CDCGML 2012-13

[Primal Optimist]

Expanding on my Front Office thoughts,

What if each of the front office sections had a minimum threshold, below which no team could withstand the catastrophic loses for long, however, a team could put up with the bad bad consequences in an emergency if they had to for a year?

""Legal:

7.2 – Legal

- @ $5 million, your legal team has the bare functionality necessary to interact with players and other teams, without this no new contract, or trade negotiation, buyout or draft pick may occur.

- @ $6 million, players may sign for $250,000 less than players desired contract.

- @ $10 million, players less insistant about including NTC/NMCs.

- @ $14 million, players may sign for up to $1 million less than players desired contract.

7.2 – Medical/Training Facilities

- @ $6 Million, your training staff have the bare resources required to maintain and ice a team of healthy players, without this level of commitment, up to three random roster players maybe forced to seek out of town medical help on any given game night

- @ $8 million, 'out indefinitely' can be placed on IR.

- @ $10 million, 'expected to miss...' can be placed on IR.

- @ $15 million, 'day to day' can be placed on IR.

7.3 – Player Relations

- @ $4 million, your club has the funds to stock the soda machine, provide nutritional foods and snacks during the season, have a nice locker room, your own private charter, rather than flying on a scheduled carrier, without this one player a month may demand a trade and refuse to play

- @ $6 million, players more willing to re-sign with your club.

- @ $8 million, players more likely to waive NTC/NMC to join your club.

- @ $10 million, players more likely to waive NTC/NMC to be traded if asked.

- @ $12 million, facility upgrades make your club more attractive to free agents.

So you see, by adding in a bare minimum level with catastrophic results, but survivable results, barely, in the event a team has no choice but to slash the budget for any one item...you force people to invest in each of the front office catagories..basically making some negative consequences to not investing in addition to just the perks of investing.

[Squeak]

I personally think the 3 rounds is enough.

I used one of my 2nd and my 3rd to draft players from previous years, as they seemed to have a better shot at making the show then taking a risk on a 1st year draft eligible player.

Furthermore - whats the point in making the UFA age younger?

Any 20 year old that was NOT drafted in our league is 3-4 years away from getting a sniff at the NHL.

[SheaWeber6]

This game is tremendous no doubt about it, there are not really many problems but there is two that I would like to touch on and since I am on my iPod I will keep it nice and short.

The top 6 players on 1st lines, that is just a GM who makes good deals and has been around since the start I believe 4 year ago from what I have heard? Opposed to me havin about 2 months now, and I am not going to whine an complain because I know those vets have put their time into building their teams over the years.

However, the biggest problem I have is with the FA and how everything is handled. Please please please don't take this as an attack agents, I just want to state the truth, I just really hate how I only got mini updates every week or so. For instance, I had an offer for Penner about 1 week with no talks I asked for an update and got "We are discussing it right now." This showed me that the agent really pushed it to the side and this person knows who he is and again, please don't take this personally but I felt I got screwed because I had my offer in before A1 Canuck joine the game and after 2 weeks I was asked if I could give more money and I said no and stated a lot of reasons why Dustin should join the club and this was after Columbus went from the laughing stock of this game to something decent, and A1 Canuck comes in, offers, 2 days later BOOM he got Penner, a guy that I had the only offer on for 2 whole weeks and before A1 joined the game.

I again stress the fact that no one take this personally, specifically the agent that I discussed Penner with as there are ways that we could make this game much better. Focus more on the reasoning, not just term and money, and compare their roles to real life and communicate.

So please c2x, I would love to hear your response to this.

[Squeak]

This game is tremendous no doubt about it, there are not really many problems but there is two that I would like to touch on and since I am on my iPod I will keep it nice and short.

The top 6 players on 1st lines, that is just a GM who makes good deals and has been around since the start I believe 4 year ago from what I have heard? Opposed to me havin about 2 months now, and I am not going to whine an complain because I know those vets have put their time into building their teams over the years.

However, the biggest problem I have is with the FA and how everything is handled. Please please please don't take this as an attack agents, I just want to state the truth, I just really hate how I only got mini updates every week or so. For instance, I had an offer for Penner about 1 week with no talks I asked for an update and got "We are discussing it right now." This showed me that the agent really pushed it to the side and this person knows who he is and again, please don't take this personally but I felt I got screwed because I had my offer in before A1 Canuck joine the game and after 2 weeks I was asked if I could give more money and I said no and stated a lot of reasons why Dustin should join the club and this was after Columbus went from the laughing stock of this game to something decent, and A1 Canuck comes in, offers, 2 days later BOOM he got Penner, a guy that I had the only offer on for 2 whole weeks and before A1 joined the game.

I again stress the fact that no one take this personally, specifically the agent that I discussed Penner with as there are ways that we could make this game much better. Focus more on the reasoning, not just term and money, and compare their roles to real life and communicate.

So please c2x, I would love to hear your response to this.

[Sharpshooter]

I personally think the 3 rounds is enough.

I used one of my 2nd and my 3rd to draft players from previous years, as they seemed to have a better shot at making the show then taking a risk on a 1st year draft eligible player.

Furthermore - whats the point in making the UFA age younger?

Any 20 year old that was NOT drafted in our league is 3-4 years away from getting a sniff at the NHL.

[Squeak]

Having an extra round or two could help General Managers to select overagers who were passed over in the draft, but who not able to be signed in the off-season due to their age. Allowing the expansion to draft these players could lessen the scramble and ensuing sometimes seemingly arbitrary multi-team negotiations process over the services of the player in question. It could also allow teams to re-stock and address their minor teams more efficiently and effectively, imo.

I agree that many 20 year olds that are passed over in the draft may not get a sniff in the NHL for a few years, but that doesn't mean every 20 year old wouldn't or couldn't. What harm or disadvantage would result in lowering the age from 21 to 20?

College level players, who are a growing source of young players could leave college at 19 or 20 and go undrafted as well. The current 3 round draft doesn't allow room to add them to teams as well as the other leagues players. Expanding a round or two would do so, imo. Also, a GM wouldn't have to wait a year to add the previously non-drafted, non-UFA eligible player to the mix by simply taking a chance on him the year before by drafting him in the later 4th or 5th round.

Those were the points, just to clarify.

[y0shi]

I would be more open to lowering the UFA age for prospects from 21 to 20 than adding 2 rounds to the draft, especially since you only have 2 years to sign your prospects. I just think its better if there are more prospects available in the free agent pool as opposed to having teams holding rights to players for 2 years.

Personally, I think 3 rounds is enough. A lot of teams would treat those later round picks as chump change (you can kind of see that with the 3rd rounders sometimes already) and you'll just end up with an extra 2 hours of a draft and not many people being happy about it.

[Sharpshooter]

Absolutely valid points.

I just think that in a 'hockey pool' world... the talent level would become too diluted.

[y0shi]

I disagree, but I respect your opinions in the context of this discussion process.

If it were to be expanded to an extra round or two, then great...if not, then that's fine. If the age was lowered a year, then great...if not, that's fine too.

[Primal Optimist]

There is a fine balance between allocating minor league budget for prospects vs. picking up as many players as you can off waivers and leaving them in the minors. Perhaps something that would be beneficial to veterans and teams is if we stop allowing waiver eligible players to be "assigned" to minors once they are claimed. Maybe they should go back on waivers.

[Primal Optimist]

This game is tremendous no doubt about it, there are not really many problems but there is two that I would like to touch on and since I am on my iPod I will keep it nice and short.

The top 6 players on 1st lines, that is just a GM who makes good deals and has been around since the start I believe 4 year ago from what I have heard? Opposed to me havin about 2 months now, and I am not going to whine an complain because I know those vets have put their time into building their teams over the years.

However, the biggest problem I have is with the FA and how everything is handled. Please please please don't take this as an attack agents, I just want to state the truth, I just really hate how I only got mini updates every week or so. For instance, I had an offer for Penner about 1 week with no talks I asked for an update and got "We are discussing it right now." This showed me that the agent really pushed it to the side and this person knows who he is and again, please don't take this personally but I felt I got screwed because I had my offer in before A1 Canuck joine the game and after 2 weeks I was asked if I could give more money and I said no and stated a lot of reasons why Dustin should join the club and this was after Columbus went from the laughing stock of this game to something decent, and A1 Canuck comes in, offers, 2 days later BOOM he got Penner, a guy that I had the only offer on for 2 whole weeks and before A1 joined the game.

I again stress the fact that no one take this personally, specifically the agent that I discussed Penner with as there are ways that we could make this game much better. Focus more on the reasoning, not just term and money, and compare their roles to real life and communicate.

So please c2x, I would love to hear your response to this.

[y0shi]

I wouldn't say change the waiver system so that you go to the back of the line if you claim the player. I'm fine with the lowest ranked team claiming players. What irks me is people burying NHL talent in the minors and asking about parity. What sucks is if you have 23 active players and an injured player on your roster. Let's say you also have a guy like RNH who is not waiver eligible, but a key part of your offense. It is highly unfair that that team would have to waive a decent 3rd-liner/4th-liner type player while the bottomfeeders can just claim/assign them to the minors without being subject to waivers.

The whole point of the waiver process is that if a player plays a certain number of games/seasons, he is given the opportunity to remain in the NHL. It's not like the teams here are burying Wade Redden/Jeff Finger-like contracts. My complaint is that we are bunching this "budgeting" and "minor league prospect" issue together into one without taking into account the "waiver problem".

Not sure if I explained it well enough.

[Primal Optimist]

I would be more open to lowering the UFA age for prospects from 21 to 20 than adding 2 rounds to the draft, especially since you only have 2 years to sign your prospects. I just think its better if there are more prospects available in the free agent pool as opposed to having teams holding rights to players for 2 years.

Personally, I think 3 rounds is enough. A lot of teams would treat those later round picks as chump change (you can kind of see that with the 3rd rounders sometimes already) and you'll just end up with an extra 2 hours of a draft and not many people being happy about it.

[Primal Optimist]

I wouldn't say change the waiver system so that you go to the back of the line if you claim the player. I'm fine with the lowest ranked team claiming players. What irks me is people burying NHL talent in the minors and asking about parity. What sucks is if you have 23 active players and an injured player on your roster. Let's say you also have a guy like RNH who is not waiver eligible, but a key part of your offense. It is highly unfair that that team would have to waive a decent 3rd-liner/4th-liner type player while the bottomfeeders can just claim/assign them to the minors without being subject to waivers.

The whole point of the waiver process is that if a player plays a certain number of games/seasons, he is given the opportunity to remain in the NHL. It's not like the teams here are burying Wade Redden/Jeff Finger-like contracts. My complaint is that we are bunching this "budgeting" and "minor league prospect" issue together into one without taking into account the "waiver problem".

Not sure if I explained it well enough.

[Squeak]

How would we overcome this percieved loss though? Presumably, in your example, when the injured player comes back off of LTIR, rather than waive the player, the original team would be able to assign the 24th guy back to his minors, whereas now, if he is waiver eligble, another team may pick him up...

I again don't really get it..your saying that the team making the claim could stick him in the minors..but if the original team doesn't have to waive him, they would be sticking him in the minors....its a bit of a contradiction really...the arguement isn't about NHL talent stuck in the minors, its about who gets to stick him there and still call him their property. Right?

[Primal Optimist]

yes. Did it seem I suggested differently? I agree with what you said Squeak, not sure if i wrote something abscure, sorry if i did.

[Squeak]

yes. Did it seem I suggested differently? I agree with what you said Squeak, not sure if i wrote something abscure, sorry if i did.

[Primal Optimist]

Just wanted to 'summerize' it to avoid confusion.

[Sharpshooter]

I am not clear on the precise reason for the proposed changes. As it is, a team lowest in the standings who puts a claim in for a player, will get that player. Have I missed a lot of waivers lately that affect players of any calibre high enough to warrant a team not in the bottom third of the league to want said players, and yet they can't get them?

I think this particular grievance is one of perception, and not so much one of reality. If I may take a shot at generalizing the issue: Teams not in the bottom end of the standings would like a chance to claim waived players: how can we make that happen.

If this is the reason for the proposed changes, what is the unfair advantage that is supposed to occur if a bottom end team gets more players via waivers than a team above them in the standings?

I will use myself as a good barometer, since I am familiar with my roster and how i acquired the players.

Radek Dvorak was acquired off waivers and is currently in my starting lineup. Eric Belanger and Zack Stortini were acquired via waivers and are currently on my minor league team's roster. Last year, roughly Radek had 125 fantasy points, the other two had just shy of 200 each. I admit I grabbed Dvorak, because I personally liked him as a player his whole career, i am a fan, why wouldn't i claim him off waivers? The other two, I put in a claim due to their relatively high fantasy points to dollar cost ratios. Unfortunately, it looks like Stortini's NHL career is all but finished, and Eric Belanger provides me good depth at center, but where he is the 4th on Edmontons center depth chart, he is 5th on mine. That is enough to bump him to the minors. Under the current rules, i could place him there penalty free, by virtue of being the lowest ranked team to put in a claim.

It is interesting to note that there were at least 7 teams below me who COULD HAVE excercised their rights to claim Eric, or any of these three players, and honestly, in the interest of competition, I would like to see the worst off teams acquire players that can help them: Erics 200 points last year is nothing to sniff at if your 3rd line center got you 130 right? COugh cough..five other teams that could have claimed him....

So, I get that it is frustrating to have teams worse off claiming castaways from better off teams while teams somewhere between the two don't get that player...but its working as intended: no one is tanking on purpose in the hopes that Eric Belanger, the 4th line center of the Edmonton Oilers is waived at the age of 34, I guarantee it. However, teams that are in the 'tanked state' already, may be able to use Eric's 200 points to get a little better in the short term and improve their compete level.

The better solution to mid level teams missing out on waiver claims would be to have a suicide kings style of waivers or something like that, but I don't personally think anything is broken with it. Suicide kings is one that does not involve standings in the league. One way would be to start the whole system based on last years standings, and then ignore standings from then on. The worst team at the top is king, the best team at the bottom to start. From then on, waivers and claims are put in like normal, the winning team though is the one who is King. The highest team on the Suicide Kings list is 'king' of the claimers and gets the player. In so doing however the winning team commits suicide and falls to the bottom of the list. You only fall if you get a claimed player..and so in theory, every 30 claims you put in you will be guaranteed one player, as you could only possibly lose 29 times before your King again. Obviously only a handful of teams would claim any given player: and of those teams, the one who has gone longest without a claimed player gets him, and commits suicide and drops to the bottom. See how that goes? This does nothing for parity, is only a different system from the current one, which reflects the NHL better, and I don't see how either one would be considered 'better' for our league over any other system. I am in favour of no change, but have proposed Suicide Kings as an alternative that some GM's may like better.

[Squeak]

I think a good point to make is - someone like Belanger could be happier (and better served) being a 4th line winger or 13/14th forward rather then being stuck in the minors.