Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

CDCGML 2012-13


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10335 replies to this topic

#1411 Tony Romo

Tony Romo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,766 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 11

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:40 PM

The nba just got worse today

Edited by Tony Romo, 09 August 2012 - 08:40 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image Posted Image


Thanks to Raoul Duke for the Russell Wilson sig.

#1412 canuck2xtreme

canuck2xtreme

    Canucks All-Star

  • Assistant to Regional Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,108 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 06

Posted 09 August 2012 - 08:45 PM

The nba just got worse today

It turned into baseball? .....? :huh:
  • 0

CDCGML Commissioner/Winnipeg Jets <---Click For Roster!
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Support Canuck Place Childrens Hospice - http://www.canuckplace.org/

This is what hockey should be. A lot of chances, a lot of hitting, no cheap shots, no chirping after whistles."


#1413 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 09 August 2012 - 09:13 PM

The nba just got worse today


It turned into baseball? .....? :huh:


Baseketball??
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1414 y0shi

y0shi

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 09 August 2012 - 10:00 PM

  • Front office budget benchmarks
I would say that we're a few years into the season now and should look to expand the budget especially for the minors. Teams now have a number of prospects and with the roster maximum, there should be some balance of having room to have enough prospects without sacrificing other front office aspects.
  • Possible limits on contract terms (ie: maximum 5-6 years?)
I would keep this in line with the CBA. How many super long term deals have we seen in this league anyways? (Doughty, Kovalchuk, that is all).
  • Adjustments to draft rules
I think keeping it at 3 rounds is good enough. Like Sharpie said, I'd prefer lowering the UFA signing age to 20
  • Free agency (UFA, RFA, cutoff dates, arbitration)
Arbitration would be really interesting. In light of the big 2013 free agency year, I would also be open to more preliminary discussions prior to the deadline.
  • League parity
Like Romo said, Top 6 forwards on the 4th line is a big no-no. However, I think it has more to do with enforcement of unhappy playing time. Also, not that every prospect is a Cody Hodgson, but there are a few teams that have established NHL players on ELCs on their 3rd/4th lines.
  • Re-alignment
I would follow the NHL's current system until they actually realign the conferences.

EDIT: One thing I forgot to emphasize regarding parity is that it should not just be the league coming down hard on GM's that did the work to acquire the players like OTTS said. Teams that complain (like myself) need to put in the time/effort (which I have) to make the team better. The first couple years I took a wait and see approach to trading, and tried to land the big fish or two. But if a team isn't actively trying to get better throughout the year, why would a free agent want to come there? Without making improvements yourself, it'll perpetuate the downward spiral to a bottomfeeder. add that many of the lower-ranked teams love trading 1st rounders for border line top-6 players that would be first liners on their teams... and BOOM there's the reason why you'll never improve.

Edited by y0shi, 09 August 2012 - 10:04 PM.

  • 1

CDCGML Posted Image - Tampa Bay Lightning


#1415 Wilb

Wilb

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 06:52 AM

  • "Front office budget benchmarks
I would say that we're a few years into the season now and should look to expand the budget especially for the minors. Teams now have a number of prospects and with the roster maximum, there should be some balance of having room to have enough prospects without sacrificing other front office aspects."

I think we would have to be careful with this one, as this aspect of the game is very important in the strategy of this game. Some teams have a very large minors system, and have allotted a large part of their budget to the minor system; these teams obviously have an advantage over teams who haven't built their minors in player development-----Some teams have allowed a large amount to their player relations, which should also create an advantage for that team in signing free agents etc... And believe it or not there might be teams with room on their minor budget who are salivating at the possibility of picking up prospects as some teams may have strapped themselves with their minor budget, and have to potentially make trades to dump some of that minor salary to make room for new signings.........Anyway, I think managing your budget is a very important part of the game, I think sacrificing in other parts of the budget because a team wants a huge minor team is the name of the game, and if the budget isn't managed properly, there should, and will be consequences---(such as losing some bargaining power because your cap is maxed out).
  • 1

Posted ImageCDCGMLPosted Image


#1416 canuck2xtreme

canuck2xtreme

    Canucks All-Star

  • Assistant to Regional Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,108 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 06

Posted 10 August 2012 - 07:18 AM

I hate this statement for so many reasons.

People have good teams because they put the effort in and make smart moves, there already is enough in place to give everyone a level playing field, IMO.

I agree that the GMs that make smart moves and put in the effort will likely have better teams as a result, but I don't see any reason for you to dislike that statement, as it's completely accurate and in accordance with the rules. Top 6 players don't belong on 4th lines and top defencemen shouldn't be 3rd or 4th on a team's depth chart, and that really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Since day one the rules have asked for a realistic roster. I'll also agree that there is enough currently in place to ensure a level playing field, but one of those things, if not the biggest single thing, is the requirement for a realistic roster.

Those GMs that put in the effort and are making moves to improve their team should have to take that into consideration and ensure their team that's being built with those smart moves actually reflects a realistic roster, as that is part of the game as well. That's why I've made a few trades that I did, because I needed to ensure my roster was realistic, even though I would have rather not moved the player. While I'm glad we have so many quality GMs that put in the time and effort, just because someone puts in time and effort does not give them a free pass to push and exceed the boundaries of the rules.

Teams that insist that they should be able to keep a top line guy on the 3rd line and see no issue with it are the ones that make it difficult to enforce those roster guidelines. And when they start pointing to other teams with the usual 'but this team has this guy on the 3rd line!!!" stuff, it drives me nuts. You get everyone playing that game and nothing ever gets done. I'll put teams on notice right now, that argument will not work next season. The biggest area I feel I need to improve on is the enforcement of that rule, and it will be addressed next season. I will look at every team as often as possible (and at least four times a month) to ensure their roster is realistic and address the glaring issues. Does that other team have an issue? Maybe, but I'll find it, and maybe I already have discussed it with that team. I always try to do it quietly so as to give the team the best possible bargaining position so to give themselves the chance to make the best of the situation. Complaining will only lessen your bargaining position. If it starts showing up on the rumour mill (likely will be the new name of the trading block section) and going public that a player is unhappy, I doubt teams will be willing to give up as much to get the player.

It doesn't take a great GM to load up on top end players and watch points roll in. It takes a great and savvy GM to build a balanced, complete and realistic team that can outperform other teams on a nightly basis.
  • 0

CDCGML Commissioner/Winnipeg Jets <---Click For Roster!
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Support Canuck Place Childrens Hospice - http://www.canuckplace.org/

This is what hockey should be. A lot of chances, a lot of hitting, no cheap shots, no chirping after whistles."


#1417 y0shi

y0shi

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:00 AM

  • "Front office budget benchmarks
I would say that we're a few years into the season now and should look to expand the budget especially for the minors. Teams now have a number of prospects and with the roster maximum, there should be some balance of having room to have enough prospects without sacrificing other front office aspects."

I think we would have to be careful with this one, as this aspect of the game is very important in the strategy of this game. Some teams have a very large minors system, and have allotted a large part of their budget to the minor system; these teams obviously have an advantage over teams who haven't built their minors in player development-----Some teams have allowed a large amount to their player relations, which should also create an advantage for that team in signing free agents etc... And believe it or not there might be teams with room on their minor budget who are salivating at the possibility of picking up prospects as some teams may have strapped themselves with their minor budget, and have to potentially make trades to dump some of that minor salary to make room for new signings.........Anyway, I think managing your budget is a very important part of the game, I think sacrificing in other parts of the budget because a team wants a huge minor team is the name of the game, and if the budget isn't managed properly, there should, and will be consequences---(such as losing some bargaining power because your cap is maxed out).



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.
  • 0

CDCGML Posted Image - Tampa Bay Lightning


#1418 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

Having now finally seen almost a full cycle with the league, my initial concerns have somewhat abated.

1)Parity. Early in my first season I felt that bottom rung teams, and significantly the ones whose GM's had been replaced, were handicapped to a crippling point in trying to catch up. Credit to the top teams GM's of course, who are year in and year out great teams with a boatload of depth, but these bottom ranked teams appeared, to my new GM eyes to be sadly outclassed and stuck in a system that perpetuated the rule of the long term GM.

Now, a year later, I am not so concerned about that. At least, I have no good suggestion on how to accomplish a move towards parity that won't punish GM's who put in the time. I do think the system is such that said bottom feeders with new GM's DO have a rough time. However the difference now is that I understand the dedication, investment and skill that the 'long term GM' has utilized to get his team where it is. That should not be punished in order to help out new GM's who have inherited poor teams with not many resources. There could be other ways to give a little push for new GM's that does not involve a 'transfer of wealth' from better teams. To a degree the salary cap goes a long way towards parity that a new GM who is invested can overcome the obstacles by simply playing the game and making trades, moves and drafting well. All in all, i would like to see just a small 'welcome' for a new GM taking over a lower ranked team..something to help them out, without punishing the other GM's. Any ideas?

2) playoffs. I am very interested in a 7 game series style playoffs series. I sampled one during our last playoffs and it would work out well, but require slightly more work from our President and his executive. We know the night the NHL's round 1 starts and ends, it is fairly easy to then divide round one into 7 games. Several different ways to do it, but if its done in advance of the round, no one gets an unfair advantage. Generally speaking 2 days worth of game nights in the NHL would equal 1 CDCGML playoff game..winner is the team with most points after midnight the final day of the 'game'...carry one till one of our teams wins 4, that team advances. Easy concept, with a little extra work involved. I would like to see it tried as it would seem to me to be more 'edge of your seat' than to have to wait for 10 days while a blowout simply goes through the motions of finishing the series. Also it would add fun to having some teams sweep a series, some series go to game 7 et cetera. There could potentially be ties: and my suggestion is that in those rare instances the higher seeded team wins the tie breaker for a 'game' that is literally tied in fantasy points. Thus adding another reason to finish better in the regular season.

3)player/line realism. We have talked about good players stuck on bottom lines or pairings, and I think its more a perception than a reality, but in some cases it happens. I have an idea that may be interesting..If we add a game mechanic where the executive, along with C2X were to identify by consensus, the single biggest case in each conference where this is thought to be happening each year, and sometime between November and January declare that 'Magnus Verkison, of the Trimark Mariners, disgruntled with his ice time, has publicly demanded a trade, resulting in his being benched until such a trade occurs'. If we all know ahead of time that at least one player per conference per year is going to have 'icetime drama' and have this happen, then its a 1 in 15 shot it will be your team..and GM's will have to work to make sure their team is not the one caught in the icetime drama mechanic. IMO its worth talking about, as it might put an end to any more blah blah blah about deep teams getting away with top end talent on bottom lines and pairs. Hopefully no one would be too butthurt about it if its their team that is the consensus decision 'stacker'. After all, you would still get to make the trade and not simply lose the player for nothing in return, so it would add fun and action to the game as well. *might also help bottom teams to work at getting these 2 players that will be forced into play per year, and as protection, maybe if your team is hit this year, it is ineligable next year? Just a thought on it..something to talk about.

4) hits and blocked shots. I have spent some time researching hits and blocked shots and the league average is pretty close to the vast majority of players rolling 3 year averages. If we award these points it would only dramatically effect around 25 players. In the rare case, 2 or 3 players would gain a huge benefit from being a hitter and a blocker and those players would eclipse their real life value by the addition of these points. If the whole league gets more points on average, then this is simply trying to add value to a small group of players, and the very best in each category would gain value above the rate that the real NHL values them. Think of Ryan Johnson 85 blocks with Vancouver one year with minimal ice time..same year Andrew Alberts 222 hits. Should these two players be making 30 or 40 more fantasy points than they currently are? If a star player gets you 300 points, and a player who like Johnson or Alberts gets you 120 to 150, then adding another 30 to 50 points to their totals puts them up closer to the 200 mark, which is where they would be equal to 2 to 3 million dollar guys, and these players are league minimum guys in real life. I get it, Willie Mitchell, and similar type guys are undervalued in our league, that is a shame,but there is no competent way to compensate for the small hand full of Willie Mitchells without making a farce out of values of other players, who make low end money in real life, but would ultimately be worth far more in the CDCGML.
In short: some players make megamillions, some players make 600 thousand. There is a reason. Now, if we want to add something for the end of the year..maybe 20 points to the real NHL team leading hitter and blocker? That may be reasonable...or something similar to that.....examples would be Maxim Lapierre last year would get 20 extra points for being the Canucks lead hitter...Alex Edler 20 extra points for leading the real NHL team Canucks in blocked shots. Again, this is extra work for the executive, but would reward specific role players like Lapierre for their efforts without distorting values all along the cdcgml rosters.

5)Minor league and front office. I love this part of the game, it adds depth and distinguishes us from some silly 7 player pick up league. I would like to think that we 'could' add a certain realism by allowing teams to sign draft picks, but have them assigned to a third tier, like the CHL level for any player under age 20...then have them at age 20 bump up to the minor team league where their salary would count. This could make for top end draft picks being able to jump into the league, under contract, but have that contract 'slide' if they are in the CHL (qmjhl/ohl/whl) level so, if you sign Griffin Rienhart to a three year deal this year, but leave him in the CHL he won't count towards your minor league cap, or your major league cap and his contract doesn't start till the first year he is actually in your minor league team or your main lineup. More work, but more realism too! sign him, stuff him down there till he is 20 and then his contract kicks in...or if he really makes an NHL team you can bring him up instantly and his contract then kicks in and counts towards caps what do you guys think?

Secondly, while I will be one of the guys using the loophole, I don't like the loophole where you don't have to spend a dime on each individual section of the front office. I have a situation where I need to really maximize my minor league budget...so I am not putting much money, if any at all, into Legal and Player Relations. The perks from those two simply don't outweigh the perks from my requirement to have more budget on the minors league team, and also to be able to use LTIR to its fullest possible advantage, as I pay attention daily LTIR perks benefit me more than a GM who would only tune in once a week or once every couple weeks to tweak his lineup. While I am taking advantage of this, I think it is not in the spirit of the concept. I think we need to revamp the front office so that the perks are all of good value, but also so that a GM must have the minimum's, whatever they end up being, in each catagory. I mean a team with no legal budget? hahahaha in real life that would be a joke.
I support revamping dramatically the front office, where using its current setup, each team must have 6, 8 and 6 million respectively used in each of Legal, Medical and Player Relations. This comes to 20 million minimum of the 35million to be spent. Unfortunately, with contracts tending towards the 1m mark for entry level kids these days...one can not realistically see a 15million maximum available to the farm team, its unreal. Teams should have a 50 contract cap, for all levels of players in their system, that is for sure, and assuming 23 on the big team, and roughly 6 draftees from the last couple years in my proposed CHL level below age 20, there could be up to 21 players on the minor league team, but with just the minimums in each of the catagories only a budget of 15 million there....now if you want to pump up any one other section your 15m drops by at least 2million per level attained in the other section..most teams would have, i suspect, less than 10 million on the farm budget. Its not very real.

So, In addition to proposing a CHL level for signed draftees sub 20 years old where their contracts slide and don't count until they are called up or age out of the third teir, I propose a 50 contract cap and forced minimums to each front office catagory, however retool them so that there is some difficult decision making, but still the chance to have at least 5 forwards 3 dmen and a couple goalies on the farm team. 10 guys making an average of a million bucks or more is 10m or more, and as it is currently, that means if your minimums are all covered you want at least one or two bonus level perks, your stuck at 10m or less for the farm...I mean it could go that way and force tricky decisions, that would lead to more parity too...but at the very least impose minimums in each catagory or like I am doing, people will drop the least beneficial perks in favor of needs more suited to each GM's circumstances.

Hrm, I am getting long winded here, time to reflect and edit, then I will post. If i have more I will post another rant tomorrow. Lets hear more of everyone elses ideas...we must all have some opinion on something?
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1419 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 09:32 AM

  • Possible limits on contract terms (ie: maximum 5-6 years?)
I would keep this in line with the CBA. How many super long term deals have we seen in this league anyways? (Doughty, Kovalchuk, that is all)


This is something I had thought about in the past, but it didn't cross my mind this morning until I read your suggestions. I am very greatly in favour of capping our salary lengths.

Lets face it, no matter how real we want to try to be, we have an unreal turnover rate. Its just a game, and people tend to flake out over time, move on, or have situations come up where they can't devote the time to play a game. For a lot of reasons turnover happens more often in fantasy keeper leagues than we would all like to see. Players should not be under contract for longer than any of the thirty of us will be playing this game. I am speaking from my own experience here: i took over a team whose GM moved on for some reason or other, after saddling the team with a HUGE contract that does not expire before 2021. DiPietro, good bad or ugly, should not be like a parrot: outliving 4 generations of owners and being left to grandchildren in wills. (*yes parrots live a long long time and get willed to decendants of the original owners...lol)

I am massively in favour of maximum length contracts, capped in line with the nature of the fantasy game..higher than real turnover. if we want to say 5 years, cool, but I would even say 4 is the longest I would like to see. Lots of one years, lots of 2 years lots of three years and some really top end guys getting four years sounds great to me. This has a two fold effect on our game: you can't hide salary over ten years to get around the cap: thus parity is served better by shorter contract lengths....and you can't do irreversable harm to a team you don't intend to stick around to see out, thus new GM's won't inherit a Crater of a mistake that they will have to suffer with for literally a generation. Obviously the DIPietro, Kovy and other long term contracts currently in place are in the minority...but the greater effect will be towards parity, and that is a good mechanic. If your 7 year contract averages 6million, and that player is hugely popular, then when you cut it down to 5 or 4 years, his cost will likely go up, leaving less money for other players, which may very well stop 'stars on the fourth line' situations.

For at least a couple reasons I love the idea of massively reducing the maximum term of a contract. First and foremost to stop generational mistakes, and secondly to add to league wide parity and the 'chance' to win next year, even if you were dead last this year.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1420 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:07 AM

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.


I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I wouldn't mind a middle ground though, to give a team some time to make room for a waiver acquisition, but the length of time would have to be relatively short.

A caveat to this, imo, is if a GM waives that veteran player, whom he ultimately cannot find space for, and attempts to trade him as well, but cannot do so either successfully or realistically, then perhaps we could look at keeping the player in the minors, until such time that a trade arises....even if it's a bare minimum return for the GM.

We could look at a situation where the GM isn't allowed to make any more waiver acquisitions, until the present situation is resolved, or perhaps restrict his ability to make any trades, until the player is traded or waived and acquired off his team first.

I believe those restrictions could motivate a GM to move an unhappy player expeditiously..
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1421 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:08 AM

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.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1422 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,349 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:13 AM

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.

Edited by Squeak, 10 August 2012 - 10:16 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#1423 SheaWeber6

SheaWeber6

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 696 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 12

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:40 AM

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. :)
  • 0

#1424 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,349 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:45 AM

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. :)


Saying 'We're discussing it' is not pushing it aside.

Because that is actually what we are doing... discussing it.


EDIT:I won't speak specifically about that negotiation - but role and front office budget are ALWAYS large factors.

Edited by Squeak, 10 August 2012 - 11:00 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#1425 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:46 AM

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.


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.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1426 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,349 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 10:51 AM

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.


Absolutely valid points.

I just think that in a 'hockey pool' world... the talent level would become too diluted.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1427 y0shi

y0shi

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:04 AM

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.
  • 0

CDCGML Posted Image - Tampa Bay Lightning


#1428 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:13 AM

Absolutely valid points.

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

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.


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.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1429 y0shi

y0shi

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:26 AM

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.


I agree with you that there should be some way to allow teams to have a better prospect pool. I guess implementation is going to be the ultimate challenge.
  • 0

CDCGML Posted Image - Tampa Bay Lightning


#1430 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:27 AM

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.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I wouldn't mind a middle ground though, to give a team some time to make room for a waiver acquisition, but the length of time would have to be relatively short.

A caveat to this, imo, is if a GM waives that veteran player, whom he ultimately cannot find space for, and attempts to trade him as well, but cannot do so either successfully or realistically, then perhaps we could look at keeping the player in the minors, until such time that a trade arises....even if it's a bare minimum return for the GM.

We could look at a situation where the GM isn't allowed to make any more waiver acquisitions, until the present situation is resolved, or perhaps restrict his ability to make any trades, until the player is traded or waived and acquired off his team first.

I believe those restrictions could motivate a GM to move an unhappy player expeditiously..


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.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1431 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:32 AM

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. :)

I understand some of your frustration, but you should not assume yours was the only offer on the table...from my understanding you may deal with just one agent, but maybe another team is dealing with another agent on the same player at the same time..so they do take time to discuss it as a round table of agents, behind the scenes...likely you were put off because of competing offers, and in the end, the new kid had the best offer after all was said and done...and only by coincidence appears to have eeked it out in no time at all..it could be that they were just about to make a decision when he sent in his offer...
my point is i have been frustrated at times too by the inner workings, only to find out months later that my perception was off, rather than the process. ; )

And yes, you have done a good job so far with turning your team around, but we should wait till you play a game in the regular season before we declare it a success, yes? :P
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1432 y0shi

y0shi

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:40 AM

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.
  • 0

CDCGML Posted Image - Tampa Bay Lightning


#1433 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:47 AM

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.

What do you think about a CHL level of prospect in a teams system? We could have one year limits to sign a player, if not he is in next years draft right away, if he is signed, he can play on his CHL team until his 20th birthday, and then his contract would kick in and his cap hit count agaiinst either your team or your minor league team. Players who go undrafted or unsigned by their 20th birthday are Free Agents to be negotiated as any UFA would be.

I am also wondering if we shouldn't cap total players in any given teams system lower than the NHL cap to increase the pool of available players...23 main roster, there would likely be 6 to 10 in the CHL/unsigned pool at any given moment and that is 29-33 players right there: two minor league goalies, 4 minor league dmen and 6 forwards is another dozen. Is anyone else in favour of baring any team from having more than 45 bodies in its system, top to bottom? That means at the draft, if you have 5 draft picks and you don't have less than 41 total people in your system, you need to make room or give up a draft pick. I would say I would agree with somewhere between 41 and 45 players total from your most recent draftee to your top line all star in a teams system as a body cap would make for an interesting talent pool of available players. up to 9 more from 30 real NHL teams....at least 150 more bodies available(at 5 less per team) and as high as 270 more available(9 per team less) for GM's to try to deal with and work into their scheme.

ANyone else interested in this kind of idea?

Edited by Primal Optimist, 10 August 2012 - 11:55 AM.

  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1434 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:52 AM

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.

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?

I like how it works now, as this makes it crucially good management to try to always have a waiver ineligable young NHL player on your farm team to call up in the event of injury, that way he can go down without worrying about waivers. Makes management of a team a little more of an in depth thing, beyond just stacking the best you can and going on auto pilot for the year.

Edited by Primal Optimist, 10 August 2012 - 11:58 AM.

  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1435 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,349 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:54 AM

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?


The way it currently works is.

If a team claims a player on waivers - they have the option to place them in the minors or the NHL roster.

If said team were to recall the player (as the example suggests -- due to an injury to another player) -- then the recalled player would be subject to waivers when being sent BACK to the minors.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1436 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:00 PM

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.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1437 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,349 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:02 PM

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.



Just wanted to 'summerize' it to avoid confusion.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1438 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,691 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:14 PM

Just wanted to 'summerize' it to avoid confusion.

Ah thank you, i am trying to get my head around the reason for any possible change to the waiver system still...and using my claiming Eric Belanger as an example, i claimed him specifically to fill the example Yoshi gave. I claimed him off waivers, stuck him on my farm team, and the first center i get that is injured, will call up Eric to fill in...when that injured center comes back i will most likely have to waive Eric to the farm again...at which time other teams will be able to, if they wish, claim him. I just see that as 'working as intended', and not me losing out on a depth center due to a bad mechanism The only thing is in my example of using Eric, he was waived originally by a team after the season was over..and that team simply didn't want him anymore...so its different than if i claimed him off a team that was moving him down to make room for a returning LTIR guy. But similar enough, under the current system that is what happens when you try to move a guy with NHL experience to your minors: you let other teams have a shot at using him, even if its as depth in their minors. Again, i don't see the system as broken here. But I do think perhaps having a lower body count than 50 per team system may help alleviate this, and free up more bodies for teams to try to work in.

EDIT: Random sample of teams total bodies in the system right now:
Anaheim 25, Boston 44, Buffalo 30, Calgary 29, Chicago 33, Colorado 46,
Carolina 35, Columbus 53, Dallas 32,
Detroit 34, Edmonton 38, Florida 41, LAK 39, Minnesota 51
Montreal 41, Nashville 35, NJD 50, NYI 51,
Ottawa 48, Philly 36, Pittsburgh 37, Quebec 51
San Jose 46, St Louis 44, Tampa Bay 38, Toronto 37,Vancouver 29, Washington 31
Winnipeg 37, and me, NYR at 38

So, it would appear that no one, or hardly anyone utilizes the full 50 man system anyways..but just from this list, if we put a hard cap of 40 on the total players in the system, including unsigned draftees, we would free up 86 bodies that would move around the league somehow or other in the next little while while teams over the limit get under it. I dunno if the idea would gain traction, or not though. Thoughts? Maybe cut it to 40, not including unsigned prospects?

Edited by Primal Optimist, 10 August 2012 - 12:42 PM.

  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1439 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:16 PM

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.


Hoarding would be one reason.

'Player happiness' would be another.

Also, acquiring an NHL regular, like Belanger(since you brought him up) through the waiver process and then keeping them in the minors for the majority of the season because you already have a player playing on your 4th line in a full time capacity seems like an act of hoarding, since there are teams who may not have a 4th line center playing full time who could benefit. Now, they most likely will be the types of teams in the lower end of the league's standings.

The suggestion to set a time limit to move them via trade or through waivers means that they can't be kept by any one team for a long period of time if they already have that position filled on their main roster.

One way to help ensure that a waiver acquisition is used to fill in the gap for open spots as a result of trade or injuries to other players, is to submit a brief explanation, along with your waiver pickup request, as to where you will be inserting the player.

My previous caveat ensures that the GM has ample time to make room, or to trade the player for something in return, or to benefit from the acquisition as a temporary stop-gap measure until their original player returns from LTIR, but allowing that player to return back into circulation to be of use and benefit to another team.

At the end of the day, the team wouldn't lose anything by having that temporary fill or tradeable asset, or losing the veteran player back to the waiver wire, because he was unhappy in sitting out of the NHL level by being buried in the minors.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#1440 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,349 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 10 August 2012 - 12:27 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.