together before having to leave)

Later than I hoped for, but here is what I was hinting at yesterday.

There is one obvious big difference between what we are doing and how the NHL work: free agency.

So, if we want to give bottom teams a chance to improve a bit more quickly than today, that's what we should work on (usually they have more cap room than other teams).

I know FA is considered not do-able in BBKL, but it's only impossible to do it the way the NHL does (we don't have players' agents and we don't want to manage open biddings). I think implementing some sort of FA is actually possible.

In the past I thought about something along these lines (keep in mind this is the basic idea, which could be developed & polished as we prefer):

- the new contract an UFA get in real life would be the final request the player's agent would make to our team.
Just like in real life, teams could resign or lose their UFAs depending on their cap room.

- we would record rosters at the trade deadline. Impending UFAs would not be tradable from the deadline till all of them of such bbkl team have been signed in the NHL, or until our September deadline at the latest, see following point (btw, how many times a NHL team trade an impending UFA between season's end and September? at most they trade the rights to talk with that player, no big deal difference.. )

- all UFAs signed in the NHL within September (or whatever date we choose) can be resigned by their original team if updating his salary that team can stay under the cap when considering their deadline roster. When an UFA gets his new contract his BBKL team has X days to decide whether to keep that player or let him go. If adding his new salary to the deadline payroll the team exceeds next season's cap, than the player gets automatically released.
If the player is retained, the deadline payroll is updated accordingly. When another UFA of that team is signed
the available cap room to fit him in will be already reduced by the previous signing (something that obviously was to be taken into consideration by the GM when deciding whether or not to retain the previous player. Teams can kind of choose which UFAs let go, like it works in real life).

Those (together with the ones left unsigned in real life beyond the established date) are the players that would become real UFAs in our league.
This would give some control to GMs and we would not depend on the fact in real life the impending UFA gets resigned or not by the original team before indeed becoming a UFA.
Even if the player gets resigned before the end of his contract, he still becomes UFA for our purposes.
BBKL GMs would be the one having to care about having enough space to resign them (guessing the NHL unrestricted free agent's new salary would also become a useful skill/exercise in bbkl, way more than now). They could decide to keep more cap room for their impending UFAs while entering the playoffs, or they might choose otherwise; and once unable to resign some of their eventual UFAs, they could still decide who let go and who not (if they can retain any of them).

When a RFA gets signed his cap hit gets updated in the deadline roster, affecting its payroll and the room for the remaining UFAs to be resigned as a result. RFAs can be traded after the deadline though, if that happens their cap hit on the deadline roster will remain the same it was back then.

I think it would be a good thing to have a limited number of UFAs any team can sign each off-season, to increase the chances there will be some UFAs available.

The trades after the end of the season would still go on as far as all the non UFA players (assets) are related, but the cap space teams would gain could only be used to later 'sign' new players (other UFAs), not their former players. To resign our own UFAs only the cap room available in the trade deadline roster would count.

As for who gets priority to sign UFAs that are not retained by their previous BBKL team:
my idea would be using the Pro-Draft (that's how I would rename the now called Waiver-Draft).
When a team gets on the clock, it has the chance to choose between picking from the waiver draft pool or the available UFAs.


I'm sure we would need to discuss details and think of things I didn't think about, but it's not like we don't have the time: we are the only ones deciding how soon we would implement this..

I bet we discuss this stuff nearly as much as actual nhl head honchos.


And God that is long, mik.

kyuss wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON
That doesn't mean we can't further improve.
(See my next post when it comes, if I manage to put it together before having to leave)

Later than I hoped for, but here is what I was hinting at yesterday.

There is one obvious big difference between what we are doing and how the NHL work: free agency.

So, if we want to give bottom teams a chance to improve a bit more quickly than today, that's what we should work on (usually they have more cap room than other teams).

I know FA is considered not do-able in BBKL, but it's only impossible to do it the way the NHL does (we don't have players' agents and we don't want to manage open biddings). I think implementing some sort of FA is actually possible.

In the past I thought about something along these lines (keep in mind this is the basic idea, which could be developed & polished as we prefer):

- the new contract an UFA get in real life would be the final request the player's agent would make to our team.
Just like in real life, teams could resign or lose their UFAs depending on their cap room.

- we would record rosters at the trade deadline. Impending UFAs would not be tradable from the deadline till all of them of such bbkl team have been signed in the NHL, or until our September deadline at the latest, see following point (btw, how many times a NHL team trade an impending UFA between season's end and September? at most they trade the rights to talk with that player, no big deal difference.. )

- all UFAs signed in the NHL within September (or whatever date we choose) can be resigned by their original team if updating his salary that team can stay under the cap when considering their deadline roster. When an UFA gets his new contract his BBKL team has X days to decide whether to keep that player or let him go. If adding his new salary to the deadline payroll the team exceeds next season's cap, than the player gets automatically released.
If the player is retained, the deadline payroll is updated accordingly. When another UFA of that team is signed
the available cap room to fit him in will be already reduced by the previous signing (something that obviously was to be taken into consideration by the GM when deciding whether or not to retain the previous player. Teams can kind of choose which UFAs let go, like it works in real life).

Those (together with the ones left unsigned in real life beyond the established date) are the players that would become real UFAs in our league.
This would give some control to GMs and we would not depend on the fact in real life the impending UFA gets resigned or not by the original team before indeed becoming a UFA.
Even if the player gets resigned before the end of his contract, he still becomes UFA for our purposes.
BBKL GMs would be the one having to care about having enough space to resign them (guessing the NHL unrestricted free agent's new salary would also become a useful skill/exercise in bbkl, way more than now). They could decide to keep more cap room for their impending UFAs while entering the playoffs, or they might choose otherwise; and once unable to resign some of their eventual UFAs, they could still decide who let go and who not (if they can retain any of them).

When a RFA gets signed his cap hit gets updated in the deadline roster, affecting its payroll and the room for the remaining UFAs to be resigned as a result. RFAs can be traded after the deadline though, if that happens their cap hit on the deadline roster will remain the same it was back then.

I think it would be a good thing to have a limited number of UFAs any team can sign each off-season, to increase the chances there will be some UFAs available.

The trades after the end of the season would still go on as far as all the non UFA players (assets) are related, but the cap space teams would gain could only be used to later 'sign' new players (other UFAs), not their former players. To resign our own UFAs only the cap room available in the trade deadline roster would count.

As for who gets priority to sign UFAs that are not retained by their previous BBKL team:
my idea would be using the Pro-Draft (that's how I would rename the now called Waiver-Draft).
When a team gets on the clock, it has the chance to choose between picking from the waiver draft pool or the available UFAs.


I'm sure we would need to discuss details and think of things I didn't think about, but it's not like we don't have the time: we are the only ones deciding how soon we would implement this..

I proposed a system like this years ago and was met with a ton of resistance from a few different people, I also started up my own league last year using the system, and the league has since folded but another has started up using the same rules. It makes sense for a lot of different reasons, but I have come to see that implementing in this league would be problematic as well.

Matthew wroteCOLON

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONA 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.

Pulling in another argument -- could not this exact "onus on the team in need" not be used when teams need goaltending? A roster position you wish to put more regulation on.

The difference is there are 30 starting NHL goalies, 30 backup goalies each year, and exactly who these players are switches fairly regularly so it can actually be crippling for a rebuilding team to have to pay for goalies over and over again as the guys they can afford to acquire leave the league, retire etc. Landing a team of 4th line players to meet gp minimums is not that hard in the league, teams need to be willing to give something up though. Paying a lottery pick + for Mike Smith is bad for a rebuilding team, trading a 4th round pick for an overpaid bottom pairing D is not.

Let's not act like paying a lottery pick for mike smith is the avg trade. That was just poor team management.

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLON I proposed a system like this years ago and was met with a ton of resistance from a few different people, I also started up my own league last year using the system, and the league has since folded but another has started up using the same rules. It makes sense for a lot of different reasons, but I have come to see that implementing in this league would be problematic as well.

uh? did you ever propose free agency in the past for bbkl? I guess to some GMs speaking privately? I mean, I don't remember anything being discussed about FA after the year I joined.

Also, it would be quite funny if I proposed something you already wanted/used without I ever knew about that.

Maybe you started off what we discussed around here 5yrs ago? (I think you were not part of this league yet)

If you indeed have been already using something like this in another league, that could be useful here..

Mik. Personally I like it. But unless im mis-understanding, with our current flexibility for burying players in the minors, why wouldn't everyone retain their assets?

Matthew wroteCOLONLet's not act like paying a lottery pick for mike smith is the avg trade. That was just poor team management.

It may not be the average trade. But it has helped further drive an artificial goalie market here that makes other GM's think that is what their mediocre-poor goalies are worth.

kyuss wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON
That doesn't mean we can't further improve.
(See my next post when it comes, if I manage to put it together before having to leave)

Later than I hoped for, but here is what I was hinting at yesterday.

There is one obvious big difference between what we are doing and how the NHL work: free agency.

So, if we want to give bottom teams a chance to improve a bit more quickly than today, that's what we should work on (usually they have more cap room than other teams).

I know FA is considered not do-able in BBKL, but it's only impossible to do it the way the NHL does (we don't have players' agents and we don't want to manage open biddings). I think implementing some sort of FA is actually possible.

In the past I thought about something along these lines (keep in mind this is the basic idea, which could be developed & polished as we prefer):

- the new contract an UFA get in real life would be the final request the player's agent would make to our team.
Just like in real life, teams could resign or lose their UFAs depending on their cap room.

- we would record rosters at the trade deadline. Impending UFAs would not be tradable from the deadline till all of them of such bbkl team have been signed in the NHL, or until our September deadline at the latest, see following point (btw, how many times a NHL team trade an impending UFA between season's end and September? at most they trade the rights to talk with that player, no big deal difference.. )

- all UFAs signed in the NHL within September (or whatever date we choose) can be resigned by their original team if updating his salary that team can stay under the cap when considering their deadline roster. When an UFA gets his new contract his BBKL team has X days to decide whether to keep that player or let him go. If adding his new salary to the deadline payroll the team exceeds next season's cap, than the player gets automatically released.
If the player is retained, the deadline payroll is updated accordingly. When another UFA of that team is signed
the available cap room to fit him in will be already reduced by the previous signing (something that obviously was to be taken into consideration by the GM when deciding whether or not to retain the previous player. Teams can kind of choose which UFAs let go, like it works in real life).

Those (together with the ones left unsigned in real life beyond the established date) are the players that would become real UFAs in our league.
This would give some control to GMs and we would not depend on the fact in real life the impending UFA gets resigned or not by the original team before indeed becoming a UFA.
Even if the player gets resigned before the end of his contract, he still becomes UFA for our purposes.
BBKL GMs would be the one having to care about having enough space to resign them (guessing the NHL unrestricted free agent's new salary would also become a useful skill/exercise in bbkl, way more than now). They could decide to keep more cap room for their impending UFAs while entering the playoffs, or they might choose otherwise; and once unable to resign some of their eventual UFAs, they could still decide who let go and who not (if they can retain any of them).

When a RFA gets signed his cap hit gets updated in the deadline roster, affecting its payroll and the room for the remaining UFAs to be resigned as a result. RFAs can be traded after the deadline though, if that happens their cap hit on the deadline roster will remain the same it was back then.

I think it would be a good thing to have a limited number of UFAs any team can sign each off-season, to increase the chances there will be some UFAs available.

The trades after the end of the season would still go on as far as all the non UFA players (assets) are related, but the cap space teams would gain could only be used to later 'sign' new players (other UFAs), not their former players. To resign our own UFAs only the cap room available in the trade deadline roster would count.

As for who gets priority to sign UFAs that are not retained by their previous BBKL team:
my idea would be using the Pro-Draft (that's how I would rename the now called Waiver-Draft).
When a team gets on the clock, it has the chance to choose between picking from the waiver draft pool or the available UFAs.


I'm sure we would need to discuss details and think of things I didn't think about, but it's not like we don't have the time: we are the only ones deciding how soon we would implement this..

Fraser wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONLet's not act like paying a lottery pick for mike smith is the avg trade. That was just poor team management.

It may not be the average trade. But it has helped further drive an artificial goalie market here that makes other GM's think that is what their mediocre-poor goalies are worth.

Has any other shitty over the hill goalie gone for close to that amount? What people ask for isnt market value: it is what that person is able to finally obtain. I havent seen any other old shitty goalie go for near that amount.

I love seeing the way you talk about your guys after you deal them.

I'm pretty sure everyone in the league talks about mike smith that way. At this point im not too happy i traded patty kane.

It comes across like you think you ripped Shoalzie off and are rubbing it in his face though. Not a great look if you want to deal with him in the future.

Sorry, Scott. Not trying to rub it in your face.

Fraser wroteCOLONMik. Personally I like it. But unless im mis-understanding, with our current flexibility for burying players in the minors, why wouldn't everyone retain their assets?

not sure what you mean, our flexibility only involves waiver exempt players.

Most times UFAs get paid more money than they were getting on their previous contract when their rights were restricted; when that happens, the players you were able to afford at the trade deadline (that's the roster that would be used to count against the cap the resigning of UFAs) might not fit anymore below the cap. --> those players are lost to free agency

I could get on board with a no age limit, but an 70 game limit.

That would likely give you two seasons out of a player as waiver exempt, unless they come in right away and play a ton and in that case, you should be happy. I would make the number even higher like 75-80 but I don't want a small, 2-3 week injury exempt a player like say Panarin eligible because he only played 74 games due to a high ankle sprain.

how many games it takes in the NHL to make the player eligible for waivers btw?

i see nothing wrong with Mik having a better AHL team than BBKL team. Keeps the west weak, keeps the preds weaker, keeps CHI, MIN and the rebuilding LAK stronger.