|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Dec 21, 2011 8:12:00 GMT -5
Howdy, folks. As of right now there are few effective rules in place to keep GMs from purposefully tanking. (Myself included.)
1. Allowing 25 pro players means many talented players can be scratched. 2. Without a waiver draft talented players can be hidden on the farm.
Example: I can sign stars to multi-year contracts, scratch them, and build at the same time by tanking. I know the BRHL is more relaxed than the BRHL2 but the hunt for top draft picks doesn't have any repercussions at the moment.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Wade - Rangers on Dec 21, 2011 17:17:39 GMT -5
Well, one way some real leagues try to prevent purposely tanking teams is by imposing a minimum salary cap. Though goodness knows that's not a be all end all solution (it's easy enough to trade for people's overpriced players to make the cap and earn some draft picks in exchange for freeing up their salary cap space).
But that doesn't stop intentionally scratching talented players.
|
|
|
Post by Wade - Rangers on Dec 21, 2011 17:20:20 GMT -5
Though truth be told, I wouldn't mind a maximum-number-of-players-signed rule. *cough Vancouver's three farm teams worth cough"
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Dec 21, 2011 18:07:15 GMT -5
Though truth be told, I wouldn't mind a maximum-number-of-players-signed rule. *cough Vancouver's three farm teams worth cough" Fair enough, sir. However, it's not like I'm preventing other teams from doing the same thing. Look around the league and you'll find that many teams don't even bother with their farm club. We had a 50 player max in my two previous seasons but teams weren't following the rule and it wasn't being tracked. I'm signing free agents and paying the price for sitting them. I'm more concerned with the inconsistancies facing the pro rosters.
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 20, 2012 12:40:51 GMT -5
No offense to Rex as I am guilty of trying to get a top pick too but his Flyers are a perfect example of what is wrong with the BRHL's current system.
Rex is fighting for "top-tanker" in the league and to accomplish this he has since shipped both Mike Cammalleri (6.8 mil) and Jay Bouwmeester (7 mil) to the farm.
Obviously both would pass through waivers without trouble as most top contending teams would not be able to afford their salaries. I think it's good that both will still be making their full salaries but it basically means that GMs can sign to the cap every off-season and if the chemistry isn't there they can ship these overpaid players to the farm and tank for a pick instead.
Does anybody else think this kind of action should not be taking place?
|
|
|
Post by Rubber_Duck on Jan 20, 2012 17:26:46 GMT -5
No offense to Rex as I am guilty of trying to get a top pick too but his Flyers are a perfect example of what is wrong with the BRHL's current system. Rex is fighting for "top-tanker" in the league and to accomplish this he has since shipped both Mike Cammalleri (6.8 mil) and Jay Bouwmeester (7 mil) to the farm. Obviously both would pass through waivers without trouble as most top contending teams would not be able to afford their salaries. I think it's good that both will still be making their full salaries but it basically means that GMs can sign to the cap every off-season and if the chemistry isn't there they can ship these overpaid players to the farm and tank for a pick instead. Does anybody else think this kind of action should not be taking place? Believe me, I'm not happy with the actions of sending talented players to the farm for the purpose of tanking. However, Rex has not violated any rules right now through the use of a loophole. I also would welcome suggestions from the GMs in the league of preventing tanking and Jesse and I will discuss this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Wade - Rangers on Jan 20, 2012 17:39:55 GMT -5
It's also a strategy that not everyone can use. The way it supposedly balances out in our system is that it's really expensive to do so. I, for instance, don't have nearly enough cash in the bank to let any high-priced players sit in the minor leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Wade - Rangers on Jan 20, 2012 17:41:29 GMT -5
Hmm... wait, I see what you mean. Isn't any more expensive for him to have them sit in the minors, than it is to have them on his main squad.
|
|
|
Post by Wade - Rangers on Jan 20, 2012 17:42:30 GMT -5
The proper NHL gets around this by having a minimum salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by REX LEAK - PHILLY on Jan 20, 2012 18:59:31 GMT -5
Yeah I completely agree with you guys on this.
I just chose to send cammalleri and bouwmeester to the farm because their contracts were so high i was confident nobody would claim them, rather than scratching my top guys like some teams have done.
When new rules are put in place, I will adhere to any new rules that are implemented.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Rubber_Duck on Jan 20, 2012 20:53:05 GMT -5
This will be sorted out by the middle of next week, but if you want to get on the commishes good side, I suggest sorting out your rosters to what a competitive team would do.
Also, please keep comments about rival GMs to yourself or email me privately. It's what I'm here for.
|
|
|
Post by B-Hawks on Jan 20, 2012 23:10:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 21, 2012 0:35:26 GMT -5
For the record, I would like to repeat the very first posting of this thread: --------------- Howdy, folks. As of right now there are few effective rules in place to keep GMs from purposefully tanking. (Myself included.)
1. Allowing 25 pro players means many talented players can be scratched. 2. Without a waiver draft talented players can be hidden on the farm.
Example: I can sign stars to multi-year contracts, scratch them, and build at the same time by tanking. I know the BRHL is more relaxed than the BRHL2 but the hunt for top draft picks doesn't have any repercussions at the moment.
Any thoughts? -------------------- I just don't want anyone to think I'm picking on Rex alone. I raised this issue a while back and used myself as an example. Just hoping to balance out the BRHL much like the BRHL2 has managed to do.
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 21, 2012 7:47:35 GMT -5
1. "I just chose to send cammalleri and bouwmeester to the farm because their contracts were so high" 2. "When new rules are put in place, I will adhere to any new rules that are implemented." 1. They are not currently making their full salaries. Still need to have their contracts adjusted on the farm. 2. I agree 100% We are both working within the rules of the system. I too will adhere to any rule changes that may come into play. Cheers for discussing, everyone!
|
|
|
Post by Rubber_Duck on Jan 21, 2012 15:04:39 GMT -5
I'm thinking of a rule change of a maximum pro roster of 18-19 but if a player is injured or suspended, they do not count towards a roster spot. That would allow teams to call up players to replace those players.
Would this be satisfactory to all?
|
|
|
Post by B-Hawks on Jan 22, 2012 0:02:05 GMT -5
That's way too low.
You need 20 for a full roster (12 forwards, 6 d-men, 2 goalies)
I don't think there is any need to change it. Honestly, if he wants to sit 13 million in salary on the bench then so be it (note: on the bench, not the farm). His finances will regret it.
I don't really see it as any different then not signing players in the offseason when you have loads of cap room etc.
|
|
|
Post by Wade - Rangers on Jan 22, 2012 9:32:57 GMT -5
Which a minimum salary cap might dissuade.
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Jan 22, 2012 10:14:49 GMT -5
Cammalleri and Bouwmeester would request trades and wouldn't report to the AHL in real life. Maybe we should try to mimic this in BRHL?
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 23, 2012 8:54:04 GMT -5
I'm thinking of a rule change of a maximum pro roster of 18-19 but if a player is injured or suspended, they do not count towards a roster spot. That would allow teams to call up players to replace those players. Would this be satisfactory to all? Did you mean minimum pro roster would be set to 18-19 players? As of right now, the Flyers only have 12 players (zero goalies) set for their pro roster. So if you meant the rule change will ensure GMs dress a minimum, then I presonally think it's a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Rubber_Duck on Jan 23, 2012 19:28:14 GMT -5
I meant to say that 20 players would have to be on your roster at all times, as it would be 12 forwards, 6 defensemen and 2 goalies (or 11 forwards and 7 defensemen) playing.
You would not be able to have less than that on your roster, nor would you be allowed more unless a player was injured or suspended. That way you would not be allowed to scratch a high salaried player in order to tank.
So the minimum/maximum amount of players allowed on the pro roster would be 20.
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 23, 2012 22:40:41 GMT -5
I meant to say that 20 players would have to be on your roster at all times, as it would be 12 forwards, 6 defensemen and 2 goalies (or 11 forwards and 7 defensemen) playing. You would not be able to have less than that on your roster, nor would you be allowed more unless a player was injured or suspended. That way you would not be allowed to scratch a high salaried player in order to tank. So the minimum/maximum amount of players allowed on the pro roster would be 20. I don't have an issue with the BRHL2's 23-pro roster size because they use a waiver draft and it includes suspensions and injury space. A waiver draft would help this league greatly.
|
|
|
Post by Bruins GM on Jan 24, 2012 0:26:26 GMT -5
I meant to say that 20 players would have to be on your roster at all times, as it would be 12 forwards, 6 defensemen and 2 goalies (or 11 forwards and 7 defensemen) playing. You would not be able to have less than that on your roster, nor would you be allowed more unless a player was injured or suspended. That way you would not be allowed to scratch a high salaried player in order to tank. So the minimum/maximum amount of players allowed on the pro roster would be 20. I don't have an issue with the BRHL2's 23-pro roster size because they use a waiver draft and it includes suspensions and injury space. A waiver draft would help this league greatly. My experience is that a waiver draft only helps GMs who are active and pay attention. Typically, the teams who "have" just pick up cheap upgrades and cull unwanted assets. The teams that "need" likely won't even know the waiver draft is even going on and miss the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 24, 2012 7:44:17 GMT -5
I don't have an issue with the BRHL2's 23-pro roster size because they use a waiver draft and it includes suspensions and injury space. A waiver draft would help this league greatly. My experience is that a waiver draft only helps GMs who are active and pay attention. Typically, the teams who "have" just pick up cheap upgrades and cull unwanted assets. The teams that "need" likely won't even know the waiver draft is even going on and miss the opportunity. Okay... so basically, active GMs get rewarded. Even better!
|
|
|
Post by atlantagm on Jan 24, 2012 8:35:49 GMT -5
This may be my last post here because this league has become a joke. It seems like we've got a handful of active GM's and some of the active one's seem to like making a joke of the league by stashing high end NHL quality players on the farm or by trading recently signed UFA's. I'd say bring in some new GM's that have some integrity but, clearly, that's hard to do since we've just hired some new GM's but where the hell are they? Carolina? LA? Probably a couple more there too.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the last straw, if things don't start to improve here soon, you might as well find a new GM for the Jets.
|
|
|
Post by Wade - Rangers on Jan 24, 2012 12:38:56 GMT -5
I agree that saying 'I'm just gaming the system until we fix the system' is not in very good faith.
|
|
|
Post by Bruins GM on Jan 24, 2012 13:35:51 GMT -5
I agree that saying 'I'm just gaming the system until we fix the system' is not in very good faith. +1
|
|
|
Post by Bruins GM on Jan 24, 2012 13:36:43 GMT -5
My experience is that a waiver draft only helps GMs who are active and pay attention. Typically, the teams who "have" just pick up cheap upgrades and cull unwanted assets. The teams that "need" likely won't even know the waiver draft is even going on and miss the opportunity. Okay... so basically, active GMs get rewarded. Even better! My point is how does that make the LEAGUE better?
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jan 24, 2012 13:57:56 GMT -5
Okay... so basically, active GMs get rewarded. Even better! My point is how does that make the LEAGUE better? So we should get rid of the draft too. After all, some GMs already skip this portion of the season as well. Active GMs use the draft and could use a waiver draft as a way to improve their clubs. My point is simple, decent players are being stashed on the farm club to start the season. If a waiver draft was in place, teams would be forced to keep them in the pros otherwise, weaker teams would be able to snag them.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Jan 24, 2012 15:04:37 GMT -5
Couple of things.
1. I agree it's a problem that needs addressed, but if the players (and in this case Philly) cleared waivers to go down, it kinda makes it hard to say they HAVE to stay up. Just because it's these guys instead of Tyler Arnason making 4 million is it any different? They should be having their full salaries count in the farm if over 1.5 million, which has been a useable alternative.
2. Waiver draft. I understand the pros for it, and the "theorhetical" benefit of it. BUT it is true that the most active GMs are the ones that benefit. Add in the fact that it is an absolute nightmare to run, and I really don't think it is worthwhile.
3. Roster limits. I know I am one of the teams over 50 players, but thats more due to having tons of picks for last 3 years. Perhaps we should strictly enforce a 50 man roster limit next season (and it is easy to do in this version). But I am willing to listen to suggestions.
4. New GM's. Yes, despite my best efforts, we definetely did pick up a few duds this season, and we're working on getting some new blood in again. We did find a keeper for the Devils it would seem, and the Oilers and Sharks have been revitalized as well. But yes, Carolina and LA are now blackholes so to speak.
5. I have been quite inactive. As many of you know I moved to Denver this year, and have less and less time (though I am on ICQ from 10am-7pm EST pretty much every day during the week). Hence why we brought some structure in here with Jesse/Gareth running things, and they have full authority to make changes as they see fit without consulting me.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Jan 24, 2012 15:26:39 GMT -5
Missed a few topics.
6. Minimum salary. Really do NOT serve their intended purpose. Dictating that teams meet a minimum floor not only causes admin headaches to monitor, it artificially inflates salarys during UFA, and also limits trading potential during the season, due to more limited cap room. For teams rebuilding, going as cheap as possible makes sense to restock their coffers, and have money for UFA when it will help them (which is why Phillys strategy is ultimately very flawed).
7. Tanking. A touchy subject for sure. We never had, nor do I believe we should have, any rules for tanking. I understand the negative aspect, and we're seeing it to extremes this season. However, I don't have an issue with tanking. I've done it, most teams rebuilding have done it. Teams at teh top are trying for the cup and playoffs, teams at the bottom get to a point where they are trying for a pick. Now, there needs to be something more in place to eliminate what we are seeing
|
|