Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Anything goes here OT stuff is OK too!
BUTTON_POST_REPLY
User avatar
The BBKL Insider
PostsCOLON 22628
JoinedCOLON Mon May 03, 2010 8:46 pm
LocationCOLON San Juan, Puerto Rico

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by The BBKL Insider »

Ya. Next announcement shoukd be the return of Cliff
Image
User avatar
Fraser
PostsCOLON 3681
JoinedCOLON Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:38 am
LocationCOLON Perth, Western Australia

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Fraser »

What are the goalie maximum Gp?
Image
User avatar
lightupdadarkness
PostsCOLON 4881
JoinedCOLON Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by lightupdadarkness »

Fraser wroteCOLONWhat are the goalie maximum Gp?
They are You're fucked
User avatar
kyuss
PostsCOLON 14876
JoinedCOLON Thu May 06, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by kyuss »

isn't that one of the topics supposed to be re-discussed? I think it was 82 till now
User avatar
Nick
PostsCOLON 16044
JoinedCOLON Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:15 am

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Nick »

Goalie max needs to be:
4 per week
Total during BBKL regular season
Combined total to include playoffs.
User avatar
Matthew
PostsCOLON 13682
JoinedCOLON Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:29 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Matthew »

Perhaps also have a max # of goalie games for goalies that are both in the lineup + on the bench + in the minors, if you guys are attempting to alleviate goalie hording. something like 120 games.
ANAHEIM DUCKS | FANTRAX |
User avatar
lightupdadarkness
PostsCOLON 4881
JoinedCOLON Mon Nov 10, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by lightupdadarkness »

Just drop goalie's waiver eligibility to something stupid low then ur force hoarders hands......keep one or the other or in some case one of the ten
bills09
PostsCOLON 9280
JoinedCOLON Mon May 03, 2010 5:10 pm
LocationCOLON Pickering, Ontario

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by bills09 »

This will turn into guys poaching systems
Image
User avatar
kyuss
PostsCOLON 14876
JoinedCOLON Thu May 06, 2010 12:54 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by kyuss »

By the look of past discussions inside the CC I think it will be more about not penalizing teams who can't complete systems (as a result of other GMs putting high price tags on backups and stuff like that) rather than forcing GMs to dump their goalies.

And I certainly wouldn't expect a rule that would force GMs to do something like that for next season already..
User avatar
Shoalzie
PostsCOLON 12673
JoinedCOLON Mon May 03, 2010 7:28 pm
LocationCOLON Portland, MI
CONTACTCOLON

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Shoalzie »

I wouldn't force teams to give up goalies anymore than I would want to force a team to acquire more goalies. 29 goalies last year made enough starts to reach the goalie GP minimum on their own. Backups are optional in this league but I think the teams closer to competing have more of a motivation to get as many games from their goalies to be competitive. If someone wants a backup, they're out there. Teams holding an extra goalie can dictate their price but nobody is forced to pay that price.

The debate can rage on about my deal for Mike Smith. I'd rather pay a higher price for a goalie that gets 3/4 of his team's starts rather than pay for a goalie who might get 1/4 or 1/3 of his team's starts. If I can get 60+ starts from Mike Smith...do I really need the other guy? The only backups worth having are goalies on a quality team or are goalies that "goalies of the future". Who wants to overpay for a journeyman backup?

Backups and goalie systems are an insurance policy but they can be pricey to chase down because you're the one team trying to acquire those players and teams don't have to let those guys go at a discount.
DETROIT RED WINGS | ROSTER | FANTRAX
User avatar
Matthew
PostsCOLON 13682
JoinedCOLON Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:29 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Matthew »

Scott's right: We should raise the goalie gp minimum.
ANAHEIM DUCKS | FANTRAX |
User avatar
Shoalzie
PostsCOLON 12673
JoinedCOLON Mon May 03, 2010 7:28 pm
LocationCOLON Portland, MI
CONTACTCOLON

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Shoalzie »

I didn't say that.
DETROIT RED WINGS | ROSTER | FANTRAX
User avatar
Matthew
PostsCOLON 13682
JoinedCOLON Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:29 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Matthew »

It was implied.
ANAHEIM DUCKS | FANTRAX |
User avatar
Shoalzie
PostsCOLON 12673
JoinedCOLON Mon May 03, 2010 7:28 pm
LocationCOLON Portland, MI
CONTACTCOLON

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Shoalzie »

Goalies that play 20-30 games shouldn't cost a 1st round pick when a starter costs a lottery pick.
DETROIT RED WINGS | ROSTER | FANTRAX
User avatar
Matthew
PostsCOLON 13682
JoinedCOLON Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:29 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Matthew »

The market dictates. Different people have different ideas on value for different pieces. Some people think prospects are more valuable, some people think centers are more valuable, and some people think goalies are more valuable. If you can put the work in and find a person willing to pay your asking price for one of those pieces, then more power to you. If someone is willing to pay a price, then that is then the value of that piece.
ANAHEIM DUCKS | FANTRAX |
User avatar
Shoalzie
PostsCOLON 12673
JoinedCOLON Mon May 03, 2010 7:28 pm
LocationCOLON Portland, MI
CONTACTCOLON

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Shoalzie »

No, the price for Lindback from Chris was a 2nd round pick. I would've paid that price if I had an extra 2nd round pick to burn. You're trying to turn a profit but no one wants to pay your asking price. It only takes one team pay what you're asking for and no one has bit.
DETROIT RED WINGS | ROSTER | FANTRAX
User avatar
Bruyns
PostsCOLON 7177
JoinedCOLON Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:18 am

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Bruyns »

It helps if you wait longer than a week too. If someone wanted to pay a 1st for Lindback then they would have just got him from Chris. He might turn a profit in season but not a week after paying a 2nd for a bad goalie on a bad team.
User avatar
Matthew
PostsCOLON 13682
JoinedCOLON Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:29 pm

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by Matthew »

I havent sent a pm to anyone asking for a 1st for lindback. i just put it buried on my block. . I mean, i gave up an early 2nd, so a late 1st isnt exactly me trying to kill on that cycle.

And yes, Shoalzie, it has been a week. He just turned 27. the guy put up a .924 sv % on buffalo last season. Things could change, especially when the goalie in front of him isn't a superstar. People goalies could get injured. A lot of things could happen. I own his rights for the next 20 years, because we dont have free agency. I'm in no rush.

Also, if no one is willing to pay the 1st, then yes, the market has in fact dictated as i stated above. it will dictate that he is not worth a 1st. So I dont know what you are in a huff about.
Last edited by 1 on Matthew, edited 0 times in total.
ANAHEIM DUCKS | FANTRAX |
User avatar
kimmer
PostsCOLON 18090
JoinedCOLON Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:25 pm
LocationCOLON Ontario, Canada

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by kimmer »

Lol can you imagine what Fraser would want from me for vasilevski
User avatar
KapG
PostsCOLON 11908
JoinedCOLON Tue May 04, 2010 5:46 pm
LocationCOLON Toronto (beach area)

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

Post by KapG »

Goalie gp min should be lowered so teams don't get fucked like Scott recently.

As for lottery picks and goalies. Scott should have told Matthew to go fuck himself in thst deal and just take the penalty at eoy instead of wasting thst amazing asset on a scrub goalie.
BUTTON_POST_REPLY

Return to