Buds Board Keepers League

Lee wroteCOLON

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONTo be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

Yeah, this does not make sense to me either.

If a team is intentionally tanking, and his roster is devoid of talent, he likely has an even harder time trying to climb back to relevance. He is punishing him or herself by trading away everyone and not rostering any actual players. If you are fining this team draft picks, you are just prolonging his rebuild. This league needs more competition, not less. Hell, most of the top teams are hording 5-6 actual NHL'ers on their farm anyways. There is seldom enough players to go around. It's tough building a top keeper team dammit! Incentives are better motivators than consequences.

Now, I was obviously not around when those rules were created, and I am sure they were put into place to stop some idiots from having 0 players on their roster. But if I am a rebuilding team, and my team suffers multiple injuries, I am not going out and trading my valuable assets for roster players just hit some damn GP threshold. That's counter-productive to a rebuild.

If you haven't noticed, the CC exists to punish lottery teams for being lottery teams. That is their purpose and function.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONis there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONis there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

kimmer wroteCOLONhey foof

i had to pay up last year, be like me and try hard to make GP and almost the playoffs nxt yr

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONTo be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

Yeah, this does not make sense to me either.

If a team is intentionally tanking, and his roster is devoid of talent, he likely has an even harder time trying to climb back to relevance. He is punishing him or herself by trading away everyone and not rostering any actual players. If you are fining this team draft picks, you are just prolonging his rebuild. This league needs more competition, not less. Hell, most of the top teams are hording 5-6 actual NHL'ers on their farm anyways. There is seldom enough players to go around. It's tough building a top keeper team dammit! Incentives are better motivators than consequences.

Now, I was obviously not around when those rules were created, and I am sure they were put into place to stop some idiots from having 0 players on their roster. But if I am a rebuilding team, and my team suffers multiple injuries, I am not going out and trading my valuable assets for roster players just hit some damn GP threshold. That's counter-productive to a rebuild.

Matthew wroteCOLONTo be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

dave1959 wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONis there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

I get the standings adjustment for the offending team re drafts etc, but I don't get why it should affect GM the pick has been traded to.

foofnik wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONis there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

I get the standings adjustment for the offending team re drafts etc, but I don't get why it should affect GM the pick has been traded to.

Theory being they are effected since the pick they traded for is now worth less. But the rule predates me so that's an educated guess not a fact

dave1959 wroteCOLON

CasperX22 wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONis there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

I get the standings adjustment for the offending team re drafts etc, but I don't get why it should affect GM the pick has been traded to.

dave1959 wroteCOLONis there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONTo be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

Yeah, this does not make sense to me either.

If a team is intentionally tanking, and his roster is devoid of talent, he likely has an even harder time trying to climb back to relevance. He is punishing him or herself by trading away everyone and not rostering any actual players. If you are fining this team draft picks, you are just prolonging his rebuild. This league needs more competition, not less. Hell, most of the top teams are hording 5-6 actual NHL'ers on their farm anyways. There is seldom enough players to go around. It's tough building a top keeper team dammit! Incentives are better motivators than consequences.

Now, I was obviously not around when those rules were created, and I am sure they were put into place to stop some idiots from having 0 players on their roster. But if I am a rebuilding team, and my team suffers multiple injuries, I am not going out and trading my valuable assets for roster players just hit some damn GP threshold. That's counter-productive to a rebuild.

Matthew wroteCOLON

dave1959 wroteCOLONis there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

This isnt true.

Matthew wroteCOLONIt used to be the pick slid back after lottery so the team owning it couldnt win the lotto. Now its pre lotto.

However we disallow the team owning the pick, if it is the team who missed gp, from winning a lotto spot.

Da_Hawks wroteCOLON

Matthew wroteCOLONIt used to be the pick slid back after lottery so the team owning it couldnt win the lotto. Now its pre lotto.

However we disallow the team owning the pick, if it is the team who missed gp, from winning a lotto spot.

That doesn't make much sense though. The team should still have a shot at winning the lotto, just reduced to reflect his GP. As suggested, just re-rank the non-playoff teams by their adjusted points per games played value. This levels the playing field perfectly.