CDCGML 2020-21

[Tony Romo]

7 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

 

This, it is mind blowing how there is an uproar about not being rewarded for having a poorly performing club, mind blowing. 

Again, I think it will incentivize more people to be a poor performing club and lead to rising inequality. (sounds like a senate debate hahah)

[Gator]

19 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

 

This, it is mind blowing how there is an uproar about not being rewarded for having a poorly performing club, mind blowing. 

Its not that im upset about the rule. Im upset that midseason it is implemented. Im not a fan of the rule, but huge fan of not rewarding tanking. However there is a reason the NHL doesnt change rules until the offseason. 

 

Not my league so im just going to have to sulk it up and march on, but I really think there needs to be serious discussion to make this come into effect for the 2022 draft.

 

I hope yall dont take me the wrong way here. Im a bottom feeding team that has been greatly impacted by this. I think I am more than in the right to have a lot of frustration on this rule being implemented immedietly (mid season)

 

I still appreciate you guys @canuck2xtreme @Mike Vanderhoek, @aGENT, and all you other crazy ass people.. But my god if @canuck2xtremewas in front of me right now...

 

I kid I kid.. Id hit him much much harder

Edited March 2, 2021 by Crabby

[Master Mind]

15 minutes ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

 

This, it is mind blowing how there is an uproar about not being rewarded for having a poorly performing club, mind blowing. 

Is it? That's what happens in the NHL, so it makes sense for expectations to be similar here.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Fair enough, but that's a 740k cap hit as minimal as it is to help another team drop 2.25 and a contract spot for a contract they signed. Seems beneficial to the team trying to unload him to take advantage of a team needing roster players. I don't know, I can see both sides to this. For one, I wouldn't have put myself in that position in the first place, on the other hand it's not fair that a team is forced to make a negative move for their team that has no benefit while "helping" another. If the ultimate goal is to "improve your team", making negative valued moves doesn't go in line with that.

 

Why is Montreal dropping Greiss in the first place? Is it to unload his contract because based on their lineup, I see a couple of backups left if they lose Greiss (unless they have a trade in the works)? Perhaps if Montreal bought him out and @Crabby signs him for 1 year, then it would make more sense for him to acquire him. If @Crabby is forced to pick him up, then it would be just as manipulative of a move to be able to waive the bad contracts in hopes that a team is forced to picked them up due to their roster.

 

Although if picking up Anderson fits the bill, then I don't see why he couldn't simply claim him as he's only signed for this year.

 

Montreal is making a move for their club with their own goal in mind. Perhaps he was unable to trade Greiss or decided Waiving needed to be done for other reasons. Nobody is forcing any other team to take on a player that is waived and honestly nobody is saying Toronto has to pick up a player because he was waived or trade for a depth bubble fringe NHLer either.

 

 

[snowflake]

34 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

Is it? That's what happens in the NHL, so it makes sense for expectations to be similar here.

True but. Wasn’t everyone screaming that changes needed to be made when the oilers kept picking 1st overall year after year? 
 

I can see both sides but I think the good far outweighs the bad. And the bad seems mostly theoretical anyways. Just my 2 cents

[Master Mind]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

True but. Wasn’t everyone screaming that changes needed to be made when the oilers kept picking 1st overall year after year? 
 

I can see both sides but I think the good far outweighs the bad. And the bad seems mostly theoretical anyways. Just my 2 cents

Regardless of whether the rule is helpful or harmful, it does stray away from how the NHL operates.

 

So I'm just saying it shouldn't be surprising for there to be some upset GMs, even more so when the rule is changed mid-season.

[Sharpshooter]

Boston is looking to upgrade its bottom 6 forwards, defence, and backup goaltender. 
 

Boston is also open to a big multi-player trade. Don’t hesitate to inquire or make offers. 

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Tony Romo said:

But if the worst team is drafting 14 I do not see how that will help parity. And more teams will try and tank, which also does not help parity. I honestly view this as a nice idea, but how it will actually play out is it will be absolutely riveting watching the lottery unfold and it will give me my gambling fix, but the end result could be more teams tanking and the worst teams getting worse prospects. 

 

Don't see it. If you're close and on the way up and either just not there yet, ran in to a key injury etc...just makes you more competitive next year. It isn't going to make you turf half the good work you've done building a team up.

 

If you're on the way down...it might keep you competitive a bit longer ...Or it might be the nudge that makes you start a rebuild sooner where you unload solid assets to teams potentially on their way up who are generally in better position to outbid contenders who are usually more shy on cap space and rebuild assets.

 

And again, I was a 'worst team' I never won a lotto pick to rebuild with. As nice as they may be, you don't need them.

[Gator]

All I ask is for a league vote for putting it in to fruition for the 2021 draft. Im going to drop the topic (alright, ill atleast try to) even if you decide against this proposal @canuck2xtreme

 

Proposal being...

 

80% of league approves it for 2021 season. Since its mid season and imo has huge implications on how this years draft will go.

 

If voted not to take effect it gives us an offseason to work out a better anti tank method. One that wouldn'nt see good teams get generational talent because they barely missed playoffs due to a couple small injuries.

 

Up to you, but I think its fair to ask for a league vote for a rule change like this to happen so sudden.

 

[Primal Optimist]

21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Don't see it. If you're close and on the way up and either just not there yet, ran in to a key injury etc...just makes you more competitive next year. It isn't going to make you turf half the good work you've done building a team up.

 

If you're on the way down...it might keep you competitive a bit longer ...Or it might be the nudge that makes you start a rebuild sooner where you unload solid assets to teams potentially on their way up who are generally in better position to outbid contenders who are usually more shy on cap space and rebuild assets.

 

And again, I was a 'worst team' I never won a lotto pick to rebuild with. As nice as they may be, you don't need them.

the benefit i see from this new rule is that teams will not chase each other to the absolute bottom trying for the best pick. Teams that subtly trade a high point producer for assets for next year and subsequently miss the playoffs will have a shot at the best pick overall by random luck, so there is no need to see a club with 645 points, one with 752 points, and a third with 885 points and a fourth with 943 points and then every other non playoff club with an average of 1100. Teams will stop selling off good assets if they are sunk to the roughly 1000 mark, and only then if they have deemed their club to be non playoff worthy. No need to sell every little scrap of production in order to maximize the odds of Winning McDavid. You can win mcdavid by selling off just that one aging star player, for instance, and that is why i like the rule. we will see non playoff clubs begin to hover around playoff cutoff for points because there is zero incentive to drop any further. 

 

Closing the gap from 1st to 31st is a very important goal. I do get that it sucks that it is happening this year, but no matter what year it is implemented, 4 or 5 of us at the bottom will be hurt by it. 

 

One thing I just found in chatting this over is that in 3 of the last four years i was in the bottom 4 (probably all four years but i don't have stats for the drft i missed) so the three drafts i was in prior to this past one i was bottom four at the lotto and my pick drafted at 7th, 6th and 4th. 

 

Ppoint being that even at the bottom with the better odds: it never paid off for my club (and again I don't tank, i have always just sucked since I took over the club in decline and then made some horrible rookie mistakes up till oh about 2017, lol. Hopefully tomorrow there is a new topic as I have run out of things to say about this one. The pain felt by my club losing some of the odds I had to pick a better player in this particular year are pretty irrelevant which is why I am happy wiht the rule change in general and okay with it being this year in particular. 

 

[Gator]

27 minutes ago, aGENT said:

And again, I was a 'worst team' I never won a lotto pick to rebuild with. As nice as they may be, you don't need them.

This is true. So why instead of make a rule like this just fire them if they are abusing the tank strategy year after year. They must be bad, and by the time they get good itll be a new GM enjoying the benefits.

 

I say tweak the odds a bit to make it less encouraging to tank, and put other measures such as not being allowed to make more tha 1-2 consecutive top 3 picks (unless traded for)

 

This rule feels rushed and aggressive imho

[Gator]

2 minutes ago, Primal Optimist said:

the benefit i see from this new rule is that teams will not chase each other to the absolute bottom trying for the best pick.

Thats just taking half the competition out of the league 

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

Montreal is making a move for their club with their own goal in mind. Perhaps he was unable to trade Greiss or decided Waiving needed to be done for other reasons. Nobody is forcing any other team to take on a player that is waived and honestly nobody is saying Toronto has to pick up a player because he was waived or trade for a depth bubble fringe NHLer either.

 

 

Oh I get it, there were a couple of GMs simply saying @Crabby should just pick him up and it shouldn't be a big deal, but I was trying to bring up why it doesn't make sense for him because I get his side as well. Just trying to show support on either side of the spectrum.

 

I'm for icing a team, but it shouldn't be at a detriment. Just felt he needed some support with his thinking as it was starting to pile on.

[Primal Optimist]

17 minutes ago, Crabby said:

 

Proposal being...

80% of league approves it for 2021 season. Since its mid season and imo has huge implications on how this years draft will go.

Typical super majorities for a deciding vote are 66.6% +1 (2/3rds) which means 11 GM's would need to be against the change and i just dont see there being that much support for tanking which has always been illegal. shrug. Not that I thnk we should necessarily vote either, just sayin if your going to arbitrarily set the threshold at 80% why not go hole hog and say only if 27 gm's agree? lol it may not pass that way. : p 

 

hehe, just having fun at this point, no offense. 

[Tony Romo]

Crabby is filibustering this, nothing but respect

[Sludge]

4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Oh I get it, there were a couple of GMs simply saying @Crabby should just pick him up and it shouldn't be a big deal, but I was trying to bring up why it doesn't make sense for him because I get his side as well. Just trying to show support on either side of the spectrum.

 

I'm for icing a team, but it shouldn't be at a detriment. Just felt he needed some support with his thinking as it was starting to pile on.

in hindsight this is a fair point, not my place to make comments like i did. Every GM has there right to their own approach as its the purpose of the League. 

[Gator]

2 minutes ago, Primal Optimist said:

Typical super majorities for a deciding vote are 66.6% +1 (2/3rds) which means 11 GM's would need to be against the change and i just dont see there being that much support for tanking which has always been illegal. shrug. Not that I thnk we should necessarily vote either, just sayin if your going to arbitrarily set the threshold at 80% why not go hole hog and say only if 27 gm's agree? lol it may not pass that way. : p 

 

hehe, just having fun at this point, no offense. 

Well im thinking there are 3-4 teams this is targeted towards (assuming I am 1 lol) 

 

Think it would be like 25 if it were 80% of 31, so us 4 would need support. Im fine with a 66.6% vote but that seems so far fetched because enough teams are benifitting from it to vote for it, and I assume those in playoffs will vote for it incase they miss playoffs. 

 

I think atleast 75% should be in favor of a rule change like this to happen this far into a season. If this was dont in the offseason it wouldnt be an issue to me at all

 

Im over it tbh, but this is just my last ditch effort to save my 1st ive been counting on this year

[Gator]

5 minutes ago, Tony Romo said:

Crabby is filibustering this, nothing but respect

[Primal Optimist]

31 minutes ago, Crabby said:

Well im thinking there are 3-4 teams this is targeted towards...

 

... because enough teams are benifitting from it to vote for it...

That is the thing though, you are working really hard to make this personal when it is a systemic change that will forever change the nature of any GM seeing the 31st position as any benefit at all. It isn't targeting clubs or people whatsoever, it just happens to affect the bottom five or six clubs in whatever year it happens to be implemented. I hate that I am on the losing side of it too, but I understand the 'loss' is really small if at all in that its the loss of a bit of the chance to win a slightly better pick. As i mentioned earlier, i am batting 0.000 on getting a better pick and batting a thousand on having teams behind me in the odds leapfrogging me, so I really thnk you are puttng too much stock in having a better odds to begin with, lol. But yeah it doesn't seem to me to be personal but systemic and it is a good systemic fix to the problem which is the points divide between bottom and top by years end leading to have not and have clubs for generational lengths of time with exceptions due to hard work and luck, luck like winning a lottery as some kind of magic plan. 

Quote

just my last ditch effort to save my 1st ive been counting on this year

with the changes: keep the pick, you may be surprised to learn that 3 in 15 is really good odds to move up, like 20% or so without doing the harder uni math on statistics lol, more like 24% if i did the rough math right. we will each have almost a 1 in four chance to bump up to top 3, no big deal for this one year it fugs with us bottom guys..and every year from the starting point forward is fair to everyone. 

 

 

lol, I am officially giving myself permission to drop the topic, if i don't I can't shut up. mental health is a terrible thing to lose control of. LOL> 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Primal Optimist

[aGENT]

49 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Oh I get it, there were a couple of GMs simply saying @Crabby should just pick him up and it shouldn't be a big deal, but I was trying to bring up why it doesn't make sense for him because I get his side as well. Just trying to show support on either side of the spectrum.

 

I'm for icing a team, but it shouldn't be at a detriment. Just felt he needed some support with his thinking as it was starting to pile on.

But it sometimes is. Do you think I wanted to give John Moore a $4m contract a few years ago when Colorado sucked, just so I could ice an NHL team? 

 

Sometimes you have to take some short term pain icing a roster, to build your team (shoutout to Beagle and Roussel) without spending trade assets.

 

Just another way this game is as close to IRL as you can get.

 

One more year at $2m of a solid, NHL caliber, 1B/backup barely qualifies as a speed bump. Worst case, you wave him next year and wait for the myriad of GM's posting that they need a backup (either via poor planning, injury etc) and get a 4th or similar for him. Or just use him as your starter/backup on a rebuilding team. All for free.

 

While certainly not telling @Crabby how to run his team, if I were him I'd pick Greiss up in a heart beat. Cheap, short term, free organizational depth is never a bad thing.

Edited March 2, 2021 by aGENT