Buds Board Keepers League

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

koomzzz wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLONThe skater gp number is 850...do we really need to find new ways to get guys gp? I'm a rebuilding team too and I'm likely going to hit that number before the end of the match-up period. Make trades. Gp has been so devalued by the extremely low gp number anyway.

When I miss you can take a look and see what else I can do, I get offered guys that get less GP than I have getting scratched regularly, or I get told to pay more than I need to for a GP guy that might not even play. I'm not paying what little assets I have left just to get there, especially when the guys I get end up not even helping me get there. OR I get told "I'd rather keep my depth" yeah, I bet you would.

For example:
I trade for Hannikainen > injured
I trade for Pyatt > traded from a shit Ottawa team to Vancouver, sent down, never gonna play
I trade for Salomaki > injured
I trade for Paul > scratched in Ottawa while they dress 11F and 7D for no reason
I trade for Prosser after he gets a solid stretch of GP > MIN trades for Brad fucking Hunt and Prosser scratched
Yannick Weber comes off IR mid-week, plays 3 straight > I activate him for the following week, scratched 2 straight


There's really so much anyone can do.

Trade for better pieces. You have assets you can turn into 2-3 reliable NHLers. If you constantly trade for 13th fwd and 7th dman types to get gp that's the kind of shit that will happen.

Really? I post a block for Radulov, I get 1 offer.

I post a block for Kucherov whenever, and all I get is nonsense from ANA.

Sounds pretty easy when you have extra pieces that you won't give up huh

Apologies, I'm not re-reading every post. Oddly enough, I was thinking of this idea yesterday:

For any (valid) free agent claim after January 1, you give up your (first round) waiver draft pick in September.

You're basically sacrificing the chance to draft a top college or junior free agent for a player you might need now. Granted, a top team could claim a player just to squat on them and trade them for value but it's always been a first come, first serve process. But, it would at least come with a cost of your waiver draft pick if you do make a claim.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONApologies, I'm not re-reading every post. Oddly enough, I was thinking of this idea yesterday:

For any (valid) free agent claim after January 1, you give up your (first round) waiver draft pick in September.

You're basically sacrificing the chance to draft a top college or junior free agent for a player you might need now. Granted, a top team could claim a player just to squat on them and trade them for value but it's always been a first come, first serve process. But, it would at least come with a cost of your waiver draft pick if you do make a claim.

Shoalzie, this does nothing to help and the value from one waiver pick to another is substantial. It actually guarantees that the lower teams DO NOT lay a claim to the free agents. In fact, the top teams benefit probably benefit more from this arrangement. Pretty much the opposite of what we are trying to figure out.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONApologies, I'm not re-reading every post. Oddly enough, I was thinking of this idea yesterday:

For any (valid) free agent claim after January 1, you give up your (first round) waiver draft pick in September.

You're basically sacrificing the chance to draft a top college or junior free agent for a player you might need now. Granted, a top team could claim a player just to squat on them and trade them for value but it's always been a first come, first serve process. But, it would at least come with a cost of your waiver draft pick if you do make a claim.

So the teams that actually would need those players would be giving up the higher waiver selections to get them, while teams that don't need them could just use a later pick to take them and likely try to sell them to the teams that do need them for an entry pick.

So what do you want koomz and hawks? It's easy to tear someone's idea down but what are you proposing?

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLONSo what do you want koomz and hawks? It's easy to tear someone's idea down but what are you proposing?

I guess the response depends entirely on how much the league wants to help out the rebuilding teams.

I'd ask that free agents that have played NHL games be available in a waiver style to only the teams not currently in a playoff spot. Something like that. I'd also ask that the GP be subject to an annual review... the more the top teams hoard the players, the less likely it is for the lower-end teams to easily acquire players.

I get that you don't want to give up a 2nd or a 3rd round pick for a middle or bottom of the lineup player but you need make an effort fill your lineup. If you're willing to risk missing on GP and costing yourself value in the 1st round of the draft, that's your choice.

I can remember the days of acquiring a guy like Paul Bissonette or Eric Boulton or Cam Janssen...players that played 4 minutes a night and would get into a fight and do nothing else. You could basically get them for late 3rd or a 4th round pick. The only purpose they served was a lineup spot that would me GP.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONApologies, I'm not re-reading every post. Oddly enough, I was thinking of this idea yesterday:

For any (valid) free agent claim after January 1, you give up your (first round) waiver draft pick in September.

You're basically sacrificing the chance to draft a top college or junior free agent for a player you might need now. Granted, a top team could claim a player just to squat on them and trade them for value but it's always been a first come, first serve process. But, it would at least come with a cost of your waiver draft pick if you do make a claim.

Shoalzie, this does nothing to help and the value from one waiver pick to another is substantial. It actually guarantees that the lower teams DO NOT lay a claim to the free agents. In fact, the top teams benefit probably benefit more from this arrangement. Pretty much the opposite of what we are trying to figure out.

Waiver picks outside the top 5 went for what between 3rd-5th round picks this past draft? Still cheap for gp. Could expand on that proposal to you being able to use any current year waiver pick to make a claim. Admittedly it's still throwing a band-aid on a gaping wound, but solutions are few and far between here. Again though, 850 is such an easy threshold to reach that it shouldn't come down to things like this for teams to reach the minimum.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONI get that you don't want to give up a 2nd or a 3rd round pick for a middle or bottom of the lineup player but you need make an effort fill your lineup. If you're willing to risk missing on GP and costing yourself value in the 1st round of the draft, that's your choice.

I can remember the days of acquiring a guy like Paul Bissonette or Eric Boulton or Cam Janssen...players that played 4 minutes a night and would get into a fight and do nothing else. You could basically get them for late 3rd or a 4th round pick. The only purpose they served was a lineup spot that would me GP.

And how much sense does that really make though?

As Koomz pointed out, he's made several trades to acquire GP pieces - as have I. Sometimes they just don't work out - and you are stuck with nothing. Everyone deals with injuries, but for the rebuilding teams it hurts double because we don't have the depth to call anyone up and go for a temporary fill-in.

Maybe the solution is to bring down the number of contracts each team is allowed to have? Bring the pool of available players back up.

koomzzz wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

koomzzz wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLONThe skater gp number is 850...do we really need to find new ways to get guys gp? I'm a rebuilding team too and I'm likely going to hit that number before the end of the match-up period. Make trades. Gp has been so devalued by the extremely low gp number anyway.

When I miss you can take a look and see what else I can do, I get offered guys that get less GP than I have getting scratched regularly, or I get told to pay more than I need to for a GP guy that might not even play. I'm not paying what little assets I have left just to get there, especially when the guys I get end up not even helping me get there. OR I get told "I'd rather keep my depth" yeah, I bet you would.

For example:
I trade for Hannikainen > injured
I trade for Pyatt > traded from a shit Ottawa team to Vancouver, sent down, never gonna play
I trade for Salomaki > injured
I trade for Paul > scratched in Ottawa while they dress 11F and 7D for no reason
I trade for Prosser after he gets a solid stretch of GP > MIN trades for Brad fucking Hunt and Prosser scratched
Yannick Weber comes off IR mid-week, plays 3 straight > I activate him for the following week, scratched 2 straight


There's really so much anyone can do.

Trade for better pieces. You have assets you can turn into 2-3 reliable NHLers. If you constantly trade for 13th fwd and 7th dman types to get gp that's the kind of shit that will happen.

Really? I post a block for Radulov, I get 1 offer.

I post a block for Kucherov whenever, and all I get is nonsense from ANA.

Sounds pretty easy when you have extra pieces that you won't give up huh

I have plenty of pieces I'm willing to give up, but I'm also under no obligation to just give assets away because other gm's want or need them. I also get the frustration with the bad offers. For every decent offer that comes along these days I seemingly get 100 bad ones. That said, it just doesn't seem logical that something decent hasn't come along in over a calendar year for Kuch, Stamkos, Radulov, etc. GP is out there to be bought.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Shoalzie wroteCOLONI get that you don't want to give up a 2nd or a 3rd round pick for a middle or bottom of the lineup player but you need make an effort fill your lineup. If you're willing to risk missing on GP and costing yourself value in the 1st round of the draft, that's your choice.

I can remember the days of acquiring a guy like Paul Bissonette or Eric Boulton or Cam Janssen...players that played 4 minutes a night and would get into a fight and do nothing else. You could basically get them for late 3rd or a 4th round pick. The only purpose they served was a lineup spot that would me GP.

And how much sense does that really make though?

As Koomz pointed out, he's made several trades to acquire GP pieces - as have I. Sometimes they just don't work out - and you are stuck with nothing. Everyone deals with injuries, but for the rebuilding teams it hurts double because we don't have the depth to call anyone up and go for a temporary fill-in.

Maybe the solution is to bring down the number of contracts each team is allowed to have? Bring the pool of available players back up.

Bad theory. Rebuilding teams need those additional contracts waiting for prospects to develop. Would do a lot more damage than good.

koomzzz wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

koomzzz wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLONThe skater gp number is 850...do we really need to find new ways to get guys gp? I'm a rebuilding team too and I'm likely going to hit that number before the end of the match-up period. Make trades. Gp has been so devalued by the extremely low gp number anyway.

When I miss you can take a look and see what else I can do, I get offered guys that get less GP than I have getting scratched regularly, or I get told to pay more than I need to for a GP guy that might not even play. I'm not paying what little assets I have left just to get there, especially when the guys I get end up not even helping me get there. OR I get told "I'd rather keep my depth" yeah, I bet you would.

For example:
I trade for Hannikainen > injured
I trade for Pyatt > traded from a shit Ottawa team to Vancouver, sent down, never gonna play
I trade for Salomaki > injured
I trade for Paul > scratched in Ottawa while they dress 11F and 7D for no reason
I trade for Prosser after he gets a solid stretch of GP > MIN trades for Brad fucking Hunt and Prosser scratched
Yannick Weber comes off IR mid-week, plays 3 straight > I activate him for the following week, scratched 2 straight


There's really so much anyone can do.

Trade for better pieces. You have assets you can turn into 2-3 reliable NHLers. If you constantly trade for 13th fwd and 7th dman types to get gp that's the kind of shit that will happen.

Really? I post a block for Radulov, I get 1 offer.

I post a block for Kucherov whenever, and all I get is nonsense from ANA.

Sounds pretty easy when you have extra pieces that you won't give up huh

Maybe you should make offers with these players rather than post a block and wait. Be pro-active.

All the examples being mentioned about quirky situations with NHL teams doing unusual things with their lineup and screwing up your plans with your team...I'll let you in on a little secret, all this stuff it out of our control. All these players are simply stocks to us. You pay more for premium stocks and you pay less for stocks that probably aren't going to yield much.

Can you control what lineup a coach will put out on a given night?
Can you control if a player can avoid being injured?
Can you control if a top goal scorer can get out of their slump?

No, no and no.

All of this plays into managing a team in this league. We've had the majority of the same set of rules for a long time and we all seem to get along just fine.

Drafting Jack Hughes in a league like this is a bit overrated. One player does not improve your team right away. It either takes multiple years of good fortune in the draft to improve or you trade away your top pick one year and acquire several pieces to improve the balance of your team.

Matthew wroteCOLON
Maybe you should make offers with these players rather than post a block and wait. Be pro-active.

There's a difference between pro-active and straight up obnoxious. For some it's a fine line.

Shoalzie is right, we can't control things as they happen. I merely proposed that we look into the idea of allowing some way to get players that would actually contribute GP post-Jan 1. Hell I don't even care if we allowed only non-playoff teams (maybe bottom 10? since they likely wouldn't become playoff teams) in reverse standing order the opportunity to claim players after Jan 1, and then when the season is over, they get dropped and available in the waiver draft. Only benefits the teams that need GP pretty much, and then if we want to keep them for future seasons, they're again available for the waiver draft.

But if there isn't a fair and feasible way to do it, at least the discussion was had.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONAll the examples being mentioned about quirky situations with NHL teams doing unusual things with their lineup and screwing up your plans with your team...I'll let you in on a little secret, all this stuff it out of our control. All these players are simply stocks to us. You pay more for premium stocks and you pay less for stocks that probably aren't going to yield much.

Can you control what lineup a coach will put out on a given night?
Can you control if a player can avoid being injured?
Can you control if a top goal scorer can get out of their slump?

No, no and no.

All of this plays into managing a team in this league. We've had the majority of the same set of rules for a long time and we all seem to get along just fine.

Drafting Jack Hughes in a league like this is a bit overrated. One player does not improve your team right away. It either takes multiple years of good fortune in the draft to improve or you trade away your top pick one year and acquire several pieces to improve the balance of your team.

Bingo. But how are we supposed to acquire those several pieces, when we are trading everything to maintain GP to try and protect the position of our 1st round pick? I get that this is a rebuild and it takes multiple years to get to where we need to go. But if a team with zero foundation (like mine) is spending all of our assets just to get players to hit a minimum for the first 3 years, it's going to take another 5 before any of the lucky middle round picks that we actually get to use turns out to be something interesting.

AND if we decide not to acquire GP pieces and let our 1st round pick devalue (therefore keeping our middle round picks to draft) the rules state that we get fired.

As it is - very difficult to rebuild a team from the bottom up within a reasonable time frame with the rules that are currently in place.

koomzzz wroteCOLONBut if there isn't a fair and feasible way to do it, at least the discussion was had.

I don't see what you and Mark are talking about is unreasonable. I fully understand where you're coming from. I'll point back to idea that this has been our rule for several years. When I was in your position for a few years, this was a hurdle I had to deal with also.

Not always will you see a player like Greg McKegg get called up and play a dozen games and actually be productive on top of that. I think several teams would've claimed him. Some of us would like his stats while some of the bottom-tier teams would like the GP.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLONBingo. But how are we supposed to acquire those several pieces, when we are trading everything to maintain GP to try and protect the position of our 1st round pick? I get that this is a rebuild and it takes multiple years to get to where we need to go. But if a team with zero foundation (like mine) is spending all of our assets just to get players to hit a minimum for the first 3 years, it's going to take another 5 before any of the lucky middle round picks that we actually get to use turns out to be something interesting.

AND if we decide not to acquire GP pieces and let our 1st round pick devalue (therefore keeping our middle round picks to draft) the rules state that we get fired.

As it is - very difficult to rebuild a team from the bottom up within a reasonable time frame with the rules that are currently in place.

If trading a 3rd round pick for a player that will play in 70 games isn't worth saving the value of your first round pick...that's up to you. Granted, we use the NHL lottery so no one is guaranteed of a position in the draft based on order of finish. And the 3rd round pick I speak of has no guarantee of yielding any long-term value for a rebuilding team either. Once you get past the 2nd round of the draft...your odds of drafting a future NHLer goes down greatly.

You need to prioritize what's more important. If you want to risk losing value of your 1st round pick and hang onto your picks and prospects...that's your choice. You'll deal with a punishment for missing GP and basically give away draft picks and draft position as the penalty.

How about instead, use that potential lost value and acquire a player or two?

I get it - the top teams should not be punished for having an abundance of talent. But in that same frame of mind - why should the bottom teams be punished for having none at all? If you aren't going to take from the rich to give to the poor, then why should the league allow the rich to continuously rob the poor?

If you want a healthier league, you need to make it easier for rebuilding teams to rebuild. There is little activity because the bottom teams can't do fuck all, and the top teams are just sitting there not trading for anything because they already have it all. Something has got to give.

I've seen it posted numerous times that the problem the league has is that the top teams have it all. Why not make it easier for the bottom teams to catch them? Would the league not be more fun if there were more teams able to make hockey trades instead of desperation trades?

I'm ranting again, and I apologize. The point of this thread was to try and find a way to make it easier for the bottom teams to get players on their rosters. Let's try and keep this in mind while talking.

koomzzz wroteCOLON
Really? I post a block for Radulov, I get 1 offer.

I post a block for Kucherov whenever, and all I get is nonsense from ANA.

Sounds pretty easy when you have extra pieces that you won't give up huh

Radulov + 2019 4th for Bozak + Sundqvist

You have no C depth so you get two including a younger one having a breakout season.

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLONBingo. But how are we supposed to acquire those several pieces, when we are trading everything to maintain GP to try and protect the position of our 1st round pick? I get that this is a rebuild and it takes multiple years to get to where we need to go. But if a team with zero foundation (like mine) is spending all of our assets just to get players to hit a minimum for the first 3 years, it's going to take another 5 before any of the lucky middle round picks that we actually get to use turns out to be something interesting.

AND if we decide not to acquire GP pieces and let our 1st round pick devalue (therefore keeping our middle round picks to draft) the rules state that we get fired.

As it is - very difficult to rebuild a team from the bottom up within a reasonable time frame with the rules that are currently in place.

If trading a 3rd round pick for a player that will play in 70 games isn't worth saving the value of your first round pick...that's up to you. Granted, we use the NHL lottery so no one is guaranteed of a position in the draft based on order of finish. And the 3rd round pick I speak of has no guarantee of yielding any long-term value for a rebuilding team either. Once you get past the 2nd round of the draft...your odds of drafting a future NHLer goes down greatly.

You need to prioritize what's more important. If you want to risk losing value of your 1st round pick and hang onto your picks and prospects...that's your choice. You'll deal with a punishment for missing GP and basically give away draft picks and draft position as the penalty.

How about instead, use that potential lost value and acquire a player or two?

Because you cannot properly rebuild if your only future draft picks are your 1st rounders (just ask the Oilers). When you are trading multiple picks for 3rd and 4th liners, you are not taking a step forward - only back.