Buds Board Keepers League

Nick wroteCOLON But -> to villainize the GM who saw the ability to acquire assets and did so, is incredibly incorrect. This is an open market and we're not a bunch of communists forcing equal teams.

Agreed and I don't think saying you can only have so many games played in your minors is villainizing anyone. It could even be introduced on a rolling scale where it starts at 500 next season then down to 400 and finally 300 in year 3 to give teams a chance to adjust and capitalize by packaging their depth for an improvement or for futures. I highly doubt anyone has 500 games played in their minors right now, but I could be wrong.

This was also just an idea that popped into my head when I read Nick's post and I have put 0 thought into it other than writing up the idea. There must be some other ideas that have been kicked around too.

Let's take away what some people have put together over 4 years because somebody don't like paying to acquire assets.

There's a limit on players you can have but there shouldn't be a rule on what kind of players those are. If you've got the fortune of having some depth in the form of waiver exempt players...why punish those teams? If you want to change the waiver exempt limits, that's one thing but you can't mandate how many waiver exempt players you can have if you're legal with the 50 contracts/90 players rule. Depth is something any team can build up and/or they can use as currency to add other players.

The price of a player shouldn't be dictated by anyone but the owner of said player. If you've got an excess of players, why do you have sell them for less than market value? We're a capitalist league where players and picks are our currency and we can all decide for ourselves what each asset is worth and what assets we on our team. Some people value picks or prospects more than others and some people value certain stat categories more than others. With a 30 team league, you're going to pretty much have 30 different ways of building a fantasy team.

I think one of the main issues is the goaltending and weekly rosters (as in hands tied on deciding who to play). When a tandem is broken up or you are running goalies from two teams it is difficult. Hence the reason most GM's want tandems from teams. When trades and injuries happen and people are forced to acquire goalies from other people, they know they are in a jam and prices can be massively over-rated. But hey....watcha gonna do? If you want the player you'll pay! Sometimes GM's just don't want to trade and who can blame them?

I don't mean to say the idea is crappy or doesn't warrant consideration, we just need to talk about what it would look like and the impact it would have.


My suggestions would be a limit on GP in minors over a shorter period of time, like 8 guys fully active in the minors for 5 roster locks. Or a starting goalie in the minors for a prolonged period of time (lots of difficulties with this one, what's a starting goalie, can he be on bench? where's the lines).

A season-total count is too late IMO -> already effected the season outcome, the trade market, and the league.


As a GM who has lots of waiver-exempt depth pieces it's tough to sell them cheap, for example: I can tell you it seems silly for me to trade Belov for a 2nd rounder given that I took time reading about him, checked in on an oilers pre-season game, and then watched him move up to the top offensive pairing for the Oilers -> given that he's increasing in value and waiver exempt there's no reason I should move him.


2-3 guys frankly doesn't cover the injuries one endures over the season. Right now I have Coyle, Downie, Prust, Belov, Silfverberg & McGinn hurt -> have them filled by Cizikas, Arcobello, Pysyk, Megna, a trade (Chimera) and a hopeful return (McGinn) -> that's a lot of waiver exempt pieces that I cycle through in order to ice a full & competitive group -> to some it could seem like an extreme #... where's the line? (honest question, not said with tone).

Having a games played maximum would completely flip player evaluations in this league. Your prospect for a few games in? Shit, not good, extra GP sitting in my minors. Journeyman AHLer with 100 NHL GP? Toxic, not worth owning.

Not to mention the tearing down of teams that built deep as afforded to them in the rules (read: me).

Nick, if you've got players on your roster that you can use as injury fill-ins...good on ya. Others have to make trades and some just have to ride out the storm for a week an perhaps have a guy in the lineup that doesn't play. We can do everything in our power to build a quality roster but you can't control what happens on the ice and some teams have good luck and others get massacred with injuries and it forces them into moves they didn't plan to make.

I think the line is only in question because of how lax our waivers our. Teams should be rewarded for trading for depth but it is possible to have two freaking teams right now because so many players are waiver exempt. That is too far imo. Why not avoid the gp issue and just make a stricter waiver level. A stricter level would force teams to make decisions. I don't think it would hurt teams that are about prospect development either and that is a good thing.

Ye - I agree, dunno why I typed that the way I did... it's not my suggestion...i think i meant something more along a discussion to see what it would look like... I'm of the belief that an accurate waiver picture (Age + Years pro + NHL GP) with an active count, is the answer.

There are 2 teams in our league with what would be considered an abundance of waiver-exempt players.

If you want them, go pay for them.

shooker wroteCOLONI think the line is only in question because of how lax our waivers our. Teams should be rewarded for trading for depth but it is possible to have two freaking teams right now because so many players are waiver exempt. That is too far imo. Why not avoid the gp issue and just make a stricter waiver level. A stricter level would force teams to make decisions. I don't think it would hurt teams that are about prospect development either and that is a good thing.

Tightening waiver restrictions (for 2014-2015) has been discussed in the CC and has strong support.

Nick wroteCOLON


2-3 guys frankly doesn't cover the injuries one endures over the season. Right now I have Coyle, Downie, Prust, Belov, Silfverberg & McGinn hurt -> have them filled by Cizikas, Arcobello, Pysyk, Megna, a trade (Chimera) and a hopeful return (McGinn) -> that's a lot of waiver exempt pieces that I cycle through in order to ice a full & competitive group -> to some it could seem like an extreme #... where's the line? (honest question, not said with tone).

This. How are we to determine what an acceptable number should be? Some teams tend to get injured more than others so perhaps that GM wants to pile up more than 2-3 extra players.

Ill say here what I said in the CC: there are plenty of opportunites to acquire GP at reasonable prices. The problem is most guys turn their noses up at 4th liners because they consider them "fringe" (I've offered up a number of my "fringe" guys and got this answer). Beggars can't be chosers here. Dont complain about not being to get NHLers but refuse the opportunities when they present themselves.

Hell just 2 weeks ago I acquire Cliche from Arian for a 4th + 5th and hes been money for me. Yeah he's only a 4th liner but he gets gp as well as some very nice shtoi and he was acquired for a very reasonable price. Shep just picked up Gill for a 4th. The opportunities are there guys if you put in the effort to look.

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 people like the way the system is than so be it and I'll shut up and do my best to exploit it in the future, but for people to act like there isn't a problem with the cost of shitty players contenders aren't using is ridiculous to me. There's no money changing hands in this league and you'd expect people could put their egos aside for a second and examine what might be best for the longterm health of the league rather than worrying about losing a full time NHL player rotting away in their minors. Perhaps their have been examples of terrible teams turned respectable and Lee seems to be a current example of this, but the current price to add GP is defininitely counter productive when trying to rebuild.

"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?

i've traded away a lot of my extras

heck, before the season started i traded 6 actives to shoalize for an injuried hagelin + scudier (who's now injuried)

i only have 4 waiver exempt guys, i am no longer over stacked - i also needed every single one of these guys last week becuase of injuries.

ya i also tossed barch to shoalzie for a 4th

Blues GM wroteCOLONThere are 2 teams in our league with what would be considered an abundance of waiver-exempt players.

If you want them, go pay for them.

Agreed.

Personally I just ride out the injuries.

These teams with these extra assets made smart managerial decisions. There is no reason they should be penalized.

The price is what it is, Bryuns. Free market. I paid it because I had to. The years leading up to this point lacking GP... Wondering in the last week of the year if you will make it to the thresh hold... No more for the Flyers.

This is just the last month of NHLers I've acquired for peanuts:

TO ST. LOUIS:
Hal Gill

TO DETROIT:
2015 4th Rounder (BOS)

To St. Louis:

Yannick Weber

To Calgary:

2014 3rd Rounder (BOS)
2015 2nd Rounder (STL)

TO ST. LOUIS
Ben Eager

TO BUFFALO
2015 3rd Rounder (STL)

Rant aside I do fully support a reduction in the waiver exemption rules and hope that might solve this issue.

I have problem changing the rules, makes no difference to me.