Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

CDCGML 2011-12 Season


canuck2xtreme

Recommended Posts

I am in favor of the last place team in the standings having some way of improving itself, a stance I have held since I was in 7th place in the league, so it is not a self serving position. I think that the waiver players are never going to be your Sedins/Crosby/Ovechkin players, but they may still be valuable to a team with blank roster spots, which would be occupying the bottom of the league standings. As such I don't think the policy should change, regarding waiver players. It still shocks me that some bottom feeder teams GM's are not hitting the forum at least once a day for 5 mins to skim and make those claims...perhaps then they would not be the bottom team in the league. As for claiming and trading: Anyone want this Olesz? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in favor of the last place team in the standings having some way of improving itself, a stance I have held since I was in 7th place in the league, so it is not a self serving position. I think that the waiver players are never going to be your Sedins/Crosby/Ovechkin players, but they may still be valuable to a team with blank roster spots, which would be occupying the bottom of the league standings. As such I don't think the policy should change, regarding waiver players. It still shocks me that some bottom feeder teams GM's are not hitting the forum at least once a day for 5 mins to skim and make those claims...perhaps then they would not be the bottom team in the league. As for claiming and trading: Anyone want this Olesz? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind if waiver acquisitions are traded as part of a package or on their own. Don't get me wrong. However, I think there is a chance that the waiver wire could be taken advantage of if there aren't any regulations in place to prevent that.

There's a reason why the NHL in real life also set their rules in the manner that they did.

What's the arguments against a queue system that allows the weaker teams to be front and center when waiver eligible player are available? They should fairly be first in line to have their choice of course....but once they make a choice, they shouldn't just stay in front for as long as they can.....because they could artificially remain there is they chose to, at the unfair detriment to the rest of the teams.

I'm just saying that this may be something that should be discussed and then voted on and not poo-poo'd as a non-issue by all GM's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your suggesting a 'suicide kings' loot system for waived players...a system where the 'king' or team with the first refusal on a waived player would, if a player is taken, commit 'suicide' or drop to the bottom of the list.

The problem I have with a suicide kings (as its referred too in other multiple player gaming across the internet) loot system in this type of game is that a team at the top of the league in standings would eventually fall to the 'king' possition. Obviously once in that position, the best teams in the league would not take just any low level player, they would wait to take a decent player, or a skilled prospect who had to be shuffled out. THe end result is that the poorer teams would be in positions to take the fastest chance at picking up points, while the better teams could sit in the "king" spot and wait for the choicest cuts, thus making their turn at king more valuable than a lower ranking teams turn at king. Inherently, adding yet another reward to a system that you all have to admit tends to keep the best teams at or near the top. I would say unless you can show proof that some bottom feeder team manipulated the standings for a long enough duration to inherently select multiple and many waived players, enough so as to change their fortunes through trade and diplomacy in a manner fast enough to be attributed to the waiver manipulation, then, if you can't show that proof, your point is moot. I have not seen any bottom team do this to any great degree, since even two decent waived players would ahve an immediate effect on the team attempting to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your suggesting a 'suicide kings' loot system for waived players...a system where the 'king' or team with the first refusal on a waived player would, if a player is taken, commit 'suicide' or drop to the bottom of the list.

The problem I have with a suicide kings (as its referred too in other multiple player gaming across the internet) loot system in this type of game is that a team at the top of the league in standings would eventually fall to the 'king' possition. Obviously once in that position, the best teams in the league would not take just any low level player, they would wait to take a decent player, or a skilled prospect who had to be shuffled out. THe end result is that the poorer teams would be in positions to take the fastest chance at picking up points, while the better teams could sit in the "king" spot and wait for the choicest cuts, thus making their turn at king more valuable than a lower ranking teams turn at king. Inherently, adding yet another reward to a system that you all have to admit tends to keep the best teams at or near the top. I would say unless you can show proof that some bottom feeder team manipulated the standings for a long enough duration to inherently select multiple and many waived players, enough so as to change their fortunes through trade and diplomacy in a manner fast enough to be attributed to the waiver manipulation, then, if you can't show that proof, your point is moot. I have not seen any bottom team do this to any great degree, since even two decent waived players would ahve an immediate effect on the team attempting to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see anything on an NHL team not being allowed to claim more than one waiver player in a row on WIKI..here is what I found which supports our current system:

"If only one team makes a claim for the player, then he will be transferred to the claiming team. If more than one team makes a claim, then the player will be transferred to the team having the lowest percentage of possible points in league standings at the time of the request for waivers. If waivers are requested outside of the playing season, or before November 1, then the player shall be transferred to the team with the lowest points in the preceding season. If no team places a claim the player can be sent to a minor league affiliate"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see anything on an NHL team not being allowed to claim more than one waiver player in a row on WIKI..here is what I found which supports our current system:

"If only one team makes a claim for the player, then he will be transferred to the claiming team. If more than one team makes a claim, then the player will be transferred to the team having the lowest percentage of possible points in league standings at the time of the request for waivers. If waivers are requested outside of the playing season, or before November 1, then the player shall be transferred to the team with the lowest points in the preceding season. If no team places a claim the player can be sent to a minor league affiliate"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have skipped a few lines of my premise and thought process on why I am pro bottom feeder:

Assumption number one: Teams at the bottom of the league generally have new GM's, since GM's who perform poorly over long periods of time are like to quit or be fired, and since new GM's don't know all the ins and outs of playing this kind of intricate game.

Thoughts based on that assumption: Bottom Feeder Teams are not bottom feeders due to an inherent 'dumbness' of the individual player GM'ing them. Rather they are the inhereted failings of GM's past and not a reflection of the new management, who through no fault of their own have inhereted a team that could take years to rebuild.

Support for Parity related issues, such as the way we do waivers currently is therefore linked to support for new GM's who generally speaking, are in charge of low standing teams.

Now my thought process may be flawed, but this is how I see things so far, with my limited experience. I generally support more tools for new gm's to improve bottom feeders, if for no other reason than to help their enjoyment of the game build, and keep them interested and playing in a robust fashion for longer terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is, actually. If an NHL team picks up a player on waivers and they want to trade him, they first have to offer that player to all teams that originally placed a claim on him.

EX: The Wings/Wild/Penguins all place a claim on Joe Schmo. The Wild get him but then want to trade him. Before he does, both the Wings and Penguis have the ability to claim that player. If all teams decline, he can be traded.

It is to prevent the bottom teams from claiming players simply to trade them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My frustration is, as a team sitting near the top of the standings, that I'll never get a chance to add players to my team that are of any value through waivers.

Let's say a team has a crapload of injuries in the first month, and though should be a contender is last in the league. What if this team adds 5 NHL calibre players through waivers in the first month and a half. Then his players start to get healthy and his team starts shooting up the standings and ends up finishing first. Those 5 players that he got for free that no other team had a chance to get won him the championship.

If I was in last place, I wouldn't just add the first player that will give me any points. If anything, being a bottom feeder would allow me to be more patient and wait for a decent player to come through, knowing I only get one add before I get moved to the back of the bus. If anything, it's helps the teams at the bottom of the list to encourage them to not just add the first player that comes through waivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...