Post by Dallas Stars on May 30, 2017 12:49:14 GMT -5
I mean if you guys want I can protect Ruutu or Kennedy... lol. It's not like I don't have enough people to protect I just choose not to protect them lol
Last Edit: May 30, 2017 12:50:05 GMT -5 by Dallas Stars
I'm not a huge fan of it either, but I'm saying it was recently posted.
I would argue that not utilizing all protection spots in an expansion draft is equivalent to mismanagement of franchise value, which could also be interpreted as 1. being overall detrimental to the franchise, which is not what the league should desire (for if a GM quits, the next guy will inherit a worse team due to blatant mismanagement) 2. deliberately making a pro roster worse, which could be viewed as tanking.
Tanking already carries itself a penalty in this league.
The tanking penalty only applies to not dressing your best lineup, not roster construction. You cant force teams to protect more players then they wish any more then you can prevent teams from waiving waiver-eligible players. If the GM chooses not to expose as many players as they can, that is their choice and since it doesn't negatively affect the eligible pool for the expansion team we can't really penalize it. Ultimately, as long as the team meets exposure requirements, that's all that maters.
1. I obviously agree that teams must meet exposure requirement, in fact this should be diligently enforced. 2. Except the league regularly enforces ROSTER CONSTRUCTION rules all the time.
a) The league restricts and blocks all severely lopsided trades, that would be a roster construction issue. b) The league has prevented teams from waiving waiving-eligible players. There is precedent. Remember one year after the deadline, I think Joe tried to waive some good players he traded for due to cap reasons or something, and the league straight up blocked it?
Is it too much to ask for that teams fill out their entire protection list with players that need protection AND meet exposure requirements?
The tanking penalty only applies to not dressing your best lineup, not roster construction. You cant force teams to protect more players then they wish any more then you can prevent teams from waiving waiver-eligible players. If the GM chooses not to expose as many players as they can, that is their choice and since it doesn't negatively affect the eligible pool for the expansion team we can't really penalize it. Ultimately, as long as the team meets exposure requirements, that's all that maters.
1. I obviously agree that teams must meet exposure requirement, in fact this should be diligently enforced. 2. Except the league regularly enforces ROSTER CONSTRUCTION rules all the time.
a) The league restricts and blocks all severely lopsided trades, that would be a roster construction issue. b) The league has prevented teams from waiving waiving-eligible players. There is precedent. Remember one year after the deadline, I think Joe tried to waive some good players he traded for due to cap reasons or something, and the league straight up blocked it?
Is it too much to ask for that teams fill out their entire protection list with players that need protection AND meet exposure requirements?
To your points:
a) The key word being severely lopsided trades. Plenty of very questionable trades are allowed to go through, most of which have much more severe consequences to the league then whether or not teams are protecting as many players as they possibly can. I suppose that you would have had rebuilding teams trade to acquire or sign players they otherwise would not have wanted simply for the sake of having enough of them to protect? I would suggest that the consequences of not having enough players to protect pale in comparison to the consequences of some of the blocked deals going through, so while you may be technically correct, I hardly call it relevant to the discussion. I'd also hardly call blocking severely lopsided trades a "roster construction issue" as it is designed to ensure that transactions at least offer the chance of equal value and is not intended to ensure that teams are competitive. b) Again, the key word here being waiver-eligible. The players San Jose attempted to waive (which eventually went through) were in-season re-signed UFAs that had the protection of the NTC until game 25 of the following season. San Jose got into cap trouble and sought to circumvent the intention of the NTC rule, which is to ensure that GMs negotiate with players in good faith (with the intention of playing them on their team) and that contracts that are agreed upon with a particular team are at least somewhat honoured. He could not trade them, so he found a loophole and waived them. While the NTC they had did not explicitly protect them from being waived, the GM knowingly circumvented the intention of the rule. So we allowed the waivers, and explicitly changed the rule.
It is not too much to ask that teams fill out their entire protection list, but the better question is, what would be the point? If the rebuilding teams (who are the only ones who will not be able to protect the allowable amount of players) don't want to be competitive, the current rules of the league cannot force them to be. They could easily sign some AHL level players and put them on their protection lists, meet your demands, and nothing would change. I feel like this is making a mountain out of a mole hill and is really a non-issue. Regardless we will discuss further in the staff boards as per the comish's ruling.
Post by Tampa Bay Lightning on May 30, 2017 23:02:01 GMT -5
a) The key word being severely lopsided trades. Plenty of very questionable trades are allowed to go through, most of which have much more severe consequences to the league then whether or not teams are protecting as many players as they possibly can. I suppose that you would have had rebuilding teams trade to acquire or sign players they otherwise would not have wanted simply for the sake of having enough of them to protect? I would suggest that the consequences of not having enough players to protect pale in comparison to the consequences of some of the blocked deals going through, so while you may be technically correct, I hardly call it relevant to the discussion. I'd also hardly call blocking severely lopsided trades a "roster construction issue" as it is designed to ensure that transactions at least offer the chance of equal value and is not intended to ensure that teams are competitive.
Maintaining transactions aren't severely lopsided and not destory franchises is a "roster contrcution issue", because I assumed (perhaps wronly) that transactions are part of constructing rosters.
Blocking severely lopsided trades is the league protecting teams from destroying themselves and the integrity of the league. This has always been enforced. I'm not saying the league should go in, examine the lists and demand they be "optimized", but leaving protection spots blank opens up the POTENTIAL for franchises to severely damage itself. A simple addiontal measure to prevent potential abuse of the expansion rules is not unreasoanble.
They could easily sign some AHL level players and put them on their protection lists, meet your demands, and nothing would change.
With regards to signing players to "protect", several teams signed players in-season to meet "exposure" requirements, because these teams were diligent in their management and knew that they had to follow the exposure requirment rules. If teams "signed/traded players they didn't want/need" to meet exposure requirements, why would asking a team to make some transactions to ensure their protection list was filled be so wrong?
b) Again, the key word here being waiver-eligible. The players San Jose attempted to waive (which eventually went through) were in-season re-signed UFAs that had the protection of the NTC until game 25 of the following season. San Jose got into cap trouble and sought to circumvent the intention of the NTC rule, which is to ensure that GMs negotiate with players in good faith (with the intention of playing them on their team) and that contracts that are agreed upon with a particular team are at least somewhat honoured. He could not trade them, so he found a loophole and waived them. While the NTC they had did not explicitly protect them from being waived, the GM knowingly circumvented the intention of the rule. So we allowed the waivers, and explicitly changed the rule.
Those players were certainly waiver eligible, and the waivers were eventually NOT allowed and BLOCKED. They were explict blocked by the league, even though as you said the league rules at that time do not forbid for recently signed UFAs to be placed on waivers.
I know this because eventually I traded for one of the players after the NTC ran out.
Another issue at the time was Joe had TRADED MUTLIPLE ASSETS for those players, and then signed them, and then when realizing he had cap problems decided to waive them. Allowing the waivers would have put the contracts in question, that was one issue at the time, but another issue at the time was if those players did hit waivers, it would have been blatant mismanagement of assets, hurt the team and possibly the league in general, so the waivers were blocked and not allowed.
It is not too much to ask that teams fill out their entire protection list, but the better question is, what would be the point?
A simple mechanism to prevent potential abuse of the expansion rules
Regardless we will discuss further in the staff boards as per the comish's ruling.
I'm sure the staff will, but we were assured that you would not participate in expansion rule matters in the beginning of the process.
I mean if you guys want I can protect Ruutu or Kennedy... lol. It's not like I don't have enough people to protect I just choose not to protect them lol
Protect another person as will please.
Our decision is simple. We gave the parameters for what was needed to be exposed and protected. Everyone must do their gm jobs or face consequences. This should not need to be an issue.
I mean if you guys want I can protect Ruutu or Kennedy... lol. It's not like I don't have enough people to protect I just choose not to protect them lol
Protect another person as will please.
Our decision is simple. We gave the parameters for what was needed to be exposed and protected. Everyone must do their gm jobs or face consequences. This should not need to be an issue.
sean monahan ryan strome sam bennett brandon saad patrick eaves pat maroon mark letestu
3 protected defencemen:
johnny boychuk ryan ellis radko gudas
exposed:
austin watson, justin williams, ryan callahan, chris vandevelde, kyle clifford, dan hamhuis, jason garrison, adam clendening, joonas korpisalo, jacob markstrom, brandon ranford, henrik samuelsson, nick spaling, chris terry, talyor beck, jordan szwarz, jyrki jokipakka, korbinian holzer, paul postma
5 exposed prospects for the islanders are:
doyle somerby radel fazleev zach nastasiuk simon bourque ben betker
Last Edit: Jul 4, 2017 6:25:37 GMT -5 by Bryan Hull
Calgary Flames: that unassigned list has been huge
Aug 7, 2023 9:14:49 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: Go Dallas
Dec 10, 2023 20:47:04 GMT -5
Boston Bruins: Did we lose the discord?
Jan 23, 2024 7:15:42 GMT -5
Philadelphia Flyers: Announcement coming soon......
Jan 23, 2024 22:32:24 GMT -5
Anaheim Ducks: I got logged off Discord and I don’t know how to get back on. That’s frustrating.
Mar 5, 2024 16:05:08 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: Go Stars
Mar 12, 2024 12:48:29 GMT -5
Montreal Canadiens: not sure what teh point of this is anymore, when your 3rd line is better then the top line on 4 teams ahead of you in the standings simulation obbioulsy has zero reality to it.
Apr 11, 2024 13:16:33 GMT -5
Boston Bruins: @montreal... I feel your pain. Got spanked in a must win game by a team I hadn't lost to all season... Just another reason for hockey to make me drink!!! lol
Apr 15, 2024 11:01:12 GMT -5
Los Angeles Kings: 3rd line better ummm scratching my head
Apr 23, 2024 20:37:13 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: Stars winning the cup
May 10, 2024 19:30:28 GMT -5
Montreal Canadiens: Dakota joshua at 6 million, eeeeesh
Aug 17, 2024 21:03:54 GMT -5
Los Angeles Kings: yup one of those contracts you look 2-3 years down the road and go, why did I sign that deal
Aug 20, 2024 10:20:39 GMT -5
Dallas Stars: I had the money to spend but exactly why i didn't spend it. Just because you have the ability to, doesn't mean you should! Unless you plan on retaining for trade value after the 50 game no trade limit as a rebuilding team imo
Aug 20, 2024 16:31:28 GMT -5
