Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 8:32:01 GMT -5
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. Good point Frank. If the player you drop though waiver goes unclaimed, then you may select him in our waiver draft. If you drop a player on your starting roster through waivers and he gets claimed, the player cannot go to minor of the team that claimed him. He has to be on the starting roster. In my use 'em or lose' em suggstion, if you don't use a player in you minors at least once in the regular season, then he will be release to waivers before the playoffs. He can be claimed and placed anywhere on another team, starting roster or minors. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 10:25:59 GMT -5
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. Good point Frank. If the player you drop though waiver goes unclaimed, then you may select him in our waiver draft. If you drop a player on your starting roster through waivers and he gets claimed, the player cannot go to minor of the team that claimed him. He has to be on the starting roster. In my use 'em or lose' em suggstion, if you don't use a player in you minors at least once in the regular season, then he will be release to waivers before the playoffs. He can be claimed and placed anywhere on another team, starting roster or minors. Our player's should stay with the team threw the year meaning the player's that wasn't use during the year, you should be able to use them during the playoff if you make it. This will give the value for spare parts during the trade deadline since they are exempt from waiver when being traded. It just doesnt make sense to say if you dont use them during the then you lose if they played over a certain number of games in the nhl. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 10:50:23 GMT -5
Good point Frank. If the player you drop though waiver goes unclaimed, then you may select him in our waiver draft. If you drop a player on your starting roster through waivers and he gets claimed, the player cannot go to minor of the team that claimed him. He has to be on the starting roster. In my use 'em or lose' em suggstion, if you don't use a player in you minors at least once in the regular season, then he will be release to waivers before the playoffs. He can be claimed and placed anywhere on another team, starting roster or minors. Our player's should stay with the team threw the year meaning the player's that wasn't use during the year, you should be able to use them during the playoff if you make it. This will give the value for spare parts during the trade deadline since they are exempt from waiver when being traded. It just doesnt make sense to say if you dont use them during the then you lose if they played over a certain number of games in the nhl.
I would like to propose new idea with Frank's help:
Use 'em or Lose 'em - UFA status idea
IFFHL players who meet ALL of the following requirements (see below) at the end of every IFFHL season will be tagged with "IFFHL UFA Status" and will be released at the conclusion of the IFFHL playoffs. The players will be made available to everyone in the yearly off-season waiver draft.
1) Eligible for waivers.
2) Skaters: over 60 GP; and Goalies: over 30 GP in the current NHL season.
3) Did not play at least ONE week in the IFFHL season (not including playoffs).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Apr 17, 2016 14:17:37 GMT -5
Our player's should stay with the team threw the year meaning the player's that wasn't use during the year, you should be able to use them during the playoff if you make it. This will give the value for spare parts during the trade deadline since they are exempt from waiver when being traded. It just doesnt make sense to say if you dont use them during the then you lose if they played over a certain number of games in the nhl.
I would like to propose new idea with Frank's help:
Use 'em or Lose 'em - UFA status idea
IFFHL players who meet ALL of the following requirements (see below) at the end of every IFFHL season will be tagged with "IFFHL UFA Status" and will be released at the conclusion of the IFFHL playoffs. The players will be made available to everyone in the yearly off-season waiver draft.
1) Eligible for waivers.
2) Skaters: over 60 GP; and Goalies: over 30 GP in the current NHL season.
3) Did not play at least ONE week in the IFFHL season (not including playoffs).
Further to this, I would put a cap of 2, maybe 3, players max. any one team could lose...especially for the first couple of seasons until they have a chance to trade some away. My thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Apr 17, 2016 14:22:44 GMT -5
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. It is not a double standard as they are two totally separate issues. Stashing for playoff use is a positive as it gave certain undesirable assets value that would've otherwise rotted on the waiver wire. It gave them value so teams with no use of those assets could at least get some picks/specs for them. It gave both teams looking to win and teams looking to rebuild the assets they are looking for. It increased trade activity. All good aspects for the league.
Facilitating tanking is a negative as it doesn't truly help the weak teams. It is a true loophole that allows a manipulation of the system for personal gain - to allow a middle or even a top team to get top draft picks. It does not improve league parity, but makes a mockery of it to benefit those who can tank the best, not prop up asset values for the truly weak teams.
Eric, your proposal is just an 'Eliminate Waiver Free Playoffs' in disguise. If you don't start said overpaid asset during the regular season - yes you can still use them for the playoffs, but then you lose them in the off-season. So in effect you are changing the value of these assets to 'Rentals'. Given these assets will be lost, their value would be considerably lower than otherwise. Use Eric Staal for example, would Buffalo had given up all those assets if he'd known he could only reap the benefits for a few playoff weeks, then lose him entirely in the offseason? So how does this help Richmond? So he can pick these less desirable assets up during the offseason waiver draft and attempt to unload them for a lower or even non-existent demand?
This could actually make things worse as it would result in some of the weaker teams being stuck with these older, high priced assets and unable to move them. Even in its current state, look at how difficult it was for Richmond to move Staal - there just wasn't the demand. What would it be for Brodziak? Who would really want him, even middle of the pack teams?
From my end, it really doesn't matter as have few assets that apply to this rule anyways. And since I've already won, making it harder to win really doesn't bother me much anymore either, so have little vested interest in all of this. I'm more concerned about the rest of the league who have yet to win and want to do so. You're making it harder for them to do so, promoting less trade activity and player movement, limiting playoff roster juggling, all negatives from my view with very little subsequent benefit.
As I see it, this proposed rule change does little to prop up the truly weak teams that really need help. Giving them real asset value such as additional high value picks like 1sts and 2nds will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 15:17:13 GMT -5
To be honest Jimmy, I stopped reading after your second sentence.
Stashing for playoffs is a positive - you mean a positive for playoff teams only.
Undesirable assets - you mean the ones you didn't use once all season like Backlund or Merrill? Undesirable to you only more like it.
They would rot on the waiver wire - you got to be joking. Backlund and Merrill would easily be picked up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Apr 17, 2016 15:47:59 GMT -5
To be honest Jimmy, I stopped reading after your second sentence. Stashing for playoffs is a positive - you mean a positive for playoff teams only. Undesirable assets - you mean the ones you didn't use once all season like Backlund or Merrill? Undesirable to you only more like it. They would rot on the waiver wire - you got to be joking. Backlund and Merrill would easily be picked up. I was referring to longer term view - any potential rule change should look at the ramifications of such long term, how things will play out and impact the league several years down the road, not just immediately. This is how wrong decisions are made, having short-term thinking. Merrill was waiver free to start the season, so does not apply. No way Backlund would've been would be left down obviously if the rule was know before hand, some other plugs would. Over time, all teams will adjust such that only undesirable plugs would be left in the minors. Regarding benefits to all teams for stashing for playoffs, read my posts more closely and it should become apparent. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 16:13:22 GMT -5
The long term Jimmy is keeping GM's honest.
If Backlund really is desirable to you, then prove it. Actually play him at least once as you push for the playoffs.
If not, it's a wasted player rotting in your minors which is WAY worse than rotting in waivers. The waiver wire will decide who is undesirable to the IFFHL and who is not. Not you or me. You really can't honestly say Brodziak is undesirable as you never tested him to waivers.
Listen Jimmy - you are the best GM here. I get it. You're protecting your assets. You trying to do all you can to protect your wealth. that's fine. It's why you're such a good GM because you keep your assets close. But there comes a point in time when you have to realize you are an ambassador of the league. We all look up to your success. It's up to you to decide what kind of leader you want to be in this community. You can be the Patrick Kane who tampers with rape kits to get his way, or you can be the Daniel Alfredsson who donates millions to help the mentally ill in hopes to makes him community a better place. You chose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 16:20:18 GMT -5
Let’s take another look at the impact of Eric’s rule on: (1) my team; (2) Richmond’s team; and (3) league dynamics. To recall, I made four trades over the course of this season as follows:
To RCH: Buchnevich + Pelech + Vande Sompel + Foegele + 2017 BUF 2E
To BUF: E. Staal + N. Spaling.
To FAR: 2016 3W (MED)
To BUF: Mason Raymond
To Buffalo: J. Jokinen + N. Schmidt + J. Bouwmeester
To Richmond: M. Kruger + J. Schmaltz + N Baptiste + 2017 2E (DIF) + 2016 3W (ABE) + Y Weber
To Buffalo: J. Georges
To Abbottsford: 2017 3E (BUF) + 2016 2W (VAN)
In the four trades above, the following went waiver free to minors: Staal, Raymond, Jokinen, Bouwmeester, and Georges. Spaling was the only player to go directly into my line up.
So, what are the impacts or Eric’s proposal? Very simple. None of these trades, or any trades like this, will ever happen. So in the SHORT RUN, yes – Will’s team is better. He’d keep Staal and Bouwmeester and a bunch of scrubs that would marginally help him now and do absolutely nothing to help rebuild his team. And he’d miss out on 9 younger NHL’ers/prospects and a boat load of picks.
Teams will just react to Eric’s proposal by only making trades that impact their pro level team, to avoid having to put anything of substance on waivers. It will kill the market value of older or high cap players, and mean that rebuilding teams will not be able to move these players, or will only get a tiny fraction of their current value for them.
How does eliminating these types of trades help Will? And how does it make IFFHL a more fun fantasy experience in general? With Eric’s proposal, I’ll set my lines in October and be finished until the June draft. I’ll have very little incentive to look for trades, which are already hard enough in a cap world.
And Jimmy will be a HUGE winner in this proposal, because he’s already largely consolidated his assets in his pro line up. All my trades this year were designed to give me playoff depth in an attempt to give me an advantage there, WHILE ALSO BENEFITTING NON-PLAYOFF TEAMS – who moved vets to me for good “futures” pieces.
I see Eric’s proposal as:
• Favouring Jimmy’s team as he’s largely consolidated his PRO team base and he won’t have to worry about competitors stockpiling depth to compete against him;
• Drastically hurting trading activity, as a substantial number of players will lose value – you’ll kill the “playoff rental” trades altogether;
• Hurting non-playoff teams, by taking away their ability to sell vets for good prices; and
• Doing very little to improve league parity, as the players that end up on waivers for this proposal will be the most marginal of those possible. Teams always adapt by minimizing what they lose for nothing.
I couldn’t agree more that Will’s team, in particular, deserves a bump…based on what he was forced to start with. And I suggest that instead of giving him a choice of scrubs to choose from (i.e. a devalued Eric Staal, and other players he already traded away)…what would really help him is by getting players that are on EXISTING PRO ROSTERS…..i.e., assets that actually have some value.
And a very easy way to do that is to design a small system that props him up by giving him a few decent assets from teams that have folded. I have seen this work in three other leagues I’m in and it works just fine.
And if there is a concern beyond Will’s team, then a much better solution is to design a waiver draft where teams lose players from their PRO ROSTER – ie players we felt were good enough to play in the regular season….as opposed to our scrubs.
Eric’s proposing is just trying to force parity by micromanaging to the Nth degree. And it will just result in less trading, less engagement, and do next to nothing to help the bottom teams rebuild in a meaningful way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 20:19:24 GMT -5
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
If I apply the lose 'em or lose 'em concept to Buffalo Sabres, we can see he has alot to lose:
BUFFALO SABRES
Jokinen, Jussi C,W - FLA
McGinn, Jamie W - BUF/ANA
Staal, Eric C,W - CAR/NYR
Gorges, Josh D - BUF
Bouwmeester, Jay D - STL
Gunnarsson, Carl D - STL
If we did implement a new rule this summer, Sabres would need the most tags to protect at least two. I think Dave (commish) even suggested a rule of can't lose more than three.
So Sabres protects two, four are released to waivers, but only three can be selected. The last would go back onto Sabres roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 20:38:18 GMT -5
I agree with everything that Jimmy and Buffalo are saying and that's why I've been against of Eric suggesting. I feel it simply destroy any value vets have. I've been in soo many league and every time one is in their 30's they are all ready hard to sell at a good price but then you put tis rule into affect is simply destroy any value left for a player like Eric Staal, Lecavalier, Zetterberg, Doan.... What does this rule change really does to this league ? 1) it will bring up the activity waiver wise 2) Diminish the value of Vets 3) bring up the value of picks and prospect threw the roof 3) will give even bigger value to the young stud like Max Domi who are still waiver exempt, young and very effective 4) Will inflate the value of waiver picks 5) Will get rid of the tanking notion that Eric was talking about you could simply stash a Max Pac in the minor for a MIke Richard and still make gp and optimize your draft slot 6) NOne playoff team will need to be better drafter 7) it will lower the trade activity since no one will want to give away their vets since their value is lower then dirt. All in all I see both merit of this rule changing but will this really balance the league and give the parity we've been searching? Not quite sure since this move doesn't really hurt a team like Kelowna but will really hurt a team like Buffalo that almost beat Kelowna. So this rule simply give a better shot at Kelowna repeating for a third time next year. Is this answer for parity ? NOpe but if we tweak it enough we might be able to do find a compromise that does give everyone a fighting chance. One thing that I hate about not being able to decide who to dress from the get go is that I can't take a chance on a guy like Dano over Hansen because one is waiver exempt and the other is not. But the way it is now you could take that chance and dress the way you wanted without tanking on purpose like Eric mention. Again that will force everyone to change their strategy and playing a simpler game which might bored more gm and diminish the activity within the pool.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 21:00:00 GMT -5
Lots of dooms day predictions: maybe I should get a crystal ball?
Here's a fact (no guessing). These players would have been released to the weaker teams to pick from in the waiver draft had this rule been in place this season (unless we did some protection tags):
Player - Team
Letestu, Mark C - EDM ABBOTSFORD SLASHERS
Schlemko, David D - NJ ABBOTSFORD SLASHERS
Thorburn, Chris W - WPG ABBOTSFORD SLASHERS
Schenn, Luke D - PHI/LA BARRIE COLTS
Ward, Cam G - BELFAST GIANTS
Burrows, Alexandre W - VAN BELFAST GIANTS
Fiddler, Vernon C,W - DAL BELFAST GIANTS
Jokinen, Jussi C,W - FLA BUFFALO SABRES
McGinn, Jamie W - BUF/ANA BUFFALO SABRES
Staal, Eric C,W - CAR/NYR BUFFALO SABRES
Gorges, Josh D - BUF BUFFALO SABRES
Bouwmeester, Jay D - STL BUFFALO SABRES
Gunnarsson, Carl D - STL BUFFALO SABRES
Lander, Anton C - EDM EDMONTON OILERS
Richards, Brad C,W - DET HELSINKI JOKERIT
Backlund, Mikael C - CGY KELOWNA ROCKETS
Brodziak, Kyle C - STL KELOWNA ROCKETS
Kulemin, Nikolay W - NYI PORTLAND WINTERHAWKS
Hainsey, Ron D - CAR QUEBEC DRAVEURS
Helm, Darren C,W - DET QUEBEC DRAVEURS
Here is my crystal ball predictions (join the club) if we are at the trade deadline next year with these assets on the bubble:
If I am a playoff team with these mentioned assets - decide whether to keep my asset for the playoffs and then lose him for nothing in the off-season. Or trade the player for something at the trade deadline. But then again, why trade for something if I want to win the cup? Sounds similar to NHL....but why would we want to be like NHL 
If I am a non-playoff team with these mentioned assets - decide If will put the asset on my starting roster to keep him. Or, I can trade him at the deadline. As trades are waiver free, the team getting this asset can decide whether to play him or not.
Overall it seems like more strategy to me, but I guess according to Frank - this would get boring ?? lol like we are talking about 20 players here. Its just a little bit to trim the fat off the rich. We aren't re-shaping the whole league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 21:22:20 GMT -5
Lots of dooms day predictions: maybe I should get a crystal ball?
Here's a fact (no guessing). These players would have been released to the weaker teams to pick from in the waiver draft had this rule been in place this season (unless we did some protection tags):
Player - Team
Letestu, Mark C - EDM ABBOTSFORD SLASHERS
Schlemko, David D - NJ ABBOTSFORD SLASHERS
Thorburn, Chris W - WPG ABBOTSFORD SLASHERS
Schenn, Luke D - PHI/LA BARRIE COLTS
Ward, Cam G - BELFAST GIANTS
Burrows, Alexandre W - VAN BELFAST GIANTS
Fiddler, Vernon C,W - DAL BELFAST GIANTS
Jokinen, Jussi C,W - FLA BUFFALO SABRES
McGinn, Jamie W - BUF/ANA BUFFALO SABRES
Staal, Eric C,W - CAR/NYR BUFFALO SABRES
Gorges, Josh D - BUF BUFFALO SABRES
Bouwmeester, Jay D - STL BUFFALO SABRES
Gunnarsson, Carl D - STL BUFFALO SABRES
Lander, Anton C - EDM EDMONTON OILERS
Richards, Brad C,W - DET HELSINKI JOKERIT
Backlund, Mikael C - CGY KELOWNA ROCKETS
Brodziak, Kyle C - STL KELOWNA ROCKETS
Kulemin, Nikolay W - NYI PORTLAND WINTERHAWKS
Hainsey, Ron D - CAR QUEBEC DRAVEURS
Helm, Darren C,W - DET QUEBEC DRAVEURS
Here is my crystal ball predictions (join the club) if we are at the trade deadline next year with these assets on the bubble:
If I am a playoff team with these mentioned assets - decide whether to keep my asset for the playoffs and then lose him for nothing in the off-season. Or trade the player for something at the trade deadline. But then again, why trade for something if I want to win the cup? Sounds similar to NHL....but why would we want to be like NHL
If I am a non-playoff team with these mentioned assets - decide If will put the asset on my starting roster to keep him. Or, I can trade him at the deadline. As trades are waiver free, the team getting this asset can decide whether to play him or not.
Overall it seems like more strategy to me, but I guess according to Frank - this would get boring ?? lol like we are talking about 20 players here. Its just a little bit to trim the fat off the rich. We aren't re-shaping the whole league.
Either way this wouldn't take affect until 2017-18 at the earliest to give Buffalo and others a chance to get the most out of their nhler. ALso you can't tell me that by making this move that it won't change the value to those vets even at the trade deadline. Yes we might be similar to nhl by making teams trade for assets they know they will lose at the end of the playoff run but it lower their value and you can't argue me there. This topic as been good for the league but will this change be ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 21:40:24 GMT -5
I don't know Frank. I just suggest one idea. If most do not like it then we don't do it. Maybe someone will try for another unique idea?? I don't know. I don't want guys like Buffalo to lose alot of player, but also I don't like vets to rot on the minor when some teams have barely enough for a full roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Apr 18, 2016 7:33:52 GMT -5
I've been back and forth with this whole issue after reading everyone's comments, but really, the rules have been in place from the beginning and every GM has had the same opportunity to build up their minor league system, and also should be aware of who they are trading with and what players they already have in their system.
There are always going to be teams that do well, and teams that don't, just like in the real NHL.
I don't give up and quit just because I don't win (or even make the playoffs) I just plug away and see if I can make improvements to move up.
I think I would rather have people quit who haven't been active in trying to improve, than have good, long time GMs that really are trying to get better, quit.
I am in other leagues that have lots of good players in the minors.
Just my 2 cents.
(As I stated earlier, if there is overwhelming voting to make changes, we definitely need to ease into it)
|
|
