Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2015 12:25:30 GMT -5
I really loved Buffalo's idea for a mid-season supplemental waiver draft, so here's just a couple wrinkles I thought of to get the ball rolling:
- 1 round only, to be held in early January.
- make the picks untradeable.
Everyone shows up and puts in their selection. The league will certainly dip in and out of periods of activity, so this may be a good little spark when everyone is kind of on auto-pilot.
If you want to make a deal right after you pick, or work out a deal in advance for a specific player, by all means.
- players must be at least 5 years older than the entry draft eligible players (so 1997 for 2015 entry draft = 1992 or earlier for supplemental).
This forces GMs to pick players more for immediate/near future need rather than try and stash an obvious gem who was passed over in the entry draft. This would help preserve some value for the subsequent full waiver draft.
- teams can skip their turn in exchange for 1 free-waiver pass to be used during that lock-in period. (not sure if I even agree with this idea, just throwing it out there for discussion).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 9:15:47 GMT -5
Lots of ideas up there, I'll throw some more out just for fun.
- I think the all-star break would be great timing for a one round draft. It's half way through the season and there are three days where there is no real hockey. That week is always slow, fantasy wise and a one round draft could really liven things up.
- I don't think I like the idea of restricting the players that can be picked; every team should do what's best for their team. I"m not worried about diluting the quality of the Sept draft because there are a lot of huge swings in the standings anyways. Also, there is a reason that some "help now" guys are on the wire - many aren't useful in our format.
- Lastly, I think it might be interesting to set the January draft order by the final standings of the previous year. That would avoid any mid-season tanking or jockeying for a specific pick.
I'll vote for pretty much anything that increases activity in this league, or makes the bench more useful...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Nov 7, 2015 11:21:25 GMT -5
I'm not against the idea, but we do already see GMs not caring about making picks in the Summer waiver draft. I don't think not having enough players is a big problem in this league and the quality players available are mostly going to be the younger prospects that don't have an impact on the second half of the season. I thought the 5 years older idea was interesting, but the majority of players taken will have less impact then guys already in the minors.
Seems like lately there has been some negativity surrounding NHLers buried in the minors, but this is inevitable. We are a 24 team league so there will always be more NHL players then we are able to dress so I don't understand why people are concerned with something that is unavoidable. If we were a 30 team league then having lots of buried NHLers would be a huge issue since teams wouldn't be able to dress a full team, but no one in our league is struggling to get GP and we have the waiver draft if you need to add more NHLers and there are always players available cheap via trade.
I don't see any solution to not having NHLers in the minors since if we make it so they need to clear waivers then so many teams are going to hit waivers and then to claim them other teams will need to waive guys to make room. It would increase player movement since so many players will always be on waivers, but like Jimmy pointed out it takes away player value from the depth players since you will know that those types of players are often available on waivers.
As long as we are a 24 team league NHL players in the minors is going to be common, if we were to make a small change to facilitate player movement then something like not allowing for traded players to be put in the minors without clearing waivers would be a start. It also might reduce trading though so I don't know if it would be much of an improvement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 11:42:48 GMT -5
Given that most changes are delayed by at least a year, I hope more people chime in re: potential for a mid-year, one round draft. With respect to a few teams not using the waiver draft effectively, in my view this seems to be limited to a handful of teams, and largely to rounds 3 and 4. I think the first few rounds get pretty solid participation.
With respect to the other issue you raise: yes, we are a 24 team league and the NHL has 30 teams. There will always be "extras". But I find two flaws to this argument.
1) There are 20% more teams in the NHL than IFFHL. But our minors don't restrict 20% of the spots to accommodate this. Technically, I could have 50 NHL'er in my minors. Right now almost half of my minor leauge has NHL experience. I care about this because of league parity. I don't think it's helpful if a really good team is burying 25 nhl'ers while another team is having problems filling out a line up. (And by really good team, I obviously am not referring to myself, haha).
2) The NHL has fixed the loophole with respect to burying players in the minors to save cap. The IFFHL has not. It would not be that hard to impose a separate salary cap for the minor leagues to adjust for differences between NHL and IFFHL.
My personal beef with the minors is that there are no restrictions whatsoever on burying cap. I think others are more concerned about burying for the purposes of tanking - but I believe we've tried addressing that by noting GMs should be making an honest effort to dress their best line up. There will always be subtle tanking, but there is a "smell test" with the really obvious/blantant stuff...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Nov 7, 2015 12:22:29 GMT -5
I still don't see the point in restricting how many NHLers can be in the minors or how much cap when there will always be 6X20=120 extra NHLers that we have available to us. I would be more concerned if teams were struggling with GP and no GMs were willing to trade depth players for cheap, but I don't think we have that issue.
Perhaps I am in the minority and most want restrictions on the minors, but what happens after we make these restrictions? Teams are forced to drop assets to be compliable and a larger amount of players become valueless since there is no longer the option to keep them in your minors.
As always I'm open to any changes and if there is a solid suggestion that is well laid out it can be put to a vote like all of our other big changes that have been made.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on Nov 7, 2015 12:31:06 GMT -5
I'm down for it even tho I traded every waiver pick I've had
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 12:44:37 GMT -5
I still don't see the point in restricting how many NHLers can be in the minors or how much cap when there will always be 6X20=120 extra NHLers that we have available to us. I would be more concerned if teams were struggling with GP and no GMs were willing to trade depth players for cheap, but I don't think we have that issue. Perhaps I am in the minority and most want restrictions on the minors, but what happens after we make these restrictions? Teams are forced to drop assets to be compliable and a larger amount of players become valueless since there is no longer the option to keep them in your minors. As always I'm open to any changes and if there is a solid suggestion that is well laid out it can be put to a vote like all of our other big changes that have been made.
Hypothetical question: if (insert two team names here) had 50 of these extra 120 NHL'ers each in their minors, and (insert one team name here) had the other 20, would that cause you concern?
The point of restricting (via cap or player numbers) is to force teams with extremely deep rosters to move players to weaker clubs, or risk losing them for nothing. It's true that some of these players are useless and will be dropped for nothing. But it's also true that some of these players will have some value, and will be traded to weaker clubs.
The point is to help with league parity. The current waiver system is useless for league parity given the free wavier period in the playoffs. In fact, I'm not even sure what the point of the current wavier system is...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 14:02:53 GMT -5
The point of restricting (via cap or player numbers) is to force teams with extremely deep rosters to move players to weaker clubs, or risk losing them for nothing. It's true that some of these players are useless and will be dropped for nothing. But it's also true that some of these players will have some value, and will be traded to weaker clubs. The point is to help with league parity. The current waiver system is useless for league parity given the free wavier period in the playoffs. In fact, I'm not even sure what the point of the current wavier system is... I think Kelowna's incredulous response to none of the weaker clubs claiming Yannick Weber when I waived him last week largely in line with your point here. He was right, we have an asset issue because I know for certain that Paul Martin could help improve someone in the league's defense corps. I cannot roster him unless Chara or Wideman go on LTIR and even then I'd have to think about it because I'd have to waive Martin the second either of them came back to play. So basically I have a top ~100-120 defenseman that is basically unusable to me and yet nobody has even offered me a scrub for him. If Martin has zero value in this league, I'm not sure we have the right structure. I thing one thing we could do for next year is apply the waiver price to minor league players (Salary-950K). Ex Brian Bickell or Andrew MacDonald. If I had to eat 3.9M of Martin's salary to bury him, I would be trading him in no time. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Nov 7, 2015 19:25:48 GMT -5
I still don't see the point in restricting how many NHLers can be in the minors or how much cap when there will always be 6X20=120 extra NHLers that we have available to us. I would be more concerned if teams were struggling with GP and no GMs were willing to trade depth players for cheap, but I don't think we have that issue. Perhaps I am in the minority and most want restrictions on the minors, but what happens after we make these restrictions? Teams are forced to drop assets to be compliable and a larger amount of players become valueless since there is no longer the option to keep them in your minors. As always I'm open to any changes and if there is a solid suggestion that is well laid out it can be put to a vote like all of our other big changes that have been made.
Hypothetical question: if (insert two team names here) had 50 of these extra 120 NHL'ers each in their minors, and (insert one team name here) had the other 20, would that cause you concern?
The point of restricting (via cap or player numbers) is to force teams with extremely deep rosters to move players to weaker clubs, or risk losing them for nothing. It's true that some of these players are useless and will be dropped for nothing. But it's also true that some of these players will have some value, and will be traded to weaker clubs.
The point is to help with league parity. The current waiver system is useless for league parity given the free wavier period in the playoffs. In fact, I'm not even sure what the point of the current wavier system is...
Yes in your hypothetical situation of 3 teams having 120 NHLers in their minors and weren't willing to trade then obviously a rule change would be needed, but I don't think we are anywhere near that situation. There's also nothing stopping weaker teams from trading for NHLers that other teams have in their minors right now, but there doesn't seem to be a desire to do so. I have 12 NHLers in my minors including solid D like Schenn and Grossmann and similar to the Martin situation I have had 0 offers and no one wants them. TO clarify I haven't made up my mind and I'm not against an extra round waiver draft or restricting minors, my issue is I don't know if there is really any advantage to it or if it will help parity. I could see it reducing the amount of trades and causing players to go from having little value to no value. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Nov 7, 2015 19:28:05 GMT -5
The point of restricting (via cap or player numbers) is to force teams with extremely deep rosters to move players to weaker clubs, or risk losing them for nothing. It's true that some of these players are useless and will be dropped for nothing. But it's also true that some of these players will have some value, and will be traded to weaker clubs. The point is to help with league parity. The current waiver system is useless for league parity given the free wavier period in the playoffs. In fact, I'm not even sure what the point of the current wavier system is... I think Kelowna's incredulous response to none of the weaker clubs claiming Yannick Weber when I waived him last week largely in line with your point here. He was right, we have an asset issue because I know for certain that Paul Martin could help improve someone in the league's defense corps. I cannot roster him unless Chara or Wideman go on LTIR and even then I'd have to think about it because I'd have to waive Martin the second either of them came back to play. So basically I have a top ~100-120 defenseman that is basically unusable to me and yet nobody has even offered me a scrub for him. If Martin has zero value in this league, I'm not sure we have the right structure. I thing one thing we could do for next year is apply the waiver price to minor league players (Salary-950K). Ex Brian Bickell or Andrew MacDonald. If I had to eat 3.9M of Martin's salary to bury him, I would be trading him in no time. Who are you going to trade Martin to though? You made the point yourself that he doesn't have value right now so if you were penalized with a cap hit for having him in your minors you might end up dropping him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 19:37:40 GMT -5
I think Kelowna's incredulous response to none of the weaker clubs claiming Yannick Weber when I waived him last week largely in line with your point here. He was right, we have an asset issue because I know for certain that Paul Martin could help improve someone in the league's defense corps. I cannot roster him unless Chara or Wideman go on LTIR and even then I'd have to think about it because I'd have to waive Martin the second either of them came back to play. So basically I have a top ~100-120 defenseman that is basically unusable to me and yet nobody has even offered me a scrub for him. If Martin has zero value in this league, I'm not sure we have the right structure. I thing one thing we could do for next year is apply the waiver price to minor league players (Salary-950K). Ex Brian Bickell or Andrew MacDonald. If I had to eat 3.9M of Martin's salary to bury him, I would be trading him in no time. Who are you going to trade Martin to though? You made the point yourself that he doesn't have value right now so if you were penalized with a cap hit for having him in your minors you might end up dropping him. He has value, just not to me. If more players end up on waivers in-season, all the better. I'm OK with that scenario also. I think we have the worst of all worlds where top 4 D-men/top 6 forwards/NHL goalie sit in limbo in the "minors" at the same time they are basically removed from consideration because there is no marginal cost to having this depth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 19:50:39 GMT -5
Yes in your hypothetical situation of 3 teams having 120 NHLers in their minors and weren't willing to trade then obviously a rule change would be needed, but I don't think we are anywhere near that situation. There's also nothing stopping weaker teams from trading for NHLers that other teams have in their minors right now, but there doesn't seem to be a desire to do so. I have 12 NHLers in my minors including solid D like Schenn and Grossmann and similar to the Martin situation I have had 0 offers and no one wants them. TO clarify I haven't made up my mind and I'm not against an extra round waiver draft or restricting minors, my issue is I don't know if there is really any advantage to it or if it will help parity. I could see it reducing the amount of trades and causing players to go from having little value to no value. To your point in bold, I disagree. I think there's a very clear force stopping weaker teams from trading for mid-tier/overpriced NHLers like Martin and Schenn: how does it help them? By definition, they are weak teams, so adding a Luke Schenn doesn't make them less weak. So if they offered you a really poor player in return, why would you take it? Having insurance incase one of your active players get hurt is worth more than some C level prospect or 5th round pick. This is market failure. There is no incentive for either side in this situation to act. Our minor leagues are basically free storage. Personally, I think this puts a major chill on trading because nether side is compelled to do anything. I like Buffalo's idea of a cap for minors or simply copying what the NHL does in real life and only give a 950,000 break on buried salaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Nov 7, 2015 20:09:35 GMT -5
Yes in your hypothetical situation of 3 teams having 120 NHLers in their minors and weren't willing to trade then obviously a rule change would be needed, but I don't think we are anywhere near that situation. There's also nothing stopping weaker teams from trading for NHLers that other teams have in their minors right now, but there doesn't seem to be a desire to do so. I have 12 NHLers in my minors including solid D like Schenn and Grossmann and similar to the Martin situation I have had 0 offers and no one wants them. TO clarify I haven't made up my mind and I'm not against an extra round waiver draft or restricting minors, my issue is I don't know if there is really any advantage to it or if it will help parity. I could see it reducing the amount of trades and causing players to go from having little value to no value. To your point in bold, I disagree. I think there's a very clear force stopping weaker teams from trading for mid-tier/overpriced NHLers like Martin and Schenn: how does it help them? By definition, they are weak teams, so adding a Luke Schenn doesn't make them less weak. So if they offered you a really poor player in return, why would you take it? Having insurance incase one of your active players get hurt is worth more than some C level prospect or 5th round pick. This is market failure. There is no incentive for either side in this situation to act. Our minor leagues are basically free storage. Personally, I think this puts a major chill on trading because nether side is compelled to do anything. I like Buffalo's idea of a cap for minors or simply copying what the NHL does in real life and only give a 950,000 break on buried salaries. If it's voted on and that's what the league wants that's fine with me, but I still don't see it solving anything. Like you said a weaker team doesn't want to pay for a Schenn or a Martin so how will it increase trades by making these players have less value with penalties for keeping them in the minors? Personally I think we will just see a bunch of players get dropped if we make minor league NHL guys have cap hits and I'm not sure how that makes the league any better. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Nov 7, 2015 21:51:21 GMT -5
You can't lead a dying man to water. You can create all the oasis's you want, but they will just dry
up unused if not taken advantage of.
Though not really that opposed to some sort of cap on the minors - as do think that we should all strive to ice the best rosters we can and make use of as many higher end assets as we can, do recognize that there will always be those overpriced, undesirable assets - blame the NHL GMs for that - that will be difficult for most teams to justify dressing on their starting rosters.
But that doesn't mean they have zero value, the playoff waiver free rule was specific created to give some of
these over-priced fringe assets some value. These buried players may have seemingly little to no value at this point early in the season, but as the season progresses, as injuries come to fore, and as the playoffs approach, this extra depth will certainly increase in value. Look at the potential playoff matchups - who may have more starts in a given week, what your specific playoff opponent is, what positions are often injury prone. Having depth for a deep 4 week playoff run is a necessity and a key strategic advantage.
Every year as we approach the trade deadline, contenders stock up with depth and those out of the running stock up on picks, there is a natural rebalancing that happens as trades materialize for short term gains vs future rebuilds. See nothing wrong with this. This is market dynamics working as it should and both sides getting what they want. I gave up a 1st rounder for Markov and 3rd for Visnovsky at the trade deadline - two older and expiring/expired players that had limited value to non-contenders. A market was created for these players based on the ability to 'supposedly bury' this depth.
One may view this as a seeming parity issue. But I see it just as giving value to as many league assets as
possible. See many leagues have so many overpriced fringe assets rotting on the waiver wire.
One of the fun parts of our league is allowing GM's to build the teams as they choose. Choosing their own strategies. Finding value in assets where others find little. We all have our own unique views and visions, motivations for staying in our league, what we find fun and what we find fulfillment in.
Regarding the extra mid-season waiver round, full support for this. Drafting is one of the most fun aspects I find in our league, so the more the better. But don't think there should be limits as again we all have different things we value, so shouldn't be shaping that based on our own personal preferences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2015 9:33:10 GMT -5
If it's voted on and that's what the league wants that's fine with me, but I still don't see it solving anything. Like you said a weaker team doesn't want to pay for a Schenn or a Martin so how will it increase trades by making these players have less value with penalties for keeping them in the minors? Personally I think we will just see a bunch of players get dropped if we make minor league NHL guys have cap hits and I'm not sure how that makes the league any better. You're right, many players would be dropped, but that's only half of the equation. They would also be claimed or drafted from waivers, so in effect it would be a bulk transfer of assets to weaker clubs. I view it similarly to Buffalo from the parity perspective, so I see that as an unequivocal improvement. Especially in light of some mock trades and some quitting, are we sure there's a lot of happiness at the bottom right now? |
|
