Bombastik der Teutone Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said: Answer to last question of poll, regarding changing waiver restrictions so less hoarding takes place. I was happy to see the 150 to 125 rule, but do not support further reduction. The opposite of hoarding has been a bigger problem. The real problem. We have had GM's playing a vacant roster of as low as 12 or 15 NHL players. Then whinge that hoarding exists. And follow that up by trading NHL bodies? Which is disgusting. Hoarding funny enough only works because guys are allowed to avoid icing legit rosters. Solve hoarding by mandating teams get up to 18 bodies of their 23 man roster who play 3 or 4 games in 20 game portions, a quarter, of the season. If fielding an illegitimate team, they have the next quarter to make it legit. That will also create a market for non play off players instead of saying, getting rid of the +/- point which will have minimal effect. Currently teams avoid, say, a Brandon Sutter. ''If you give me a first, i'll take his contract?'' Fundamentally, almost any player over 23 on a non play off team has negative value in puck. Teams who feel no pressure to field a legit team will have to be active to field a legit team to keep their chair in CDC Puck. 100% agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 24 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said: that is a tad bit savage don't you think ? Check my avatar for how things will be during my reign. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Salter Posted February 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted February 24, 2019 Jake DeBrusk and Chris Wagner aren’t on the ice for practice either.. I’m starting to think there may just be no practice today in CDCP.. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLahey Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 REPORT: Tanner Fritz left practice after leaving his skate guards on while trying to get on the ice. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 To DET: Matt Duchene, Mitch Reinke To ARZ: Jake DeBrusk, Chris Wagner 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Salter said: To CBJ: Robert Bortuzzo To SJS: Ian Cole Thanks to @pmalina for the simple negotiations (read: he offered, I took it). Cole is a better producer, but he's less likely to play in these playoffs. Although Bortuzzo is an impending UFA in this league, his role and salary should fit the team well, so I hope to be able to re-sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 21 minutes ago, Master Mind said: To DET: Matt Duchene, Mitch Reinke To ARZ: Jake DeBrusk, Chris Wagner Was this after or before duchene was traded? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salter Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 21 minutes ago, Master Mind said: To DET: Matt Duchene, Mitch Reinke To ARZ: Jake DeBrusk, Chris Wagner Thanks for processing MM and for the negotiations, Jazz! Obviously it is tough to move Jake and Chris, but when we had to opportunity to bring in such a high point producer to our lineup we felt comfortable in moving those pieces. We wish them the best of luck in their push for the cup this season! We also welcome undrafted defenceman Mitch Reinke. He’s shown real promise in his rookie AHL season and hope to see him crack the lineup in the next couple of years! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salter Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said: Was this after or before duchene was traded? After duchene, before Dzingel! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted February 24, 2019 Author Share Posted February 24, 2019 10 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said: Was this after or before duchene was traded? After, but before Dzingel. I realized I didn't have enough cap room, and Duchene was the only piece I could move. I wasn't planning on keeping Duchene into next season, so it's nice to get an RFA and a contract through next season. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Glad to see Montour get set free by the NHL's retirement home...I mean Anaheim Ducks. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaku Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 9 minutes ago, Baer. said: Glad to see Montour get set free by the NHL's retirement home...I mean Anaheim Ducks. Lol I'd like to say I'm happy about Guhle going to Anaheim but I'm really not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmalina Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 4 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said: Answer to last question of poll, regarding changing waiver restrictions so less hoarding takes place. I was happy to see the 150 to 125 rule, but do not support further reduction. The opposite of hoarding has been a bigger problem. The real problem. We have had GM's playing a vacant roster of as low as 12 or 15 NHL players. Then whinge that hoarding exists. And follow that up by trading NHL bodies? Which is disgusting. Hoarding funny enough only works because guys are allowed to avoid icing legit rosters. Solve hoarding by mandating teams get up to 18 bodies of their 23 man roster who play 3 or 4 games in 20 game portions, a quarter, of the season. If fielding an illegitimate team, they have the next quarter to make it legit. That will also create a market for non play off players instead of saying, getting rid of the +/- point which will have minimal effect. Currently teams avoid, say, a Brandon Sutter. ''If you give me a first, i'll take his contract?'' Fundamentally, almost any player over 23 on a non play off team has negative value in puck. Teams who feel no pressure to field a legit team will have to be active to field a legit team to keep their chair in CDC Puck. Agree on this topic! What if we make a simple rule like accumulating min. of 50% (or stricter share - 60%) GP of the maximum GP team in the league after regular season? Currently that would mean having 50% of CBJ´s 1298 GP which is 649. Only Colorado would be failing to meet that requirement this season. Btw I am all for getting rid of plus minus. Makes no sense to have it in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Jaku said: Lol I'd like to say I'm happy about Guhle going to Anaheim but I'm really not. I wonder how long it has been since somebody was happy a player was traded from Anaheim to Buffalo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted February 25, 2019 Author Share Posted February 25, 2019 Looking to find a home for Jay Beagle. I'd love to keep him, but I just don't have enough roster space to keep him. Salary is being retained on him until the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salter Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Chicago has been one of the best teams in the league the last couple of months and are hot on the trail of the playoffs..with that being said I’m open to listening to offers on Erik Gustafsson. 4.67 points per game, 13th ranked dman for fantasy points this season. I’m not eager to move him but I’m sure that 950k salary could fit under the cap for a few contenders out there... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, pmalina said: Agree on this topic! What if we make a simple rule like accumulating min. of 50% (or stricter share - 60%) GP of the maximum GP team in the league after regular season? Currently that would mean having 50% of CBJ´s 1298 GP which is 649. Only Colorado would be failing to meet that requirement this season. Btw I am all for getting rid of plus minus. Makes no sense to have it in my view. I’ve had a full RL NHL roster pretty much the whole year, and I’m sitting at 63.6%. I barely make it. A significant injury away from missing the 60% (47 games). In saying that, I don’t care if there is or isn’t a minimum in games played. I’ll follow whatever rules are in place. What I do care about is how you enforce the rule. I’ve said it before, how can you force a team to trade for depth players, when you are already at a disadvantage of having less assets. CBJ had tons on extra depth players this summer and I had to pay a 2nd and a prospect for Noesen. ANA had basically no extra depth players, but I only had to pay a 3rd and a 4th for Khaira. Roughly equal depth players IMO. But when you deal from a position of strength (having tons of assets), you are far more likely to hold your assets until you find a deal that is favourable to yourself. This will only be magnified if the team acquiring the depth player is being forced to by the league. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmalina Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said: I’ve had a full RL NHL roster pretty much the whole year, and I’m sitting at 63.6%. I barely make it. A significant injury away from missing the 60% (47 games). In saying that, I don’t care if there is or isn’t a minimum in games played. I’ll follow whatever rules are in place. What I do care about is how you enforce the rule. I’ve said it before, how can you force a team to trade for depth players, when you are already at a disadvantage of having less assets. CBJ had tons on extra depth players this summer and I had to pay a 2nd and a prospect for Noesen. ANA had basically no extra depth players, but I only had to pay a 3rd and a 4th for Khaira. Roughly equal depth players IMO. But when you deal from a position of strength (having tons of assets), you are far more likely to hold your assets until you find a deal that is favourable to yourself. This will only be magnified if the team acquiring the depth player is being forced to by the league. 60% is probably too strict. If we leave it on 50% plus new 125 waiver rule there should be enough opportunity to get guys cheaply (waivers) and be fine to meet the requirement I suppose. Edited February 25, 2019 by pmalina 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) If you make it 50%, and the only team affected is Colorado, that makes the rule nearly pointless. You might as well tell Colorado to get the F in gear and get some players on your team. That said, the only reason Colorado is lacking in players is because of previous GMs. Now that the team has a new GM,(and they are already making moves), the team's total GP should go up resulting in the rule being completely pointless. I think 60% is fair. Sorry AV. Edited February 25, 2019 by Baer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Baer. said: If you make it 50%, and the only team affected is Colorado, that makes the rule nearly pointless. You might as well tell Colorado to get the F in gear and get some players on your team. That said, the only reason Colorado is lacking in players is because of previous GMs. Now that the team has a new GM,(and they are already making moves), the team's total GP should go up resulting in the rule being completely pointless. I think 60% is fair. Sorry AV. PS I'm neither for nor against the rule since it doesn't affect me, I'm just giving my opinion if a rule like this is going to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now