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

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, canuck2xtreme said:

Even then, Cole wasn’t the issue. Mete was, skating near 20 minutes a night in Montreal’s top 4, but being assigned to the minors because he had 8 other defenceman playing 18-20 minutes a night, along with 2 playing 25 minutes. So yeah, it was absolutely justified. 

Details matter... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, greensman said:

We spend an entire season waiting to see where players match up, and by the TDL each year things become very clear...

 

Before any letter is sent where a player is demanding a trade, the GM is contacted. If a GM chooses to completely ignore warnings from the exec, guess what the outcome would be :picard: . Now imagine if the same GM did this repeatedly, year after year... 

 

We would never let a team go to the playoffs with 6 top 4 d-men. Maybe make sure you know the whole story. 

 

The rules are on page 1. Balancing a team is a GM’s job. Cap is not your only limitation. Im very confused by this whole conversation... you aren’t new :blink: this is the GML. Same rules have a been fine tuned and applied for over a decade. MANY letters and discussions have been sent during that time regarding player balance.


Ps - Ian Cole and the Av’s went 0-4 in the first round that year, and Cole got 2 points. The exec did him a favour anyways... :lol:

It isnt an issue with my team, I have never had more that 2 good players at a time.

 

I didnt realize I struck a nerve with the execs,  but you did not respond to any of the things I brought up, the first being I do not think real life ice time is an indicator of talent and the second being  the best teams in the NHL have good third pairing defensemen, why are the Lightning allowed to have Sergachev on their 3rd pairing irl, but Ian Cole isnt allowed to be on a 3rd pairing in this league? Or even Vctor Mete, just because he is playing 20 minutes a night that does not mean he is good. 

 

I get your point that it currently is a rule, I think it leaves a lot of grey areas and Im not a fan of subjective opinion determining who and who is not a 3rd pairing defensmenen. The best teams in the league have good players on the 3rd and 4th line and even as extras.

 

Please, don't fire me, just friendly discussion! AND I hate to be that guy and again I mean no disrespect, and I think this should be allowed, and I appreciate all the work you do and its your league so you can do what you want but a team just sent the starting goalie of the Canucks to the AHL, so it just seems like there is inconsistencies. Which is why I think the salary cap should be the only limitation to us building a team barring extreme scenarios. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tony Romo said:

It isnt an issue with my team, I have never had more that 2 good players at a time.

 

I didnt realize I struck a nerve with the execs,  but you did not respond to any of the things I brought up, the first being I do not think real life ice time is an indicator of talent and the second being  the best teams in the NHL have good third pairing defensemen, why are the Lightning allowed to have Sergachev on their 3rd pairing irl, but Ian Cole isnt allowed to be on a 3rd pairing in this league? Or even Vctor Mete, just because he is playing 20 minutes a night that does not mean he is good. 

 

I get your point that it currently is a rule, I think it leaves a lot of grey areas and Im not a fan of subjective opinion determining who and who is not a 3rd pairing defensmenen. The best teams in the league have good players on the 3rd and 4th line and even as extras.

 

Please, don't fire me, just friendly discussion! AND I hate to be that guy and again I mean no disrespect, and I think this should be allowed, and I appreciate all the work you do and its your league so you can do what you want but a team just sent the starting goalie of the Canucks to the AHL, so it just seems like there is inconsistencies. Which is why I think the salary cap should be the only limitation to us building a team barring extreme scenarios. 

you won’t get fired, and you didn’t strike a nerve. Also, nothing wrong with having a chat when there are old issues still getting under your skin. 
 

We’re just sharing info here because it’s clear that you don’t know the details of the situation you are talking about. Six or seven top four d men will never be acceptable, if you strongly disagree, maybe the GML isn’t your cup of tea. You keep picking one or two players to discuss, but it was a systemic defensive issue which received written warnings before any action was taken. Do you know off hand which players were recently traded for, and what promises the GM had made to free agents or which clauses had been waved... all of these are also factors that require consideration.

 

subjective opinion - that’s why the exec and agents exist... no one person makes these decisions. Meanwhile, every contract in the GML was a subjective opinion, as were the rules we’ve all played by for over a decade... have you had major issues during your tenure? Where has this subjectivity become an issue for your team?  Also, fair to mention, I don’t believe common sense is subjective.
 

I agree - ATOI is not the only factor considered, and never has been. We have agents and execs so that we can make the extra effort to take each player in his own context. ATOI has never been the deciding factor... it’s one factor of many we use when analyzing each issue. 
 

Many roster conflicts happen every year, many GM’s respond before you’ll ever hear of them, rarely does anyone have a weepy tantrum over simple well communicated requests for fairness. 

Edited by greensman
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, greensman said:

you won’t get fired, and you didn’t strike a nerve. 
 

I’m just sharing info here because it’s clear that you don’t know the details of the situation you are talking about. Six or seven top four d men will never be acceptable, if you strongly disagree, maybe the GML isn’t your cup of tea. You keep picking one or two players to discuss, but it was a systemic defensive issue which received written warnings before any action was taken. Do you know off hand which players were recently traded for, and what promises the GM had made to free agents or which clauses had been waved... all of these are also factors that require consideration.

 

subjective opinion - that’s why the exec and agents exist... no one person makes these decisions. Meanwhile, every contract in the GML was a subjective opinion, as were the rules we’ve all played by for over a decade... have you had major issues during your tenure? Where has this subjectivity become an issue for your team?  
 

I agree - ATOI is not the only factor considered, and never has been. We have agents and execs so that we can make the extra effort to take each player in his own context. ATOI has never been the deciding factor... it’s one factor of many we use when analyzing each issue. 
 

Many roster conflicts happen every year, many GM’s respond before you’ll ever hear of them, rarely does anyone have a weepy tantrum over simple well communicated requests for fairness. 

It is sounding like it was one of those extreme scenarios that we mentioned then. 
 

it has never been an issue for my team because my team sucks hahah. My hope is one day my team will be good enough and deep enough where execs will have an issue with it! Would be a great problem for me to have. 
 

contracts have to be subjective, that’s the only way. With roster building there is an objective approach where there is no grey area and that is the salary cap.  and I think that should be the only restraint that each team has to work with.
 

I don’t think I will win this debate though, just putting my thoughts out there. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Burr 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tony Romo said:

It isnt an issue with my team, I have never had more that 2 good players at a time.

 

I didnt realize I struck a nerve with the execs,  but you did not respond to any of the things I brought up, the first being I do not think real life ice time is an indicator of talent and the second being  the best teams in the NHL have good third pairing defensemen, why are the Lightning allowed to have Sergachev on their 3rd pairing irl, but Ian Cole isnt allowed to be on a 3rd pairing in this league? Or even Vctor Mete, just because he is playing 20 minutes a night that does not mean he is good. 

 

I get your point that it currently is a rule, I think it leaves a lot of grey areas and Im not a fan of subjective opinion determining who and who is not a 3rd pairing defensmenen. The best teams in the league have good players on the 3rd and 4th line and even as extras.

 

Please, don't fire me, just friendly discussion! AND I hate to be that guy and again I mean no disrespect, and I think this should be allowed, and I appreciate all the work you do and its your league so you can do what you want but a team just sent the starting goalie of the Canucks to the AHL, so it just seems like there is inconsistencies. Which is why I think the salary cap should be the only limitation to us building a team barring extreme scenarios. 

No nerves struck, dialogue is the way to go all good.

 

Gray areas abound in this discussion you are right. It is almost impossible to monitor/maintain balance to reflect real life.

 

You are right ATOI is as subjective as it being a rule. Most teams have 4 dmen at 20:00 + but some have 3, others have had ive seen one year 6 dmen but 5 is not out if the question. Maybe it was a 10 game period the number 5 or 6 dman played top mins because injury etc. So much context involved.

 

I think respectfully what was being noted here was as we keep going back to Ian Cole and Florida's situation. Well that was a case of the team pushing the limits every year and being told to be cognizant of his actions as it would create locker room / balance issues. And we are talking gentle reminders not heavy handed extreme measures but it was not acknowledged it was ignored and the exec needed to take an action after failed attempts.

 

Then the team went public with shock and dismay.

 

Thats not really cool is it?

 

Now there are teams where this is brought up and respectful dialogue and action occurs, the concern and unfortunate part is the teams who won't acknowledge or deflect such things. It is what it is and as @greensman has tried to explain those doing it know full well.

 

I've had reminders in the past its not supposed to be met with such defense and victimization but to ensure fairness within reason.

 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

No nerves struck, dialogue is the way to go all good.

 

Gray areas abound in this discussion you are right. It is almost impossible to monitor/maintain balance to reflect real life.

 

You are right ATOI is as subjective as it being a rule. Most teams have 4 dmen at 20:00 + but some have 3, others have had ive seen one year 6 dmen but 5 is not out if the question. Maybe it was a 10 game period the number 5 or 6 dman played top mins because injury etc. So much context involved.

 

I think respectfully what was being noted here was as we keep going back to Ian Cole and Florida's situation. Well that was a case of the team pushing the limits every year and being told to be cognizant of his actions as it would create locker room / balance issues. And we are talking gentle reminders not heavy handed extreme measures but it was not acknowledged it was ignored and the exec needed to take an action after failed attempts.

 

Then the team went public with shock and dismay.

 

Thats not really cool is it?

 

Now there are teams where this is brought up and respectful dialogue and action occurs, the concern and unfortunate part is the teams who won't acknowledge or deflect such things. It is what it is and as @greensman has tried to explain those doing it know full well.

 

I've had reminders in the past its not supposed to be met with such defense and victimization but to ensure fairness within reason.

 

 

All fair points, I see your side here, it sounds like it did get to an extreme.
 

I just hope you guys see my side of things as well-that being everyone has to fit their rosters under the same salary cap, and if a team can fit a lot of good forwards on their team under the salary cap then good for them. The market won’t let that happen for long because of the salary cap and free agency.  

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

We interrupt this intense roster debate with short commercial...

 

Is your team battling for a playoff spot? Do you have hot competition on your tail? Are you looking to add a dman?

 

If your answer is yes to any or all of these questions, then we have an answer for you.

 

Philadelphia is currently shopping Mike Reilly. He could be had for one (or two) low payments. (Supply is limited and price subject to change)

 

Get it while it lasts!

car sales dance GIF by Quickpage

 

 

We return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Surely Reilly will solve my playoff roster needs. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Surely Reilly will solve my playoff roster needs. :lol:

Gotta get into the playoffs first for a playoff roster to even matter (or it could be a wasted year of talent if you don't make it). Reilly has put up decent pool points so far as he's given the ice time in Ottawa.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Romo said:

All fair points, I see your side here, it sounds like it did get to an extreme.
 

I just hope you guys see my side of things as well-that being everyone has to fit their rosters under the same salary cap, and if a team can fit a lot of good forwards on their team under the salary cap then good for them. The market won’t let that happen for long because of the salary cap and free agency.  

I totally see your points, and cap is most certainly one agent of fair play in our league. My assertion is simply that it is just one factor of many. 
 

Many of us have played EA hockey on some sort of game system, and a few less of us have run seasons there as GM’s. It is very easy for anyone to continuously trade players until you have all of the stars you want without restriction, and I won’t deny that it is fun... but it is also easy to see that, if you were in a league of other teams, that it wouldn’t be fun for anyone else. 
 

Cap works as a balance for rosters, but it also works in favour of stacking and loading youth contracts... it works both ways. Having one GM mount a loaded attack with a unrealistic roster isnt rationalized just because a few years down the road the contracts will catch up with team. We aim to keep those between years enjoyable for the other 30 GM’s... 
 

CDCGML was literally created based on the focus of keeping a fair playing field. That’s why I joined, and later became an agent for years and an exec for years. I believe that these factors are the reason the Gml exists... does anyone else know people that have a 11 or 12 year old keeper league? We are a unicorn. Though this discussion rotates around the most successful teams with heavy rosters, it’s important to recognize the exec also is tasked with ensuring bottom teams stay competitive, and enforcing that as well. It is all about balance. Parity has always been job one. 
 

Look at me, over here in LAK for one reason, because I honestly wanted this time off. I saw as the season approached, that days before the season’s start, the Kings were left unattended and with 1/2 a roster... for the sake of parity in the league I refused to watch another western team get gutted and flounder... so here I am, building a strong team in my own god damn division, which I will have to compete against next year as GM of the Kraken. :picard: Meaning - (just one example of hundreds) at my own expense, parity is paramount. 

Edited by greensman
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 9:32 PM, Squeak said:

Thanks to @Crabby for the negotiations

 

We didn't want to part with Hults, but felt that getting a tradeable asset in a 4th and a playoff body in Boyd was the right package to make that move.

 

With that in mind... we still looking to add a bottom six forward and a bottom pairing D from playoff teams. That 4th and other assets are available.

cross one off the list, looking for the bolded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, greensman said:

parity is paramount

This holds true if there are also teams that aren't blowing it all up for draft picks and barely icing an NHL roster. The more teams doing this results in less teams for quality players to play on (or they simply sign players to flip for picks). So there will be competitive rosters that will try and snag these available players because if it isn't me, then it'll be my competition and the goal for most of us is to try and win.

 

Now I'm relatively new here, so I don't have the experience of knowledge of the history of the league, but that's my perspective. A team that has stacked themselves is because they were willing to pay whatever cost it was to do so (whether through cap or young assets). So if stacked teams are to be warned for building a top end roster by whatever means and somehow fitting it in within the cap, there needs to be something done at the other end of the spectrum (maybe limit a team to have a maximum of 6 draft picks total prior to a draft or be punished by losing any picks over that amount starting with your highest pick or something along those lines). Parity would require evening things out from both ends of the spectrum.

  • Hydration 1
  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

This holds true if there are also teams that aren't blowing it all up for draft picks and barely icing an NHL roster. The more teams doing this results in less teams for quality players to play on (or they simply sign players to flip for picks). So there will be competitive rosters that will try and snag these available players because if it isn't me, then it'll be my competition and the goal for most of us is to try and win.

 

Now I'm relatively new here, so I don't have the experience of knowledge of the history of the league, but that's my perspective. A team that has stacked themselves is because they were willing to pay whatever cost it was to do so (whether through cap or young assets). So if stacked teams are to be warned for building a top end roster by whatever means and somehow fitting it in within the cap, there needs to be something done at the other end of the spectrum (maybe limit a team to have a maximum of 6 draft picks total prior to a draft or be punished by losing any picks over that amount starting with your highest pick or something along those lines). Parity would require evening things out from both ends of the spectrum.

100% agree.

 

If we are balancing warning shots, let it be widely known that the exec monitors and warns bottom teams much more often than they send warnings to top teams. Multiple letters per year are sent about keeping and maintaining competitive rosters. 90%+ of all firings in the GML have been for inactivity, lack of involvement, and inability (or lack of effort) to ice a competitive roster. All rules are designed for maximum enjoyment for all GM’s. 
 

I can honestly attest to discussing this issue more than once in the past week, and teams could notified with warnings within the next few days. We are 100% against any form of tanking. It’s around this time of season that the exec begins looking at rosters, as rosters in the NHL concrete themselves. 
 

My opinion - I wouldn’t like to put limits on drafts, as some teams opt to spend picks some years, and then double up in subsequent years... we’d be dulling some of the strategy of the game, and drastically devaluing picks in the league economy. I think the common sense approach will dictate that teams taking advantage get communication from the league. If you can amass a ton of picks and maintain a competitive roster, you are simply GM’ing the best... that is how you win at the game if GML... building depth and creating a future for your organization.

 

Past years - we fire tanking GM’s, and rehire someone with the mandate to spend assets to ice a roster for the team and the fans. Problem solved.

Edited by greensman
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, greensman said:

100% agree.

 

If we are balancing warning shots, let it be widely known that the exec monitors and warns bottom teams much more often than they send warnings to top teams. Multiple letters per year are sent about keeping and maintaining competitive rosters. 90%+ of all firings in the GML have been for inactivity, lack of involvement, and inability (or lack of effort) to ice a competitive roster. All rules are designed for maximum enjoyment for all GM’s. 
 

I can honestly attest to discussing this issue more than once in the past week, and teams could notified with warnings within the next few days. We are 100% against any form of tanking. It’s around this time of season that the exec begins looking at rosters, as rosters in the NHL concrete themselves. 
 

My opinion - I wouldn’t like to put limits on drafts, as some teams opt to spend picks some years, and then double up in subsequent years... we’d be dulling some of the strategy of the game, and drastically devaluing picks in the league economy. I think the common sense approach will dictate that teams taking advantage get communication from the league. If you can amass a ton of picks and maintain a competitive roster, you are simply GM’ing the best... that is how you win at the game if GML... building depth and creating a future for your organization.

 

Past years - we fire tanking GM’s, and rehire someone with the mandate to spend assets to ice a roster for the team and the fans. Problem solved.

Yeah I agree with the draft part. Just trying to come out with a way to even out the teams that try to sell everything for picks, but it seems there's already warnings in place. Good to hear!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see all those points, and parity is the goal, I just think that the salary cap and market mechanism work better than league interference. This is with the caveat that every team has an active GM. Also you all may be better than me, but I think trading around and stacking a roster is harder than you make it sound!

 

For example I was accused of tanking a couple years ago and that prompted me to trade a 1st, some other futures and Mark Stone (still a prospect at the time) for players that would save my job for that year. 

 

Obviously I am not blaming anyone for my incompetence, I should have ignored the friendly advice from the league, no one forced me to do it per say, and you can point to how bad my roster was at the time and a bunch of other circumstances, just an example that comes to mind. 

 

Edited by Tony Romo
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Yeah I agree with the draft part. Just trying to come out with a way to even out the teams that try to sell everything for picks, but it seems there's already warnings in place. Good to hear!

Its nice to have extra kicks at the can to find a good draft pick but when you start getting into the teens or more of picks.......its like ok you can only sign so many players.

 

I used to razz Colorado for not getting a full 23 man roster as he insisted he was rebuilding.....but that was maybe over one season at most.

 

But whether you are trying to open dialogue with a team who might be pushing the envelope with too many top end players out of place or a team with next to no NHL players most times the reaction is defensive lol.

 

Like you have 6 nhl roster spots available and 23 drat picks " i dont want to sacrifice youth or add an old player over 22 yrs old " :P

 

Or hey you have two legit NHL starters after the 1/3 way point of the season should look at possibly moving off one " i like my team as is thanks, he is starting now because of an injury "

 

You have 9 top 6 forwards " you mean i have depth "

 

They all involve context but the reactions are always the same haha.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...