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

#1471 Bombastik der Teutone

Bombastik der Teutone

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,039 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 07

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:12 AM

lol..this whole waiver thing confuses me ::D

only thing that disturbs me is the older than 24 years rule and that we dont use 2 way contracts ..well may to much for this leaguee
i signed brandon bollig for an example..he´s 25 , has a total of 18 regular nhl games and he has a 2 way contract in real..so he cant be claimed in the real nhl
example...if one of my roster playes gets injured ...brandon will get the call ..and if the roster player returns..i have to send down brandon and anyone will claim him...all efforts to sign him are gone in this case
i m not against the 100 games rule..but the over 24 years rule is not a thing that i really like
  • 0

#1472 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:18 AM

As good as it is for our league to be close as possible in how the NHL operates, i can't say that i'd like to see re-entry waivers implemented.

It's one thing to lose a player if you don't have a need for them any longer or space for him to actually 'play' on the main roster, however, it's another thing to lose a player when you are bringing a player up in order to fill a pressing need, due to injury or trade.
  • 1

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


#1473 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:19 AM

So our current rule for waivers says this:

5.3 – Waivers

To place a player on waivers, you simply post in the thread that you are placing that player on waivers. Players will remain on waivers for 24 hours. In order to claim a player, send a PM to canuck2xtreme indicating your desire to claim the player. The claim must be made within the 24 hour window. After the 24 hour period expires, canuck2xtreme will post whether the player has cleared waivers, or if they have been claimed. Players that are claimed by more than one team will be awarded to the team that is ranked lowest in the overall league standings at that time. Unclaimed players can either be placed into your clubs minor league system or back onto the active roster. Your team must designate where your player is to go either at the time of being placed on waivers, or shortly after the 24 hour waiver period has expired. Players who are 24 years of age or younger and have played in fewer than 100 NHL games can be sent to your minor league system without being subjected to waivers.


I am going to take a stab at a possible rewrite as follows:

5.3 – Waivers

To place a player on waivers or recall waivers, you simply post in the thread that you are placing that player on waivers or re-entry waivers. The notification must be clear and concise, and similar to this example; "Re-entry Waivers: The Minnesota North Stars would like to recall Brad Palmer from their minor league affiliate"

The waiver period begins Immediately and expires 24 hours later, during which time, the player does not move to or from any current roster.

In order to claim a player, send a PM to canuck2xtreme indicating your desire to claim the player.

After the 24 hour period expires, canuck2xtreme will post whether the player has cleared waivers, or if they have been claimed.

Players that are claimed by more than one team will be awarded to the team that is ranked lowest in the overall league standings at that time, or prior to November 1st, the lower team in the previous seasons final standings.

Unclaimed players can either be placed into your clubs minor league system or back onto the active roster. They may be moved up to 30 days from the successful waiver period, waiver free. The waiver exemption does not apply to re-entry waivers, any time a player is called up, if eligible, he will face a waiver period, but if successfully called up, may be sent down within 30 days waiver free.

Claimed Players must be assigned to the claiming teams active roster at the end of the 24 hour waiver period, and where no room is available, a 24 hour extension will be available to allow the claiming team the minimum time required to clear room via waivers or trade. Failure to have the required space, either in salary cap room or in number of players negates a claim and the player will fall to the next eligible Club.

Players who are 24 years of age or younger and have played in fewer than 100 NHL games can be sent to and from your minor league system without being subjected to waivers. There is no salary cap splitting in the CDCGML for claimed players on re-entry waivers, and for ease of tracking players claimed off waivers may not be traded for 30 days after being claimed.


I think that is a good crack at a new waiver system that would be fair, promote league parity, and closely resemble the NHL's waiver situation, I don't think it adds much of an administrative burden either, the only real addition to the admin side is tracking 30 days after a player is waived for assignment and trading purposes. What do you all think of this?? Sharpie, Yoshi? your thoughts in particular?
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1474 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:27 AM

As good as it is for our league to be close as possible in how the NHL operates, i can't say that i'd like to see re-entry waivers implemented.

It's one thing to lose a player if you don't have a need for them any longer or space for him to actually 'play' on the main roster, however, it's another thing to lose a player when you are bringing a player up in order to fill a pressing need, due to injury or trade.

I hear you on that, and my team would be on the losing end of such a change, even though I support it. The reason I would want re-entry waivers is that if we tighten up waivers to say that a player must be assigned to a claiming teams main roster, then we will inherently see much less waiver claims made. Being able to move depth up and down with less risk is a dramatic change in favour of higher ranked teams, and therefore the re-entry waivers, while also helping to mimick the NHL better, would offset the changes that would otherwise simply aid higher end teams in maintaining their depth. I totally support claimed players having to play in the big league if they are claimed, but for me, the other side of that coin is that callups would then have to be subject to waivers if they are waiver eligible. It maintains the status quo, so to speak. I think the two fold changes offset each other well enough that our league would move closer to NHL style rules, without the changes benefiting anyone in particular. Claiming teams of re-entry players would still after all have to have room or make room on their rosters, so there will still be fewer claims, and those claims made would be by teams in desperate need of making them.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1475 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:33 AM

lol..this whole waiver thing confuses me ::D

only thing that disturbs me is the older than 24 years rule and that we dont use 2 way contracts ..well may to much for this leaguee
i signed brandon bollig for an example..he´s 25 , has a total of 18 regular nhl games and he has a 2 way contract in real..so he cant be claimed in the real nhl
example...if one of my roster playes gets injured ...brandon will get the call ..and if the roster player returns..i have to send down brandon and anyone will claim him...all efforts to sign him are gone in this case
i m not against the 100 games rule..but the over 24 years rule is not a thing that i really like

Just a reminder that '2 way contracts" has nothing to do with waiver eligibility, it only governs how much a team pays a guy to play in the AHL or the NHL. a so called 'one way contract' just means the player gets his millions no matter where he plays, and a so called 2 way contract means he will be paid much less in the AHL than in the NHL. Either type of contract has no bearing on waiver status.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1476 Bombastik der Teutone

Bombastik der Teutone

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,039 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 07

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:39 AM

Just a reminder that '2 way contracts" has nothing to do with waiver eligibility, it only governs how much a team pays a guy to play in the AHL or the NHL. a so called 'one way contract' just means the player gets his millions no matter where he plays, and a so called 2 way contract means he will be paid much less in the AHL than in the NHL. Either type of contract has no bearing on waiver status.



aha... thx....i thought 2 way players are not waiver eligible EXCEPTED a team places them there...i allways had an eye on such players when they got sended back to the minors team and didnt got claimed
  • 0

#1477 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:20 AM

I hear you on that, and my team would be on the losing end of such a change, even though I support it. The reason I would want re-entry waivers is that if we tighten up waivers to say that a player must be assigned to a claiming teams main roster, then we will inherently see much less waiver claims made. Being able to move depth up and down with less risk is a dramatic change in favour of higher ranked teams, and therefore the re-entry waivers, while also helping to mimick the NHL better, would offset the changes that would otherwise simply aid higher end teams in maintaining their depth. I totally support claimed players having to play in the big league if they are claimed, but for me, the other side of that coin is that callups would then have to be subject to waivers if they are waiver eligible. It maintains the status quo, so to speak. I think the two fold changes offset each other well enough that our league would move closer to NHL style rules, without the changes benefiting anyone in particular. Claiming teams of re-entry players would still after all have to have room or make room on their rosters, so there will still be fewer claims, and those claims made would be by teams in desperate need of making them.


The issue then is balancing who is served by the re-entry option. If a team needs to call up a player to fill a need because a regular player was injured and another team can just cherry-pick a player if they have an open spot on their main roster, or a team could send one of their younger players to the minors, in order to artificially create an open spot in order to cherry pick a player.

I know I would. I'd absolutely take your players by any means available, if I could. I'd keep an open spot on my roster in order to do so. And now that people know that I or any one of the GM's could and would do so. There'll be little chance of them replacing an injured player with a call up.

Sending a player back down by waiving them could and would address the ability for other teams to acquire a player that the original team is done with, so, I believe the re-entry waivers isn't really needed. I think a minor tweak as I've been advocating for, is sufficient in order to allow a little more ability to acquire players and to balance the needs of the have's and the have not's. Re-entry waivers, imho, could tip the balance, resulting in GM's not moving players between their rosters, further exacerbating the problem that the initial tweak was being designed to address, namely providing GM's and bottom half ones in particular, with another source of acquiring players to help them. If there are re-entry waivers, then I believe that GM's, speaking mostly for myself here, would rather not bring up a player that we can lose, who we would need in the playoffs possibly, in order to fill a spot for a guy who's gone for a week or two. Also, it would be an unnecessary penalty for trying to bring a guy up to replace a player who's out for the season. Not only would you lose the injured player, you could lose his replacement, and the replacement's replacement as well, with re-entry acquisitions. That's not something I'm for, and I think it'd cause more problems than it would help solve.
  • 1

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


#1478 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:52 AM

Well we have to keep perspective on this: we are most definitely talking about the chafe, and not the wheat of the NHL here. Also, your supposed loop hole of keeping a roster spot open is silly at best, and at worst, you could pull that trick off once or twice a year, while there are literally 100 waived players a year in our league. 2% of the time you would have this so called loop hole available..over time it would balance out and be the norm.

I am very positive that changing the one rule, that a claimed player must be on the main roster will substantially limit claims, that is obvious, I think. So to change the one without adding the other is not a good deal for the bottom half of the league. It only helps top half teams to keep talent until the playoffs, while bottom half teams need that talent in order to try to even make the playoffs.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1479 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:55 AM

I am curious to know if anyone actually feels they got burned in previous years by the current rules? Did this happen just once or continuously to your team? how did your team fare after the 'burn' compared to before it..et cetera...what are the real examples that lead to the feeling that we should address a rule change that makes it harder for anyone to make a claim?
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1480 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:23 PM

Well we have to keep perspective on this: we are most definitely talking about the chafe, and not the wheat of the NHL here. Also, your supposed loop hole of keeping a roster spot open is silly at best, and at worst, you could pull that trick off once or twice a year, while there are literally 100 waived players a year in our league. 2% of the time you would have this so called loop hole available..over time it would balance out and be the norm.

I am very positive that changing the one rule, that a claimed player must be on the main roster will substantially limit claims, that is obvious, I think. So to change the one without adding the other is not a good deal for the bottom half of the league. It only helps top half teams to keep talent until the playoffs, while bottom half teams need that talent in order to try to even make the playoffs.


I don't think it's silly at all....and I find that description to be quite disrespectful, considering i've been quite respectful while addressing you and your ideas.

I don't know where you got the number of a 100 waived players from. I doubt there were that many waived last season. I also doubt very much that any GM outside of yourself and maybe a few of the others would be willing to risk losing their players for nothing while not being able to fill the spot of an injured or traded player.

Maybe you should think it through, like you did when you eventually came to agree with what Yoshi and I were advocating previously. I don't think you think things through before posting your opinions.
  • 3

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


#1481 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,305 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 01:55 PM

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful there boys.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1482 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 03:45 PM

I don't think it's silly at all....and I find that description to be quite disrespectful, considering i've been quite respectful while addressing you and your ideas.

I don't know where you got the number of a 100 waived players from. I doubt there were that many waived last season. I also doubt very much that any GM outside of yourself and maybe a few of the others would be willing to risk losing their players for nothing while not being able to fill the spot of an injured or traded player.

Maybe you should think it through, like you did when you eventually came to agree with what Yoshi and I were advocating previously. I don't think you think things through before posting your opinions.

Well, my apologies for saying silly. I meant that while it is technically possible to do once, over the length and breadth of teh game, it would be hard to replicate over and over, and so while a valid point, the 'loophole' of keeping a roster spot open simply to snag someones players, out of spite, is not really a trustworthy go to move, as it could only be used once and then your roster spot is no longer open. I withdraw the word silly as i meant no disrespect.

About changing my mind: I did so after updating my knowledge of the CBA's rules on waivers, and I changed my mind on the basis of trying to be more like the NHL's mechanics..which include re-entry waivers..but I think we beat this horse to a pulp. I am good with whatever the Executive goes with, as always. Sorry again to have been flipant about my choice of words.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1483 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 04:06 PM

Dominoes indeed. That was a good comment.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1484 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 August 2012 - 04:54 PM

lol..this whole waiver thing confuses me ::D

only thing that disturbs me is the older than 24 years rule and that we dont use 2 way contracts ..well may to much for this leaguee
i signed brandon bollig for an example..he´s 25 , has a total of 18 regular nhl games and he has a 2 way contract in real..so he cant be claimed in the real nhl
example...if one of my roster playes gets injured ...brandon will get the call ..and if the roster player returns..i have to send down brandon and anyone will claim him...all efforts to sign him are gone in this case
i m not against the 100 games rule..but the over 24 years rule is not a thing that i really like


Simple solution to this problem where very little changes. Only 20 players are dressed in the real NHL yet we have 23 players "dressed". Have 20 players plus a 3 player reserve. Waivers don't have to change at all and it will ensure that we don't have to lose "important" players to waivers in case of injury or otherwise.

There is also an easy solution to roster churning which is that we simply have a rule that to pull a player out of reserve there has to be a reason. Reasons such as another player being injured, under performing etc etc etc.
  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1485 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:00 PM

There is also an easy solution to roster churning which is that we simply have a rule that to pull a player out of reserve there has to be a reason. Reasons such as another player being injured, under performing etc etc etc.

I am guessing roster churning means slotting in the best 20 players on a day by day basis to maximize men on the ice night after night? What about locking a set 20 for the week each week, and the three pressbox guys that week could only slot in as you say, for a legit reason, like injury, substantially poor performance, real life suspensions et cetera? too much work? Just brain storming a bit here...
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1486 OurTimeToShine

OurTimeToShine

    Otis

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,128 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 08

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:59 PM

Simple solution to this problem where very little changes. Only 20 players are dressed in the real NHL yet we have 23 players "dressed". Have 20 players plus a 3 player reserve. Waivers don't have to change at all and it will ensure that we don't have to lose "important" players to waivers in case of injury or otherwise.

There is also an easy solution to roster churning which is that we simply have a rule that to pull a player out of reserve there has to be a reason. Reasons such as another player being injured, under performing etc etc etc.


This makes it even worse for transferring guys through pickup or whatever other site we use for next season.. I'd rather leave it as is.

This also sucks for all the teams that have built the organization around depth in the minor league system.

Edited by OurTimeToShine, 13 August 2012 - 07:11 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image

Thanks -Vintage Canuck-!!!


#1487 _arby_18

_arby_18

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,338 posts
  • Joined: 05-August 05

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:15 PM

If a claimed player has to remain on the main roster of the new team, then that team can simply send down somebody else who isn't eligible to be claimed on waivers, or you chance sending someone down who is. It happens all of the time in the NHL.

Basically, if you don't have somebody on your roster who is eligible to go down to the minors without being placed on waivers, then you make a claim of the new player at your own peril. But if you have a few youngsters who can be sent down freely, then you are good to go. It's all strategy.

Edited by _arby_18, 13 August 2012 - 07:17 PM.

  • 0

Check out my blog on www.arcticicehockey.com, the Home of the Winnipeg Jets on SBNation!

CDCGML Montreal Canadiens
Posted Image
(Click Above to See About Me Page with Roster)


#1488 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:44 PM

This makes it even worse for transferring guys through pickup or whatever other site we use for next season.. I'd rather leave it as is.

This also sucks for all the teams that have built the organization around depth in the minor league system.

Only if we stick with pickup. Most other sites I've used have a built in reserve system.

It doesn't change anything around your depth other than that 3 guys don't regularly collect points. Those teams who have strong depth in what would normally be reserve players anyways still have an advantage over those with weaker depth.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 13 August 2012 - 07:47 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1489 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:50 PM

I am guessing roster churning means slotting in the best 20 players on a day by day basis to maximize men on the ice night after night? What about locking a set 20 for the week each week, and the three pressbox guys that week could only slot in as you say, for a legit reason, like injury, substantially poor performance, real life suspensions et cetera? too much work? Just brain storming a bit here...


Yes that's exactly it. I've been in league that were strict about it as well as leagues that didn't care about it. Either way works but I would imagine in a league where all moves are made by the league admin it would be a lot of work to not have a policy.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1490 Bombastik der Teutone

Bombastik der Teutone

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,039 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 07

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:05 PM

Simple solution to this problem where very little changes. Only 20 players are dressed in the real NHL yet we have 23 players "dressed". Have 20 players plus a 3 player reserve. Waivers don't have to change at all and it will ensure that we don't have to lose "important" players to waivers in case of injury or otherwise.

There is also an easy solution to roster churning which is that we simply have a rule that to pull a player out of reserve there has to be a reason. Reasons such as another player being injured, under performing etc etc etc.


so...like @ fantrax?
are the extra players EXTRA or RESEVE?
  • 0

#1491 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:34 PM

I thin

so...like @ fantrax?
are the extra players EXTRA or RESEVE?

I think they are the equivalent to the players in suits and ties who sit in teh pressbox each night. THey can slot in another night, but tonight they don't play and don't get points.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1492 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:21 PM

I thinI think they are the equivalent to the players in suits and ties who sit in teh pressbox each night. THey can slot in another night, but tonight they don't play and don't get points.


Exactly.

ESPN does it as well. Officepools, cbssportline and others but those are the ones I know for sure. Fantrax is free, ESPN and CBS are expensive (iirc) and officepools is reasonably cheap.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1493 y0shi

y0shi

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,816 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:03 PM

I think thats just too much extra work for the commish though, and unnecessary at that.
  • 0

CDCGML Posted Image - Tampa Bay Lightning


#1494 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 August 2012 - 07:37 AM

I think thats just too much extra work for the commish though, and unnecessary at that.


Oh it doesn't add that much extra work but it would solves the problem of "losing" players to waivers. Either way players are being called up and sent down for injuries and such. It just makes rosters more realistic in that we have the proper number of players "dressed" a given night. So creating a policy that there has to be a legitimate reason for reserve players to slot into the playing roster would actually mean little to no extra work for the commissioner.

Unnecessary? Maybe...but the last few pages talking about waivers and losing players may suggest otherwise. Out of some of the options mentioned I think this is kind of the most obvious and easiest. Most if not all of the work involved would be taken from the work involved in running waivers.

The bottom line though is this league runs fine just the way it is. There's plenty of tweaks that can be made to any good league to make it better/more realistic/ more in depth but overall there could be zero changes and this league still works...other than pickuphockey. ;)
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1495 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:30 AM

I don't view losing players to waivers as a problem. I know that is just my opinion, but I would like to see more of those bubble players available for teams to utilize, not less. Some folks will want to slow down waiver claims, some will want to speed them up and some I am sure are fine the way it is, but for me, I think it adds some extra excitement for waived players to be snagged by teams that could use them and the more often the better. Remember, we are talking about guys with 100 NHL games, or over 25 who are bottom line guys, or bubble players, no one is waiving a bonafide roster player, and so for me at least: the more waiver claims the better for both the 'players perspective' and for teams that need or want to add more depth to their system. The issue of where the claimed player has to be placed is a minor detail for me, but limiting waived player claims is not as exciting as having more waived players and claims.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1496 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:00 AM

The bottom line though is this league runs fine just the way it is. There's plenty of tweaks that can be made to any good league to make it better/more realistic/ more in depth but overall there could be zero changes and this league still works...other than pickuphockey. ;)

Popped on to read more thoughts on it and this caught my eye again. Well said, this game really is the best I have ever heard of as far as a fantasy league goes. It is rich, deep and has an authentic feel to it. I like it as it is, and could easily accept small tweaks as decided by the guys who put in loads of hours running it. Have a good night all.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1497 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 August 2012 - 10:12 PM

Posted Image
  • 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


#1498 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,436 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:44 AM

slow offseason
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1499 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,642 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:16 AM

I was going to get in character and write an update on Spacek, Kubina, A.Kostitsyn, Huskins, White, Dvorak and Stortini, but they are all still UFA's as far as I know and in the case of my 'old timers' not likely to get a contract until teams know what the CBA has in store for them...sigh, i guess the 'worst case scenario' is over 16million of my cap space is cleared up, lol.....oh noes .... :frantic: :frantic: :frantic:
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#1500 da.moose

da.moose

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 09

Posted 16 August 2012 - 04:18 PM

I really agree with this. Would be so much better to have an understanding earlier on in the season, especially if you know they won't re-sign, and you want a greater trade value.

PS. How was your trip moose?


Great bro! Thanks for asking!

One part you guys will like is that I went to a night club half owned by Erik Karlsson's brother in Copenhagen, Denmark. Partied with the other co-owner of the club.
  • 1




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.