Stashing NHLers in the Minors

[Dave (PLK)]

In light of the comments so far, I have added a poll to this thread.

Please vote!!


(if the make changes side gets the majority of votes, then we will take further suggestions and vote on the sensible ones)

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2016 9:55:36 GMT -5 Dave (PLK) said:

I light of the comments so far, I have added a poll to this thread.

Please vote!!

Before you guys vote, please take a momment to understand fully my proposal.

Go to your own team on Fantrax and search to see who would be released to waivers as per my proposed suggestion. It would be great to see from everyone's team which players would have been released to waivers had this rule been implemented this past season.

Please make an informed decision before deciding.

[Deleted]

Apr 15, 2016 10:00:11 GMT -5 @eric said:

Apr 15, 2016 9:55:36 GMT -5 Dave (PLK) said:

I light of the comments so far, I have added a poll to this thread.

Please vote!!

Before you guys vote, please take a momment to understand fully my proposal.

Go to your own team on Fantrax and search to see who would be released to waivers as per my proposed suggestion. It would be great to see from everyone's team which players would have been released to waivers had this rule been implemented this past season.

Please make an informed decision before deciding.

If I vote yes, is that a yes to your idea or we can still tweak it a tad ? The thing I hate about this idea is having little flexibility to start off the season.

[Dave (PLK)]

it's not yes to Eric's initial idea Frank..it's yes to some sort of changes, to be discussed.

if the majority votes no changes. then everything stays the same as is.

[Deleted]

Here is an idea for you Frank

To help with adjustment of new waiver/minors rules during next year (that is is we implemented new rule this summer), everyone gets a waiver tag to protect certain player.

Something like this:

0 to 1 players effected by rule change - 0 tags
2 to 3 players effected by rule change - 1 tags
4 to 6 players effected by rule change - 2 tags

[Dave (PLK)]

from what I can tell, on Frank's team, the only player affected is Kulemin, if I did it correctly.

[Deleted]

According to these rules, my team would lose: Jossi Jokinen; Jamie McGinn; Eric Staal; Josh Georges; Mason Raymond; Jay Bouwmeester; Carl Gunnarson; Nikita Nikitin; and Slave Voynov. And next year, it would FORCE me to put both Carey Price and Martin Jones on my active roster, or lose one of them to waivers.

Looking at the 9 players I'd lose, I've traded for 8 of them, mostly giving up prospects or picks to obtain them.

Looking at my trades for this year:

To RCH: Buchnevich + Pelech + Vande Sompel + Foegele + 2017 BUF 2E
To BUF: E. Staal + N. Spaling

COMMENT: I'd lose E.Staal this year, and possibly lose Spaling next year, under this proposal. And note that I deliberately overpaid in this deal, and said so at the time, in order to help the old Canners team (since nobody was in favour of a mini-expansion draft to prop this team up).

To Buffalo: J. Jokinen + N. Schmidt + J. Bouwmeester
To Richmond: M. Kruger + J. Schmaltz + N Baptiste + 2017 2E (DIF) + 2016 3W (ABE) + Y Weber

COMMENT: in this deal, I'd lose Jokinen and Bouwmeester this year, and net N. Schmidt for a package that included 2 NHL'ers, 2 solid prospects, a 2nd round pick and a third round waiver.

3E, 2W and 3W for J. Gorges and M. Raymond

COMMENT: in this deal, I'd lose both players, and have nothing to show for a 3E, 2W and 3W.

I find it somewhat ironic that I've been going on and on and on for two years about league parity, only to get shot down time and time. And this year, when I've finally just given up on the concept, a new system is proposed that would essentially wipe out 20 percent of my minor league system.

And giving me a couple tags would still not be fair, as I've traded a boat load of my minor league system and picks to acquire these assets. I could understand penalizing my team if the argument was that I ripped off a bottom dweller, but that's anything but the case.

[Deleted]

I agree there will be no easy fix to this issue what-so-ever. I'm not sure how to solve it, but I do know that it will be impossible unless everyone puts their own interest on the back burner and takes a league first approach. I will be willing to undue our trades since I know that you were more than willing to overpay to help me out in the long run. I wouldn't want any team in the same boat as I am nor would I want you to lose value for helping me out

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

I'm all for improving league balance and competitiveness, but at the same time agree there aren't any quick fixes here - suggest that any asset affecting changes be rolled out in 1-2 year time frames to allow teams to adjust appropriately. Also find it a bit hypocritical to suggest changes to a system that one proposed initially and took advantage of to win a championship - and then decide to withdraw so others cannot follow in your footsteps to do the same, can certainly understand Sabres' frustrations in this regard.

The strength of a league ultimately lies in the quality and integrity of the GM's. You can implement all the rules you want, but certain GMs will still run their team to the ground while others can bring one up from the dead (like Toronto has) to become a contender.

[Deleted]

I also care very much about league integrity and have been harping on this for years. At the same point, I'd argue equally as strongly that we don't want a league that punishes success. Otherwise, what's the point of being here. I have put forward three ideas in the past that I think would help teams in unfortunate situations (and especially Will's team). They are as follows:

1. Make dropped players go through waivers. I've seen players dropped that I'd claim; so I have to think the same is true for teams lower in the standings.

2. Implement multiple waiver drafts (i.e., perhaps our traditional 2 round system in september), and 1 round in early december, another in early feb (for example). Not only would this increase league activity and the fun factor, but it should help the weaker teams. There are always surprise players (e.g. Andrew Hammond, Scott Darling), I can go on. Spreading a few rounds out over the season would allow weaker clubs, with the early picks, a chance to draft with more knowledge and a chance to get NHL reinforcements during the year.

3. Design a "league parity" draft in the off-season, using unclaimed teams. (We have had unclaimed teams every off season I've been here). For example, right now, Abititi is unclaimed. There is no reason why that team can't lose a few players to Will's team, or to other bottom dwellers. Any new GM's coming in here are wed to a particular roster, and we can regig unclaimed teams so that they are still competitive, but need more work to be championship caliber. You'll recall I tried proposing something like this last summer with 3 unclaimed teams, and got no traction from anybody.

#3 has the potential to improve bottom teams, without hurting anyone, or radically changing the system we've had going for a long time. If we can get Will to come in here and take over Canner's team, I'm confident we can knock some players off Abititi's team, leave it good enough for someone to want, and to begin to fix the disaster of Will's team.

I have absolutely no interest in Eric's proposal. But I'm voting on the "change things" side, because I think there are a lot of little things (1 and 2 above) and big things (3 above) that we can do to help the bottom teams.

[Deleted]

None of Dave's proposal help weaker teams.

1. Good players aren't released from top tier teams

2. Multiple waiver draft helps all teams. Nothing to do with league parity.

3. Funny how Dave suggests tearing apart another team and piecing it out no problem but when it comes to sharing his assets he cries bloody murder.

All very bad ideas in the sphere of league parity.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

I don't believe creating a greater pool of waiver pool players will help the weaker teams much - for the simple fact that those are not the assets that are going to make a significant difference to turning them into contenders. The only value these fringe assets have are for contenders (or even playoff teams) - mainly as depth for the playoffs - that was the reason the playoff waiver free rule was initially created. This also allowed weaker teams to procure assets (such as young players and picks) that they desired in exchange for giving contenders the depth they too desire (see the Buffalo-Richmond trades this season as perfect examples) I fail to see the benefit in taking this away. The only impact it will have is have a bunch of fringe assets rotting on the waiver wire unused.

The key to parity is Total Asset Valuation - do not be blinded by simple metrics like Standings, Total Games Played, and Fantasy Points. Total Asset Valuation takes into account a variety of measures, including Asset Age, Potential, Perceived Value, Circumstance, and Opportunity. Future Picks also figure greatly into a team's total asset valuation. That's why we have the worst teams getting the best picks.

To give some of the weaker teams a better fighting chance, we need to prop up their Total Asset Valuation. Simplest way I see is to increase the number of higher value picks they receive. Picks are a much more valuable currency to weaker teams as they provide immense flexibility. Rather than picking up a 30+ year old on a waiver wire, they can utilize said picks to utilize their knowledge to pick up potential high-impact players or trade them for assets that they desire.

I see the standard lottery and reverse standings for entry picks being part of the problem, it doesn't help the weaker teams enough and takes too long for them to build up their asset base. We should consider awarding additional picks (including higher value ones like 1sts) to the weaker teams. But the key is we should not utilize these picks as incentive to tank or perform poorly. I am squarely against any sort of tanking whatsoever as see it as a negative motivational factor that should not be promoted and threatens league integrity.

Instead, propose some sort of polls/voting system at each season's end where all GM's can vote for a certain pool of 'Awarded Picks' to the weaker teams that they deem deserve it - based on factors including Total Asset Valuation and League Activity and Participation - believe the latter is key and it also promotes activity. Perhaps even additional awarded picks for teams that become turnaround stories and increase in the most in the standings from year to year. Or Winning certain number of Stat categories.

These little 'awards' can prove to a good motivational factor for teams to perform and pick up valued assets, even to make the playoffs - and once in, an upset is always possible. Perhaps even little awards for the most active traders, greatest posters, and even those that give the greatest 'gift trades' to the weaker teams like Buffalo did.

Look at how many of the best apps work nowadays, they provide many of these little incentives to encourage activity, to log on each day, check your inbox, get to the next level - it may sound a bit silly, but it works. I can tell you that the champions lottery waiver pick was a great incentive for me to go for titles in previous years, and actually found myself lacking motivation this year after it was taken away - even though I still tried my best to win, I certainly considered taking another direction - and even may do so this upcoming season.

[Deleted]

Hi there,

Eric proposal shouldn't mess with the waiver exempt during the playoff. Eric was mentionning the rule would affect before the season kick off and during the season. If I'm wrong let me know because that would change alot if it also include the playoff.

[Deleted]

Another important question, would the player drafted from the waiver draft all be exempt from this rule even if they are over gp and all ? That would be a i teresting idea since it would force more gm like me to dump their vets for the waiver and if they want the could get them back threw the waiver draft by picking them. This would inflate the value and the wealth of the waiver draft.

[Deleted]

Frank - waiver exempt rules during playoffs I do not suggest changing.

Jimmy - regarding the principal of hiding assets in the minors, you cannot be FOR stashing players in the minors for winning in the playoffs/ IR relief / more depth and AGAINST stashing players in the minors for getting a better draft pick. That would be a double standard of the stashing players benefit. Some beneift while others don't.

If we allow stashing players, everyone should have the opportunity to benefit. Rich and poor alike. Poor teams cannot benefit for the playoffs, but they can benefit for the entry draft.

If you wish the poor to leave you alone and continue stock piling assets to better your team, then let the poor do the same. Enough of this double standard.