Buds Board Keepers League

Cool, can you guys set my line up for the rest of the year as well, please?

Lee wroteCOLONCool, can you guys set my line up for the rest of the year as well, please?

only if we are forced to do it... obviously that's something that would eventually lead to replacing the offending GM.

Also, when does this rule go into effect? Will I be punished retro actively for something that wasn't a rule yet? Will other people who have done the very same thing in years past be punished retroactively?

Glad to see the league taking steps to micro manage rosters. Maybe next they will take steps against people hoarding players.

Oh wait... the people who make the rules are the ones doing that. My bad.

Lee wroteCOLONAlso, when does this rule go into effect? Will I be punished retro actively for something that wasn't a rule yet? Will other people who have done the very same thing in years past be punished retroactively?

Glad to see the league taking steps to micro manage rosters. Maybe next they will take steps against people hoarding players.

Oh wait... the people who make the rules are the ones doing that. My bad.

Emotional comment, but yes you have a point.

Fantasy hockey takes years to end up like this, but eventually that is how it goes: handful of teams loaded and a handful of suck jobs. BBKL is now at this point.

Lee wroteCOLONAlso, when does this rule go into effect? Will I be punished retro actively for something that wasn't a rule yet? Will other people who have done the very same thing in years past be punished retroactively?

apparently there wasn't a clear ruling on the matter till today, so no sanctions may be applied to GMs for past actions on this matter.

Lee wroteCOLONGlad to see the league taking steps to micro manage rosters. Maybe next they will take steps against people hoarding players.

Oh wait... the people who make the rules are the ones doing that. My bad.

weird reading that right after the CC did just that (this past Summer)

LeanMachine wroteCOLONEmotional comment, but yes you have a point.

Fantasy hockey takes years to end up like this, but eventually that is how it goes: handful of teams loaded and a handful of suck jobs. BBKL is now at this point.

I must have missed the BBKL preventing the poor teams from drafting and 'hoarding' a lot of prospects on their own?

It has been a passion of mine to find and exploit loop holes in the rules. I freely admit that.

I am using every advantage I can to make the best of a bad situation. I've gone from a team with literally nothing to where I am now because of this. People want to complain about my offers, this is why.

Lee wroteCOLONIt has been a passion of mine to find and exploit loop holes in the rules. I freely admit that.

I am using every advantage I can to make the best of a bad situation. I've gone from a team with literally nothing to where I am now because of this. People want to complain about my offers, this is why.

personally i find nothing really wrong with that

kyuss wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONAlso, when does this rule go into effect? Will I be punished retro actively for something that wasn't a rule yet? Will other people who have done the very same thing in years past be punished retroactively?

apparently there wasn't a clear ruling on the matter till today, so no sanctions may be applied to GMs for past actions on this matter.

Lee wroteCOLONGlad to see the league taking steps to micro manage rosters. Maybe next they will take steps against people hoarding players.

Oh wait... the people who make the rules are the ones doing that. My bad.

weird reading that right after the CC did just that (this past Summer)

What was done was the equivilent of throwing a couple of buckets of water off of the Titanic, but go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back.

kyuss wroteCOLON

LeanMachine wroteCOLONEmotional comment, but yes you have a point.

Fantasy hockey takes years to end up like this, but eventually that is how it goes: handful of teams loaded and a handful of suck jobs. BBKL is now at this point.

I must have missed the BBKL preventing the poor teams from drafting and 'hoarding' a lot of prospects on their own?

Ah yes, the fabled 5 year rebuild mode. Good for the NHL, not so much for a fantasy hockey league where teams constantly rape other teams.

Lee wroteCOLON

kyuss wroteCOLON

LeanMachine wroteCOLONEmotional comment, but yes you have a point.

Fantasy hockey takes years to end up like this, but eventually that is how it goes: handful of teams loaded and a handful of suck jobs. BBKL is now at this point.

I must have missed the BBKL preventing the poor teams from drafting and 'hoarding' a lot of prospects on their own?

Ah yes, the fabled 5 year rebuild mode. Good for the NHL, not so much for a fantasy hockey league where teams constantly rape other teams.

did anyone ordered those teams to get raped lol? I was even in favour of giving the CC veto powers to prevent the obvious rapes, but I have always been alone on that.

Aside from that trade thing (where we could have used veto powers), we are basically using the NHL rules by now, not sure about this hoarding thing.. if people don't want long term commitment and plans, this is not the league for them I guess.

And if anything, your actions as PHI GM showed teams can be turned around in a shorter amount of time: if you did it with that team you inherited, it has to be doable with any team in a couple of seasons.

Lee wroteCOLONWhat was done was the equivilent of throwing a couple of buckets of water off of the Titanic, but go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back.

yeah, would have been much better forcing teams to throw away the assets they gained over yrs... nothing like that to cut in half the number of involved GMs staying in the league, I certainly would not.

It's still the balance of shifting assets from lower ranked teams to higher ranked teams. Higher ranked teams generally have the ability to hoard assets at the NHL and minor league level and demand top dollar for even shitty assets, simply because they posses so many of them, where as lower ranked teams are struggling to ice full rosters.

Myself included. Pretty sure I've been running a couple weeks now with Justin Schultz as my only D because everyone else is injured or sent down. It's not from lack of trying to get more D, I'm just not getting ass raped for some shitty 35 year old dman. I'll miss GP because of that, have my pick reduced and life will continue on as it always has in BBKL.

kyuss wroteCOLON I must have missed the BBKL preventing the poor teams from drafting and 'hoarding' a lot of prospects on their own?

BBKL does a good job of allowing poor teams to keep prospects and make high picks; as usual rewarding for being awful.

I am just pointing out the big picture of fantasy hockey 5+ years into it. Seems this always happens. The GMs here are very smart and intelligent. Some have been here from the beginning and conquered BBKL hockey. Other GMs just got here and are doing the best they can with what they have been given.

We all have a passion for it and want to compete; if not now but by setting long-term goals to get to that point in the future.

For the San Jose Sharks franchise, I was give an older team (average age probably above 30) with close to zero prospects or picks in the system. The team was ready to compete, but I knew full well the long-term damage that could bed caused to this franchise if I did not make some small deals. I lost a lot of H2H and periphs since I have been here (ex Dats, Sedin, Vrbata, MSL) as teams looking to win this year were ready to sell me some younger assets. Fair deals were made. Anyway, I give this example to show that GMs can work their team to go wherever they want to go. I know what doesn't work:
1) Getting mad through PM
2) making emotional semi-aggressive posts

Its all about a good balance in my opinion. Some older guys with good H2h/Periph, and then some younger guys to help with cap; complimented by a decent farm system and some draft picks. I think this is the way to go. So to get back to the point, I am not in favor of the "ALL OUT TANK" as it is too extreme. Neither do I think "hoarding" NHL ready assets in the minors is good. Year 5+ creates these scenerios.

So I kinda hear what Lee is saying (minus the emotional garble goop). Lee thinks his team is bad enough; why is he begin penalized further? To him it looks like just another move for the rich to crush the weak. Sounds like he would like to see some give-and-take. Make everyone happy. Probably not to the extreme that Mik presents "throwing away assets", but thinking of what is best for the long-term health of BBKL, not just padding personal stats or eliminating any foreseeable action a team could do to present an unfair advantage'; ie. threatening top-teams dominance of the league (through tanking).

kyuss wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONWhat was done was the equivilent of throwing a couple of buckets of water off of the Titanic, but go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back.

yeah, would have been much better forcing teams to throw away the assets they gained over yrs... nothing like that to cut in half the number of involved GMs staying in the league, I certainly would not.

Here's a good read on how the NHL works this:

Waiver Exemption

The most difficult part of the waiver system is that of exemption. As a general rule, developing players are exempt from the waiver requirement: teams are free to assign them to the minor leagues and to recall them. Specifically, exemption is determined by a combination of the number of years under contract and games played. Once a player hits a threshold number of games played based on the player's age and the number of years since he signed his first NHL contract, he loses the exemption and must pass through waivers. The number of years and games is set down in a table in paragraph 13.4 of the CBA:
Goalies Skaters
Age
Years from
signing-NHL

NHL Games
Played

Years from
signing-NHL

NHL Games
Played
18 6 80 5 160
19 5 80 4 160
20 4 80 3 160
21 4 60 3 80
22 4 60 3 70
23 3 60 3 60
24 2 60 2 60
25+ 1 1

For waiver purposes, NHL regular season games and playoff games count the same. Immediately after a player plays the number of games indicated, he loses the waiver exemption. If he doesn't reach the number of games, he nevertheless loses his waiver exemption on reaching the number of seasons under an NHL contract.

This is relatively straightforward. However, there are a number of additional rules that make it more complicated. First, the number of years is reduced by two for eighteen year old or nineteen year old players playing more than eleven NHL games. So, any goalie playing more than eleven NHL games by age nineteen will lose waiver exemption after four seasons and any skater doing the same will lose waiver exemption after three.

Additionally, for players twenty or older, all professional games count, not just NHL games. This includes all minor league games and European league games while the player is on loan and signed to an NHL team. For waiver purposes, age eighteen means the player reaches that age between January 1 and September 15 of the draft year. Ages from nineteen to twenty-one mean that the player reaches that age during the year of the draft.

----

With that said, I understand our version of the simplified rule. I think the 28 rule needs to be lowered, as well as the number of games played.. The problem is that for the most part rosters are very set in stone with very little movement. You have 10 years from when a kid is drafted until you have to make a decision on him.

To speak further on my last post:

I'll use 2 example from my team: Jordan Weal and Teemu Pulkkinen

They are in their last years of waiver eligibility in the NHL. Detroit will either have to keep them on their active roster or trade them next year, or risk losing them to waivers.

The only player I risked this year was Bobby Butler, who is 28.

Meh, been playing my best lineup anyways while hoping I lose weeks

All for anti tanking but I do support reducing waiver elidgibility

Lee wroteCOLONTo speak further on my last post:

I'll use 2 example from my team: Jordan Weal and Teemu Pulkkinen

They are in their last years of waiver eligibility in the NHL. Detroit will either have to keep them on their active roster or trade them next year, or risk losing them to waivers.

I don't think you can make that straight comparison to the NHL when there is one inevitable key difference:
NHL GMs decide themselves for those players, when they sign them, when they bring them to the AHL, when they play in the NHL... whereas we are passively affected by what they do.

I think the 28 rule needs to be lowered, as well as the number of games played..

we did lower those parameters this past Summer though. And it was not a meaningless reduction, I know it first hand as those changes made me lose W exemption to a couple of players, which kind of forced me into trading a guy like B.Richardson for only picks..

Personally I think the age limit may be reduced a bit further, whereas GP limits seem about fine now.

It's still the balance of shifting assets from lower ranked teams to higher ranked teams. Higher ranked teams generally have the ability to hoard assets at the NHL and minor league level and demand top dollar for even shitty assets, simply because they posses so many of them, where as lower ranked teams are struggling to ice full rosters.
Myself included. Pretty sure I've been running a couple weeks now with Justin Schultz as my only D because everyone else is injured or sent down. It's not from lack of trying to get more D, I'm just not getting ass raped for some shitty 35 year old dman. I'll miss GP because of that..

I think you have a point here, and that's the same reason why in the past I proposed inside the CC to keep the GP minimums a tad lower and use veto powers (I also advised new GMs to not go crazy over minimus if they were not going to miss by much... better lowering your pick by one spot than getting raped in deals).
I much rather have any GM forced to dress his very best possible lineup (like in the spirit of this new regulation) while having to fulfill less demanding minimums, rather than having higher minimus, with obvious tanking still occurring anyway with bad lineups dressed on purpose, especially after meeting the GP minimums, with the result of a few teams getting screwed in the standings (both top and bottom teams).
That way you wouldn't force that much the hand of bottom teams into making deals for GP purposes, and at the same time you still don't get as screwed matchups as we did in the past (with teams dressing the worse possible lineup on purpose).

I agree with reducing Hording. Otherwise a team could put 20 players playing in the current NHL in the minors. The problem with this is it reduces the number of full rosters in the league. Other teams can't do what the NHL does and bring up a less apt player due to us following nhl callups, so more teams are left with a bunch of minor league players.

This may sound outlandish, but maybe something like after a player you own has been in one's minor league system, past his waiver exempt date (120) games for an additional 80 games without a call up, that player needs to be traded or called up?

That way a guy like Yakupov, who Mike looks like he could keep in his minors for 2 more seasons to build value despite him being an absolute nhl regular, can go to a team who needs to hit their games played, or something.

I feel like if hording is allowed then tanking should be allowed to give the poor teams the best chances at players who can make an impact in the nhl the soonest. However, the best option would be to fix both problems. Hording over time causes continual league disparity.

My argument may be ridiculous, but bleh.

ps - i dont have my 1st in '15 or '16