Squeak Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Please keep the conversation polite and respectful there boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Dominoes indeed. That was a good comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 lol..this whole waiver thing confuses me 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby18_ Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombastik der Teutone Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I thin so...like @ fantrax? are the extra players EXTRA or RESEVE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y0shi Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I think thats just too much extra work for the commish though, and unnecessary at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I think thats just too much extra work for the commish though, and unnecessary at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 slow offseason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 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 .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da.moose Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.