Waiver draft

Predsgm · Guru

RE: Waiver draft

Calgary GM · Senior Member

Thanks Dave, finally someone sees it the way I see it.

Obviously, my team has sucked the last two years and I've had a lot of picks the last couple of years as well. But, that's the way I decided to build my team and, in my opinion, the draft is the way to do it properly. So, no, I don't think anyone should be punished for having a lot of picks and a lot of depth (but obviously I'm going to say that now right?). It's been a slow process for me but that's the way I chose to rebuild my team and now I'm starting to see the fruits of my labor (and patience) pay off.

And, just a note to the guys complaining about this, here's an idea. How about you try keeping your picks and building a team with some depth? Don't give them away like candy on Halloween. But, again, if that's the way you want to build your team, that's fine, that's your choice. But, don't complain when you're forced to sign "plugs" to fill your farm roster during free agency.

Rumpy · Senior Member

Really though do you have more than 25 "good" prospects on the farm? Having to cut/trade those 10 no namers won't really hurt.

Nucks · Veteran Member

I traded for all of these picks and prospects, why should I be forced to trade any of them if I don't want to, and on top of that if other GM's know I have to make trades to get under a certain limit it will automatically hurt there value. If someone needs players for there farm they are more then welcome to come talk trade with me, and I certainly have no problem trading a few of the "no namers" or guys that are just AHL scrubs, but really you never know when one of those no namers is going to develop into something, ya it doesn't happen very often but it happens.

HOTLANTA · Guru

as a guy who this does affect I agree with trying to follow the NHL.. i think since it is a sim league tho could be expanded a bit..

With the NHL having a 50 pro contract limit i think it would be a good idea for our league aswell. I think another addition should also though be 50 contracts on guys 20 +.. then if a team is in rebuild they dont get hurt when guy's like a R.Gudas or someone go directly to AHL and end up putting them over then 50contract limit..

I think the closer and closer we can mirror the NHL is a good thing as it creates challenges for even the good g.m's in their ability to build a great team..

With a cap of 50 contracts per team it would have ensured Me-Clg-Van (not sure if many others) wouldnt have entered free agency at all (in theory your rebuilding team's probably wouldnt have been signing souray's right?) and those asset's would have then been on the market for other teams.. also a 50 contract limit would keep teams like Philly from running up UFA bids on useless AHL vet's as he would proabably run into a 50 contract limit situation..

Yes it would make it tough for teams like myself to get rid of some of our bottom end assets.. but would also inject some of that small pool of players into some team's that look to have a very very bad situation coming in the next 2-3 years...

I think it would be a pro-active move by the league instead of making a reactive one in a year or two...

Rumpy · Senior Member

HOTLANTA wrote:
as a guy who this does affect I agree with trying to follow the NHL.. i think since it is a sim league tho could be expanded a bit..

With the NHL having a 50 pro contract limit i think it would be a good idea for our league aswell. I think another addition should also though be 50 contracts on guys 20 +.. then if a team is in rebuild they dont get hurt when guy's like a R.Gudas or someone go directly to AHL and end up putting them over then 50contract limit..

I think the closer and closer we can mirror the NHL is a good thing as it creates challenges for even the good g.m's in their ability to build a great team..

With a cap of 50 contracts per team it would have ensured Me-Clg-Van (not sure if many others) wouldnt have entered free agency at all (in theory your rebuilding team's probably wouldnt have been signing souray's right?) and those asset's would have then been on the market for other teams.. also a 50 contract limit would keep teams like Philly from running up UFA bids on useless AHL vet's as he would proabably run into a 50 contract limit situation..

Yes it would make it tough for teams like myself to get rid of some of our bottom end assets.. but would also inject some of that small pool of players into some team's that look to have a very very bad situation coming in the next 2-3 years...

I think it would be a pro-active move by the league instead of making a reactive one in a year or two...

Wow I did not expect that response from you! Even though as I mentioned before really those 7th round picks and AHL plugs rarely amount to anything.

The waiver draft rules do keep teams from hoarding talent but as Kirk has shown in the past you can work around any rule. If a team is getting close to the 50 player limit you simply trade 2 of those plugs for one or a pick or cash or etc.....

I'll be honest the only reason I'd like to see this rule is so that I don't have to hear about how good Tyson Sexsmith is next year because there is no way he makes the 50 man roster haha. But in all seriousness it would prevent some teams from running up bids in UFA's and maybe keep some guys on a unassigned list instead of having to resort to farm goalie 12 or defenseman 6 when injuries occur.

Wolves GM · Senior Member

having to resort to farm goalie 12 or defenseman 6 when injuries occur.

Dammit! Farm goalie 12 was my best player last year

Rumpy · Senior Member

Nucks wrote:
I traded for all of these picks and prospects, why should I be forced to trade any of them if I don't want to, and on top of that if other GM's know I have to make trades to get under a certain limit it will automatically hurt there value. If someone needs players for there farm they are more then welcome to come talk trade with me, and I certainly have no problem trading a few of the "no namers" or guys that are just AHL scrubs, but really you never know when one of those no namers is going to develop into something, ya it doesn't happen very often but it happens.

While I agree with what you are saying that you drafted and scouted well and should be rewarded. 50 players is a lot. Trading a package of 4rth line prospects for a 3rd line prospect or simply letting them go isn't the worst thing that could happen. It happens in the NHL you can't sign and retain every pick ......

As a Bruins fan I fully remember the Kyle Wanvig debacle and that stupid fax machine haha.

Rumpy · Senior Member

Wolves GM wrote:
having to resort to farm goalie 12 or defenseman 6 when injuries occur.
Dammit! Farm goalie 12 was my best player last year

If only Kirk didn't hoard Tyson Sexsmith imagine where the Norfolk Admirals could be today :)

HOTLANTA · Guru

HOTLANTA wrote:
so in theory if S.Belle, L.Reddox, T.Chorney get claimed in waiver draft i can send down Modano (1.35), Nichol (900k), Rome (500k), Peckham (1.1), Corvo (1.3) Voracek (925k), Macarthur (657k), C.Wilson (975k), D.Moore (958K) to the farm throughout the season?

seems like a whacky rule to me..

-- Edited by HOTLANTA on Tuesday 25th of October 2011 04:06:27 PM

sorry M.Flood, A.Rome, L.Reddox were claimed. so got to stash, Modano, Grier, Nichol, Desbiens, Van De velde, Chorney, Glass, Maholtra, C.Sanford in minors instead..

still seems like a whacky rule we need to close up..

Calgary GM · Senior Member

HOTLANTA wrote:
HOTLANTA wrote:
so in theory if S.Belle, L.Reddox, T.Chorney get claimed in waiver draft i can send down Modano (1.35), Nichol (900k), Rome (500k), Peckham (1.1), Corvo (1.3) Voracek (925k), Macarthur (657k), C.Wilson (975k), D.Moore (958K) to the farm throughout the season?

seems like a whacky rule to me..

-- Edited by HOTLANTA on Tuesday 25th of October 2011 04:06:27 PM

sorry M.Flood, A.Rome, L.Reddox were claimed. so got to stash, Modano, Grier, Nichol, Desbiens, Van De velde, Chorney, Glass, Maholtra, C.Sanford in minors instead..

still seems like a whacky rule we need to close up..

Yeah, that's a crock. Basically defeats the purpose of a waiver draft in the first place.

Hawks GM 2 · Senior Member

It sort of depends though.... like I have *no* idea why Kirk demoted some of the guys that he did (mind you half the time I can't figure out what Kirk is doing)...

The reason I demoted Hornqvist and Emery is because the way I looked at it, I just lost three decent assets in the waiver draft (Brown, Foster and Petersen), but because of that loss of assets, the rule now gives me the ability to demote a couple of bench warmers without otherwise having to subject them to waivers. It clears up a couple of roster spots for me and gives me a little cap relief. I still have 21 players on my main roster, and ratings wise, I still have my best players on my main squad.

Did I *have* to demote those guys? No. I still would have been cap and roster limit compliant. But, this rule gave my team a little maneuvering room that I otherwise wouldn't have had. It's a trade-off for having a deep roster and having to lose assets IMO.

Anaheim GM · Guru

You should not be able to demote players simply because you had 3 guys selected. They should still have to clear waivers the normal way.

Trevor - Blues · Veteran Member

Anaheim GM wrote:
You should not be able to demote players simply because you had 3 guys selected. They should still have to clear waivers the normal way.

+1

Also like 50 man roster limit too (pro and farm). Prospect list can be as big as it wants but players need to be signed before a certain age.

RWCordell · Senior Member

Trevor - Blues wrote:
Anaheim GM wrote:
You should not be able to demote players simply because you had 3 guys selected. They should still have to clear waivers the normal way.

+1

Also like 50 man roster limit too (pro and farm). Prospect list can be as big as it wants but players need to be signed before a certain age.

+2