2nd Vote - Stashing NHLers in the minors

[Deleted]

May 4, 2016 13:50:58 GMT -5 Tbone (Kelowna) said:

Then why not add a 'No Change' option to this poll - so it is clear who may be against any changes for this specific one. All you have here are options for change (when none may be the best option) - that should be in there to allow for all considerations to be taken into account.

Functionality of the ProBoards website does not allow for polls to be editted. We'd have to delete and start over again.

Like I said, I added a comment in the intro post saying you don't have to vote if you don't want to. Just leave a comment saying you didn't vote so at least we all know you visited this thread and considered it.

[Tbone (Kelowna)]

This poll barely started with minimum votes thus far, time to change is now - so just create a new poll and close this thread. Perhaps gauge the community a bit first to see if other options should be considered that may have been missed.

I would suggest that before creating polls - particularly for some of the more complicated ones like this one - that you lay out the poll options specifically before hand so all can have discussion around it and request addition items to be added/changed/clarified before officially posting the poll for voting. That should alleviate some of these 'cannot change' and missing ideas issues we've seen countless times already.

[Deleted]

Alright Jimmy now you're just spamming.

If your not interested in voting, that's fine. But stop making this poll all about you.

We all know you don't like it. Fine. Get on to others things. Let those who actually are interested in these ideas make thier comments.

[Vancouver Canucks]

Jimmy makes some valid points. Quite a few times in the past a poll is introduced but not much consideration has been given in the options.

Keeping status quo should always be an option

[Deleted]

The poll choices were taken from the previous discussion. Not my personal opinion.

The option for status quo is given in the introduction post.

Please keep on topic guys.

[Deleted]

If this poll is not about league parity, then what the hell is the point of it?

I certainly agree we haven't even come close to addressing solutions to league parity, if that's the major concern. Restricting NHL'ers in the minors is one option of many, and not even close to the best one if parity is the issue.

[Deleted]

Agree with Matt and Sabres mostly. I still believe that there is no easy fix or short term fix here to league parity

[Deleted]

I don't know where to post that but all I know is I would be a lot more active from october to february if stacking vets in the minors was not possible. It's been 2 off seasons where I made all my trades for my starting line ups and depths in case of injuries. All I have to do all season long is sit, watch and relax until trade deadline as I have enough options in case of multiple injuries. Let's just say it makes things pretty boring. This is not a valid excuse to why I've been this inactive the last season but for me it was the reason why.

Lets just say if at the beginning of the season I could only have 3 fwds and 2 dmen with 200+(or any numbers that makes sense) games played in the NHL on my farm team, I would have try a lot more to attempt trades to keep a valid lineup in case of multiple injuries

Yeah sure most of those players won't really help weaker teams to get better. I don't think it would help the league parity at all. I'm trying to bring a new angle to this argument: it would help to keep the league active during all year instead of 2-3 months.

[Deleted]

Also while am it I'll give you an another exemple with my point above about activity. I know it has nothing to do with the stashing nhlers in the minors but whatever. Last season my number one goalie got injured in november I believe and was expected to be back in march. You would think with a team like mine projected to be a pretty good one I'll try to trade for a goalie. NOPE. Why? First off, the asking price for a starting goalie in this league is crazy. Why would I trade for one when my goalie was expected to be back for the 1st rnd of our playoffs. I just sit and watch my team winning enough skaters category week after week to make the playoffs. Anyway, it's not like the last 2 seasons there was a real advantage to finish in the top of the standings with jimmy waiting to eat all of us alive haha. Might just do just enough to make the playoffs and you never know what can happen in a particuliar week.

Here comes my point: add a rule where you have to have a minimum goalies minutes played. Lets just say there was a penalty of losing your 1st rnd pick and cannot participate in playoffs if you don't meet the minimum goalie minutes, you can be sure I would overpay for a fricking goalie.

It's just an another exemple to add to my point with the NHLers in the minors: lets find a way to make the regular season more challenging and not just coast through it

[Deleted]

Great point.

So instead of trying to improve your regular season team after your starter was injured, you purposely did a "mini-tank" for the remainder of the season due to the way the rules are set up on goalies gp limits and ability of other GM's to stash available goalies in their minors as they wait for an overpayment.

It worked because you got a better draft pick and you still made the playoffs.

This is a great example of why we need to make a change. Thanks for sharing this QUE GM. Most thoughtful post so far.

[Deleted]

May 5, 2016 2:14:42 GMT -5 @icon said:

Also while am it I'll give you an another exemple with my point above about activity. I know it has nothing to do with the stashing nhlers in the minors but whatever. Last season my number one goalie got injured in november I believe and was expected to be back in march. You would think with a team like mine projected to be a pretty good one I'll try to trade for a goalie. NOPE. Why? First off, the asking price for a starting goalie in this league is crazy. Why would I trade for one when my goalie was expected to be back for the 1st rnd of our playoffs. I just sit and watch my team winning enough skaters category week after week to make the playoffs. Anyway, it's not like the last 2 seasons there was a real advantage to finish in the top of the standings with jimmy waiting to eat all of us alive haha. Might just do just enough to make the playoffs and you never know what can happen in a particuliar week.

Here comes my point: add a rule where you have to have a minimum goalies minutes played. Lets just say there was a penalty of losing your 1st rnd pick and cannot participate in playoffs if you don't meet the minimum goalie minutes, you can be sure I would overpay for a fricking goalie.

It's just an another exemple to add to my point with the NHLers in the minors: lets find a way to make the regular season more challenging and not just coast through it

So you just said that the asking price for a starting goalie is crazy and then you suggest there being a minimum goalie minutes played?  I was left with know starting goalie and bc of that I should lose my 1st round pick on top of it.  I might as well quit now

[Deleted]

There would be a compromise.

For example, Stashing starting goalies would be penalized as well. Making for a mutually beneficial trade.

[Deleted]

May 5, 2016 19:11:36 GMT -5 @eric said:

There would be a compromise.

For example, Stashing starting goalies would be penalized as well. Making for a mutually beneficial trade.

If the following option wins: Limited number of veterans in the minors

Wouldn't a vet goalie like Miller count as one of limited veterans that would be exempt from waiver at the beg of the year ? If so your point is moot at best. Why would I keep a guy like Kulemin over a guy like Lack ? If I need to choose between them, then I'll take the one that hold the most value. You can't start creating multiple rules and destroying everything we built just because some of us are simply in a bad position.

[Golden Seals]

May 5, 2016 19:52:18 GMT -5 @thenudge said:

May 5, 2016 19:11:36 GMT -5 @eric said:

There would be a compromise.

For example, Stashing starting goalies would be penalized as well. Making for a mutually beneficial trade.

If the following option wins: Limited number of veterans in the minors

Wouldn't a vet goalie like Miller count as one of limited veterans that would be exempt from waiver at the beg of the year ? If so your point is moot at best. Why would I keep a guy like Kulemin over a guy like Lack ? If I need to choose between them, then I'll take the one that hold the most value. You can't start creating multiple rules and destroying everything we built just because some of us are simply in a bad position.

If your decision came down to keeping either lack or kulemin as your limited number of vets in the minors, I'd assume that your team is in pretty good shape.

I'm coming into this thread late but if we allowed, say 5 vets to be in minors your 6th vet is surely useless to you.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2016 21:01:06 GMT -5 @will said:

Agree with Matt and Sabres mostly. I still believe that there is no easy fix or short term fix here to league parity

Funny, I asked a number of questions about league parity in the other thread, which nobody answered or addressed. Most of the polls going on have nothing to do with this and are just disguised attempts to push personal preferences or team-specific agendas.

If league parity was truly as issue, then I see the logical questions to ask, to start a discussion, are being:

1. Are we concerned about one team (Richmond), or a number of teams?
2. Is there a need for a short-term, one year fix?
3. Or is there a need to build in a long-term, year-after-year solution.

If parity is an issue, it's not a question of moving veteran scrubs from the minors to weaker teams. It's a matter of designing a system where assets with real value move hands (i.e. can only protect x players from active roster each year), yadda yadda.

And if there is a move to limit vets in the minors, just for the sake of doing it and no other rationale...it's stupid IMO. It will kill trades. And it would have to be slowly implemented over time to allow teams like mine to undue two years worth of trades (which, by the way, helped lower teams with rebuilds).

I just don' understand the obsession in here to micro-manage every aspect of this league. Especially given that league parity has greatly improved this year. Teams are more competitive against Jimmy, and we actually have solid managers doing rebuilds (which is fine).

That said, I still think the league owes Richmond...since it was the league that let that team go to complete crap.