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

CDCGML 2020-21


canuck2xtreme
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Crabby said:

Idk man, im not looking to argue or anything, but it is very frustrating to have this rule just slapped down without any warning whatsoever, and have it take effect in the draft that we have been preparing months for under different rules

I thought this way too when i read the change, but in looking at the CBA i realized that in fact there was a no tanking rule the whole time. For me that takes not just the wind out of the sail of "your breaking my tank" but removes the sail entirely. There is no legal tank strategy that can be broken by the rule change. That is why I am fine with it this year. 

 

Well, that and combining the fact that the worst club will only lose 12% 'chance' to win the draft lotto, and not much else while 4th worst thru 15th worse actually get better odds. 

And of course that this is the one year of any year where the top 10 or so draftees are really open to debate. One guy I like was number 1 10 months ago and is now listed below 10th by some people and 2 by others and almost a 2nd rounder by yet more analysts. Not arguing that it isn't frustrating, it is if you are one of us guys affected for the worse, but the ill effect is so minute its not worth the bother of the argument for me at least. ((and those who have been here 8 years know i argue about everything haha))

 

I am suspecting that if i went to look at everyones picks coming up, the guys with multiple 1sts even if one of them is an affected top three lotto spot formerly, i bet the average either stays the same or improves somewhat. It just isn't all that detrimental is the way i see it. Still a top 15 pick and still has a shot at the lotto with 6.67% odds of being 1st 2nd or third, more or less. 

 

The benefit of the change is huge by comparison and i would argue to make this change 100% in any year, but doing it this year vs next year is next to irrelevant for 99% of the situations. I do understand that it sucks for the 5 or so guys affected to any degree, no good way to mitigate that, other than the concept that expecting to sink to good lotto odds has always been against our rules even if it appears teams have taken liberties up to now in that regard. THose liberties are why the rule change is needed, imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, greensman said:

No, you have misunderstood. 
 

Tanking, diminishing your team to a less than competitive roster to intentionally place better in the draft is 100% against the rules of the GML, written on page one. We have literally fired people multiple times for this. It is not about bodies, the rules state clearly that it’s about keeping your fan base and owners happy.
 

This draft rule will help to curb GM’s from tanking, but tanking in any form is not acceptable in the GML. 
 

Not trying to be an ass, just wanting to be super clear on the rules of the game, and how we’ve specifically fine tuned the wording over years. 
 

You can think tanking is a fair strategy in general, and we can chat about it, but the rules are clear and enforced in this league.

If the goal is "realism", there are plenty of NHL teams that sell off players to gain better odds at a higher pick. But in the real NHL, they ice a roster still, so I get the point of not having a full roster, but I fail to see why tanking is considered a fireable offense if there is an attempt to have a roster.

 

Franchises haven't folded because teams tanked for a year or two (or 18 times if you look at Edmonton). I can understand if teams have been tanking for longer than a year or two requiring change in management.

 

I'd argue that teams that decide to move talent of futures allows teams to make a push to compete against the top rosters of the league as well. This gives some of the mediocre teams a chance as well, given that they're willing to pay the price to do so. So while beneficial to the teams collecting futures, there is a benefit to those trying to compete rather than feel like there is no shot to beat the top dogs. Over time those top teams won't be able to acquire good talent which means more turnover for GMs to have success and thus gives GMs more excitement.

 

So while I agree that tanking is bad when half the league is selling off assets, but there is reasonable benefits to the league when a couple of teams decide to do so in a given year to allow for some levels of compete.

 

I took advantage of the fact that Toronto was trying to rebuild (not that I made all the best moves here) given the roster that I took over which was near the bottom with very little prospect depth and team quality. I took advantage with Minnesota willing to take on cap space for me to make my necessary moves to get to where I am. Without "tankers", I probably wouldn't get this opportunity to turn my team around this quickly (and who knows if what I've done is sustainable). But I was able to take a non competitive team and made a push (at the cost of a lot of futures), is this not the goal of the league? I could've taken a more slow and steady approach and build over time, but I had a few core pieces in Miller and Zibanejad (amongst others that I've added), who I didn't want to waste years of to give them a chance to win.

 

So I agree with parity and making sure most GMs want to stay competitive, but I don't think "tanking" needs to be eliminated outright, especially given that the real NHL demonstrates it regularly as well for realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Crabby said:

these are examples of what ive been trying to do. These moves however are not moves to help ice an NHL roster immedietly. 

 

I also agree with your point about doing your own DD on the FA list. My point was simply I do not have the time nor patients to spend 10+ hours to find a couple fringe NHL players that might help me finish 26th instead of 27th. If the was a list like in NHL21 I would most defiently have a more NHL looking team right now. Every single move ive made I can justify the though of wieghing between the now vs the future, thats all imma say

 

There is also a couple GMs in this league that know that ive been worried about having an NHL looking roster during my rebuild. I seen teams like the ones your trying to punish, and when my team fell as far as they did I made a bunch of moves. Those move may look bad to some of you from a competing standpoint for this year but even if moves weren't made, I wasn't finishing much if at all better than my current position.

 

Couple things to note...

 

I was not at all inclined to trade Vanecek (my 2nd highest point producer). However it was what was needed to be added to land Askarov and Turcotte.

 

I made a strong pitch for Pastrnak that would have immensely helped immedietly. I wasn't really given a chance in those talks as the GM made the deal prior to getting my proposal

 

I wiegh every move I make with the eyes on the future. If yall wanted a GM to keep a mediocre team "Stale" and mediocre for years you hired the wrong guy. I want to win, and if a losing season or 2 is required to build a consitant winner then so be it in my eyes.

 

 Just really sucks because I read the CBA, I based decisions of my recent moves on seeing those consitant tank teams rosters, and thought...

 

"I tried icing an NHL team, they stunk it up, im sure I can tear it down now for half a season, maximize value on current vets that dont fit near future plans, and try and compete next year"

 

Not like I have much chances to fall any lower in standings with the 3 teams below me anyway. Theres a way to punish those that consitantly do this without screwing us honest, new GMs trying to put their own footprint on their newely acquired team.

 

Idk man, im not looking to argue or anything, but it is very frustrating to have this rule just slapped down without any warning whatsoever, and have it take effect in the draft that we have been preparing months for under different rules

My point was doing the homework. Imagine the homework/time it took to invest into players who had yet to prove themselves vs actual NHL players who are already established NHLers. If the method you have is too tiring then you need to innovate to be better efficient.

 

Those teams you referred to didn't write the CBA. You shouldn't base your understanding of the CBA based off of what they or others do. You indirectly break the CBA by following others, you indirectly hurt yourself when change is implemented. As the CBA you read, there will be some type of negative feedback that will occur if nothing gets changed, then this shouldn't come off as a surprise. In fact it could be a lot worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sergei Bobrovsky said:

Haha sorry didn't realize that it was your team who was a part of the trade. It happens though... I traded Garland away for an IRL 4th rounder lmao

I should try to find that trade and see what I ended up with from the return :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an unintended consequence could be increased inequality and less trades. 
 

middle and fringe playoff teams may be much less likely to trade their 1st out of FOMO on getting a top 5 draft pick. The individual odds of getting 1st overall doesn’t change materially for most teams, but everyone now has a much better chance at a top 5 pick. I think we could see the rich being the only buyers in town and continue to get richer, the middle staying middle and not doing anything to get better, and the poor staying poor and getting worse because they have a higher chance on drafting outside the top 10. 

Edited by Tony Romo
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

If the goal is "realism", there are plenty of NHL teams that sell off players to gain better odds at a higher pick. But in the real NHL, they ice a roster still, so I get the point of not having a full roster, but I fail to see why tanking is considered a fireable offense if there is an attempt to have a roster.

 

Franchises haven't folded because teams tanked for a year or two (or 18 times if you look at Edmonton). I can understand if teams have been tanking for longer than a year or two requiring change in management.

 

I'd argue that teams that decide to move talent of futures allows teams to make a push to compete against the top rosters of the league as well. This gives some of the mediocre teams a chance as well, given that they're willing to pay the price to do so. So while beneficial to the teams collecting futures, there is a benefit to those trying to compete rather than feel like there is no shot to beat the top dogs. Over time those top teams won't be able to acquire good talent which means more turnover for GMs to have success and thus gives GMs more excitement.

 

So while I agree that tanking is bad when half the league is selling off assets, but there is reasonable benefits to the league when a couple of teams decide to do so in a given year to allow for some levels of compete.

 

I took advantage of the fact that Toronto was trying to rebuild (not that I made all the best moves here) given the roster that I took over which was near the bottom with very little prospect depth and team quality. I took advantage with Minnesota willing to take on cap space for me to make my necessary moves to get to where I am. Without "tankers", I probably wouldn't get this opportunity to turn my team around this quickly (and who knows if what I've done is sustainable). But I was able to take a non competitive team and made a push (at the cost of a lot of futures), is this not the goal of the league? I could've taken a more slow and steady approach and build over time, but I had a few core pieces in Miller and Zibanejad (amongst others that I've added), who I didn't want to waste years of to give them a chance to win.

 

So I agree with parity and making sure most GMs want to stay competitive, but I don't think "tanking" needs to be eliminated outright, especially given that the real NHL demonstrates it regularly as well for realism.

Selling off a pending free agent or moving a couple vets from a poorly performing club in the NHL is not tanking though. That is just asset management.

 

There have been teams removing anything they can to obtain picks or " prospects " for the future. We're not talking about maybe not being playoff bound and managing assets, we're talking about teams voiding their rosters of NHL talent.

 

The attitude of not having time to look up players or research or track the thread for waivers, free agents etc is 110% garbage. I mean I can but won't get into my personal schedule and obligations but having limited time for this game last year I still managed the President's Trophy etc ( tooting my horn haha ).

 

And if your gripe is not having time or patience to ensure a roster is full if not competitive but then your argument is the rule slapped down after all your time and patience suddenly being used to plan for a draft....what in the hell? Not to mention the draft may have teams rise and fall in position or stay close.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Primal Optimist said:

I thought this way too when i read the change, but in looking at the CBA i realized that in fact there was a no tanking rule the whole time. For me that takes not just the wind out of the sail of "your breaking my tank" but removes the sail entirely. There is no legal tank strategy that can be broken by the rule change. That is why I am fine with it this year. 

 

Well, that and combining the fact that the worst club will only lose 12% 'chance' to win the draft lotto, and not much else while 4th worst thru 15th worse actually get better odds

So this no tanking rule?

 

How are you playoff contenders loading up at TDL when bottom teams cant tank? 

 

Again theres a way to punish the true tankers, without punishing the ones that dont go that route until the season is lost. If you went a whole offseason without trying to improve, thats not good GMing.

 

Everyone keeps talking about how the rule only has a small effect. The fact the worst team has a 50% chance of picking 9-16 instead of a 0% chance of picking outside top 4 is a MAJOR difference. Its not just odds of winning the #1 pick. the difference between a top 5 pick and a 10-15 is absurd. 

 

I dont like the rule tbh, but I get the idea, and see why it is being done. I really do question why it has to be implemented right away. Waiting 1 season is not only fair to us that are being screwed, but it wont hurt you other guys either to wait a year.

 

Angry Chicken GIF by happydog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tony Romo said:

I think an unintended consequence could be increased inequality and less trades. 
 

middle and fringe playoff teams may be much less likely to trade their 1st out of FOMO on getting a top 5 draft pick. The individual odds of getting 1st overall doesn’t change materially for most teams, but everyone now has a much better chance at a top 5 pick. I think we could see the rich being the only buyers in town and continue to get richer, the middle staying middle and not doing anything to get better, and the poor staying poor and getting worse because they have a higher chance on drafting outside the top 10. 

The beauty of this is there are so many tools and techniques to build and improve your club.

 

This is Draft related and yes I've drafted players like Burakovsky, Theodore, Forbort, Blueger, etc....haha but this is one element of a multi faceted challenge and people are acting like now teams will suffer or someone got screwed when the name of the game is " try to improve ".

 

I feel I ice a fairly competitive team every year and I don't hang my hopes 90% of my career here on the draft. So while I can arrogantly say the Devils are one of the rich so to speak I haven't gotten richer through the draft. Others have and have not. This is not the be all and end all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

Selling off a pending free agent or moving a couple vets from a poorly performing club in the NHL is not tanking though. That is just asset management.

 

There have been teams removing anything they can to obtain picks or " prospects " for the future. We're not talking about maybe not being playoff bound and managing assets, we're talking about teams voiding their rosters of NHL talent.

 

The attitude of not having time to look up players or research or track the thread for waivers, free agents etc is 110% garbage. I mean I can but won't get into my personal schedule and obligations but having limited time for this game last year I still managed the President's Trophy etc ( tooting my horn haha ).

 

And if your gripe is not having time or patience to ensure a roster is full if not competitive but then your argument is the rule slapped down after all your time and patience suddenly being used to plan for a draft....what in the hell? Not to mention the draft may have teams rise and fall in position or stay close.

 

 

Yes there is an extreme form of tanking that I agree to not condone with. Just disagree that all tanking should be eliminated. There are differing levels, but I think tanking can be done while having a full roster and that should still be "acceptable". But I think the execs are aware of this and will give warning to those in major violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

The beauty of this is there are so many tools and techniques to build and improve your club.

 

This is Draft related and yes I've drafted players like Burakovsky, Theodore, Forbort, Blueger, etc....haha but this is one element of a multi faceted challenge and people are acting like now teams will suffer or someone got screwed when the name of the game is " try to improve ".

 

I feel I ice a fairly competitive team every year and I don't hang my hopes 90% of my career here on the draft. So while I can arrogantly say the Devils are one of the rich so to speak I haven't gotten richer through the draft. Others have and have not. This is not the be all and end all.

No no, you misunderstood. The inequality will come from the rule backfiring and incentivizing more teams to “tank”

 

Obviously for legal reasons I would never tank, just thinking of what a team on the fringe may be thinking with not many playoff players but a draft pick with a 30% chance at a top 5 pick.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Crabby said:

 

So this no tanking rule?

 

How are you playoff contenders loading up at TDL when bottom teams cant tank? 

 

Again theres a way to punish the true tankers, without punishing the ones that dont go that route until the season is lost. If you went a whole offseason without trying to improve, thats not good GMing.

 

Everyone keeps talking about how the rule only has a small effect. The fact the worst team has a 50% chance of picking 9-16 instead of a 0% chance of picking outside top 4 is a MAJOR difference. Its not just odds of winning the #1 pick. the difference between a top 5 pick and a 10-15 is absurd. 

 

I dont like the rule tbh, but I get the idea, and see why it is being done. I really do question why it has to be implemented right away. Waiting 1 season is not only fair to us that are being screwed, but it wont hurt you other guys either to wait a year.

 

Angry Chicken GIF by happydog

Its not related. I once traded multiple picks to a " tanked " team for a depth dman named Carl Gunnarsson. Other than that not really any trades with such teams.

 

I as GM of the Devils look out for my team, I find players that I think fit in my squad and attempt to make trades. I utilize future assets regularly in trades thus giving more picks and prospects to the rest of the league and I pay high prices more often than not. Why? To give my club the best chance that I'm capable of providing to be successful. Ive done this 11 years.

 

So you can do your damndest to improve your club as that is the goal and point of this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Crabby said:

 

So this no tanking rule?

 

How are you playoff contenders loading up at TDL when bottom teams cant tank? 

 

Again theres a way to punish the true tankers, without punishing the ones that dont go that route until the season is lost. If you went a whole offseason without trying to improve, thats not good GMing.

 

Everyone keeps talking about how the rule only has a small effect. The fact the worst team has a 50% chance of picking 9-16 instead of a 0% chance of picking outside top 4 is a MAJOR difference. Its not just odds of winning the #1 pick. the difference between a top 5 pick and a 10-15 is absurd. 

 

I dont like the rule tbh, but I get the idea, and see why it is being done. I really do question why it has to be implemented right away. Waiting 1 season is not only fair to us that are being screwed, but it wont hurt you other guys either to wait a year.

 

Angry Chicken GIF by happydog

As a team who’s selling, I’m here to tell you that you can move assets and bring in futures while not being a ‘tanker’. 
 

I’m a seller. Not a tanker. I’m a seller because I literally have no competent goaltending. But at least it’s NHL goaltending. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

To give my club the best chance that I'm capable of providing to be successful. Ive done this 11 years

How do you expect me to do this without tearing it down first?

 

Its easier to make the right moves to improve your team when your a clear contender, and judging from the archives idk if you've had a bottom feeding team to work with before :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tony Romo said:

No no, you misunderstood. The inequality will come from the rule backfiring and incentivizing more teams to “tank”

 

Obviously for legal reasons I would never tank, just thinking of what a team on the fringe may be thinking with not many playoff players but a draft pick with a 30% chance at a top 5 pick.

As a team on the fringe, I can tell you exactly what that team may be thinking: Keep my first round pick unless I get a key piece for it. 
 

I don’t see how either course makes me worse. And definitely don’t see how it would encourage me to tear the roster down. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crabby said:

How do you expect me to do this without tearing it down first?

 

Its easier to make the right moves to improve your team when your a clear contender, and judging from the archives idk if you've had a bottom feeding team to work with before :rolleyes:

Just watch me ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Crabby said:

How do you expect me to do this without tearing it down first?

 

Its easier to make the right moves to improve your team when your a clear contender, and judging from the archives idk if you've had a bottom feeding team to work with before :rolleyes:

I've had. Look at my organization's archives. It takes time and patience. Others have done it much better than me but it's taking me more than 5 years to finally be a buyer. Other teams are rebuilding atm but dont sacrifice their NHL roster. 

Edited by Sergei Bobrovsky
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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