Buds Board Keepers League

dave1959 wroteCOLONI've never been a fan of strict games played rules.

My thinking is to have strict tanking rules in place and enforce them.

It's not hard to tell when a team is purposely trying to finish last to garner first pick in the draft.

That's why a draft lottery for the bottom so-many teams is good to have in place.

yep.

The way the NHL one is doesn't do much though

Bruyns wroteCOLONAgain I don't need GP and I'm not complaining!!

I feel like I'm the only one who is speaking out about how hypocritical it is to force teams to add players and pay exorbiant prices, while not forcing teams to make players available at reasonable prices. I guess the GMs complaining about this behid the scenes don't want to speak up in this thread.

Wouldn't reducing the games played limit accomplish the same goal of stopping rebuilding teams from having to overpay and hurt their rebuild to add players that are of no use to them other than GP.

I think my biggest problem with this whole discussion is that I've been told on many occasions that bbkl is intended to mirror the NHL in closest manner possible. At the beginning of the league I suggested a high cap minimum to help stop tanking (tanking was more of an issue in the early years) and was told it cannot happen as we are mimicking the NHL. The same can be said about instituting GP minimums, it was put in to make people have to dress a full lineup to ensure one team couldn't score zero in every category. Next Goalie games was maximized to make sure teams couldn't dress two starting goalies all year. Finally, and this almost ended the league, we changed the definition of a C because we had guys listed as W who took full time C faceoffs. I support the waiver cut down as it essentially follows the same train of thought, realism.

Teams often travel with 23 men, and it is beneficial to teams to do so. In turn we adopted the thought process of trying to get depth as well. We have found loopholes as in waiver exempt players to amass more depth then actual nhl teams can do. Yes I know, we can't choose which nhler is called up by nhl teams so maybe we can have a little more leeway. However, possessing 10+ spare full time nhlers is not realistic and because of league precedence something needs to be done. I have felt this way forever and suggested a similar thing this summer.

I have disagreed with some past rules but agreed to follow them under the basis of trying to mirror the nhl. Hopefully this discussion will promote that outcome once again.

I also agree with Bruyns. I have heard and said myself "not unless you overpay" when it comes to depth. I think he has been bang on in this thread

Definitely tough to find a comprimise that pleases all parties. I'm going to stop now though, since I kinda like to argue and debate and this really isn't that big of a deal to me and I'm sure it's coming across like it's an issue for me and I want things changed.

To Chuck I understand it's about opportunities and being at the right place and time to acquire a player. The point I was making was earlier in the season I had a couple holes in my roster and wanted to fill them with everyday players so adding a guy as a short term stop gap was not something I was interested in since then I would have to add another stop gap when the player gets sent down rather than just add someone I know will play. Some rebuilding teams need longer term fixes and can't rely on constantly paying for bandaid solutions that will add some GP so mentioning prices for fringe NHLers might not be a solution to the problem.

Thanks for the discussion guys, but I'm getting to the point where I feel like I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. This isn't my battle and I don't why this thread has turned into me against everyone else since I was making a suggestion and discussing the merits of it and understand why things are done they way they are now. If the rules were left as is that would be completely fine with me.

I also know I have plenty of young up and coming waiver exempt players in my system and have told certain GMs I will remember the prices I was given when other teams come to me in the future looking to make a deal. I thought I'd get a few bones tossed my way from teams looking to build a solid trading relationship and since I'm no threat right now a team could help the new guy, but nope you guys are cut throat and try to squeeze every last bit of value out of me in a trade. The closest I've had to a soft deal was, Shook offering me Chimera in the offseason for a pick, but I was stupid and didn't see this start coming and turned it down since I was deep on the wings and needed to use my picks to acquire Cs and D.

And for what it's worth Bryuns I can sypathize. When I joined BBKL of week #6 in year 1 my predecessor had dismantled the Habs so bad I was short a number of roster players. I was rostering guys like Matt Frattin (4 years ago) and Maxime Ouellet (who wasnt even in the NHL at the time). So what did I do? I acquired guys like Chris Durno and Tim Conboy. Are they in the NHL anymore? Nope. But they were getting me the GP I needed at the time and thats all that mattered. Just wanted to let you know I've been there and I get it. I just disagree with how others are chosing to get out of the respective holes their predecessors set them up with.

I'm sure there are lots of us willing to send you depth for the better player.

Unless you are scouring the free agent lines for guys like Bartley , Roussel, Gazdic, etc, 2-1's may be the best way to build your team up.

Not sure if this has been addressed as I skimmed through a lot of this, but what about sliding entry level contracts as well? I know myself I put in a lot of effort into drafting, and when you get a recent draftee signed it forces you to move contracts you have been holding onto for a year or two waiting for them to develop.

For example: Scott Laughton, drafted in 2012, signed shortly thereafter, and saw 5 gp in 2012-13, and 0 gp in 2013-14, the Flyers signed him early to lock him up and I'm forced to use one of 50 contract slots on him over 2 years when he has no chance to impact my roster. At the same time prospects who are closer but perhaps have a lower ceiling get traded to meet the 50 limit. It's not a huge deal, but just a bit of a pet peeve regarding the system we have now.

As far as waiver exempt players go I have no issue with the rules as they are. There are quantity deals out there for rebuilding teams all year, they refuse to pay anything for NHL players and then are forced to overpay later when injuries hit. To me that's the issue of having new GM's, you pay now or you pay later but generally the prices rise as the season goes on and more teams are interested in fewer available NHLers. No problem with teams being punished for lack of foresight.

Bruyns used a good word and that's bandaid. If you're playoff team and you want to stay in contention...you lose a guy for a week or two, you're more apt to spend a little something to get a replacement player. If you're a team that's quite a ways out of contention, what's your motivation to give up futures for a guy that is nothing more than a warm body to put in the lineup and don't actually contribute statistically? Some guys are on your team just so you can collect GP.

Sometimes it's just not worth it to overspend to get a guy that might only help you a little bit when it's more cost effective to carry a hole in your lineup for a given week. For teams with waiver exempt NHLers in reserve, they don't have to worry about making trades...they can just fill in the holes when needed. However, there's a finite number of those guys out there. I've learned in past years, you can't take depth for granted...it's not a bad idea to have a few guys you can plug in as injury replacements. Luck will have it when you trade a guy away, some other guy gets hurt and you could've used that other guy you just traded.

I've said this to a few guys...it's harder to make trades during the season. Especially if we're talking about trying to acquire good players off the top teams. Teams that are trying to win aren't going to trade guys for picks and prospects because it makes them a lesser team. You pretty much have to settle for the dregs of the league unless you give up something that will help the other team more. It's not a buyer's market during the season...teams will only offer players they're comfortable giving up.

I've said this like 8 times in this thread.

Don't pay for a guy, if you don't want a band aid.

Claim a player from the free agent pool that has been recently recalled and hope he sticks.

Sensfanjosh wroteCOLONNot sure if this has been addressed as I skimmed through a lot of this, but what about sliding entry level contracts as well? I know myself I put in a lot of effort into drafting, and when you get a recent draftee signed it forces you to move contracts you have been holding onto for a year or two waiting for them to develop.

For example: Scott Laughton, drafted in 2012, signed shortly thereafter, and saw 5 gp in 2012-13, and 0 gp in 2013-14, the Flyers signed him early to lock him up and I'm forced to use one of 50 contract slots on him over 2 years when he has no chance to impact my roster.

This was actually addressed, but not publicly yet, only inside the CC. Unfortunately the resolution was part of a package of measures, one of them didn't get through and nothing of the rest has been announced as a 'result'

Hell there's one sitting there right now that was just called up yesterday. He's a 30 year old probably nobody, but he's free and he may play.

Lee wroteCOLONI've said this like 8 times in this thread.

Don't pay for a guy, if you don't want a band aid.

Claim a player from the free agent pool that has been recently recalled and hope he sticks.

Or claim a guy that is never put in the CBS player pool.

I've yet to have a reason to use Glendening so I guess it's no harm no foul for now.


That's a part of building a roster is finding some guys that are "near NHL ready" because you can always have them as playing options if they ever get the call. I've got a guy like Jordan Szwarz who I've been waiting on for a couple years in the AHL...he's getting a shot to play with the Coyotes. You want to have competent NHL talent on your active roster but you always want to have some other guys that could be call-up options or as Lee talks about...claim a guy that might be a call-up option.

Well said - we don't want to be baby-sitting the league, the admin/cc/etc shouldn't be expected to be a nanny. GMs need to be in it and owning their decisions.


That statement doesn't mean there is no room for improvement, there seems to be quiet a bit of support in looking at our waiver-exemption rules, we'll move closer to the NHL's system if anything. Currently we take the high age + the high gp for the bar, we could introduce a stepped bar, or just average it lower - but the goal will be to improve accuracy of our mirror, and make the league better.


I

personally, I think gp requirement in the minors is too evasive, I prefer a more passive approach, at least to start, if it doesn't work, we go another step.. what we need is to tighten up the waiver restrictions, I'd say cut it in half, 75 gp for skaters and half of whatever the goalie games are, I don't even know what they are lol.. and an idea for age restrictions could something like this: age requirement for waiver eligibility is 26 years of age and/or number of pro seasons played, say 5 with at least ten games played in a season counting as 1 pro season

http://www.capgeek.com/waiver-calculato ... er_id=1401


Full NHL implementation done easily by cap geek. Worth discussing? It shows you the GP and Year's pro until they are required to go through waivers.

example: http://www.capgeek.com/waiver-calculato ... Calculate=

it even knows which CBA the contract was signed/activated under...

My $0.02:

There was a time when teams had 8-10 Centres on their teams with a bunch on Wing --> we put an end to this because: 1) a real NHL team doesn't have 10 guys taking FOs 2) there were teams struggling to ice 3 Centers when some teams had 10.

This situation is no different.

In the real world, rules are constantly changed EVEN THOUGH past rules benefited a certain group of people, who would lose those benefits. E.g. The new CBA penalizes the back-diving contracts that previously had been a loophole.

Also - there is a key point to be made as to how the market is affected by this loophole:

1) Teams with assets (e.g. 1sts, 2nds, good prospects) - they pay a 1st rounder for a waiver-exempt guy that gets GP --> because of this, the guy that owns the waiver-exempt player, does not make a deal with a team like BUF, for example, because he cannot afford to pay the same price.
2) For competitors, this price makes sense. Waiver-exempt guys provide incredible injury depth, and so never trade these pieces to builders
3) An asymmetrical asset pool develops, and now when a builder like DET or BUF needs GP. Yes, he can go get Hal Gill (I would), but that doesn't address the long-term issue. He will never be able to get Carl Hagelin because competitors will always be willing to pay more.

It's a vicious cycle. And it is created because of a loophole.

Lack of regulation in the past does not imply lack of regulation should continue in the future.

That's all I have to say on this. This rule change does not impact me at all lol.