NHL Transactions, Injuries & Rumours

[Da_Hawks]

To be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

Yeah, this does not make sense to me either.

If a team is intentionally tanking, and his roster is devoid of talent, he likely has an even harder time trying to climb back to relevance. He is punishing him or herself by trading away everyone and not rostering any actual players. If you are fining this team draft picks, you are just prolonging his rebuild. This league needs more competition, not less. Hell, most of the top teams are hording 5-6 actual NHL'ers on their farm anyways. There is seldom enough players to go around. It's tough building a top keeper team dammit! Incentives are better motivators than consequences.

Now, I was obviously not around when those rules were created, and I am sure they were put into place to stop some idiots from having 0 players on their roster. But if I am a rebuilding team, and my team suffers multiple injuries, I am not going out and trading my valuable assets for roster players just hit some damn GP threshold. That's counter-productive to a rebuild.

If you haven't noticed, the CC exists to punish lottery teams for being lottery teams. That is their purpose and function.

Looks like fun! How do you join, or is it an exclusive club?

[Lee]

Pretty exclusive. You have people whine and complain at you all the time.

[Da_Hawks]

is there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

That team just needs to learn how to tank better. Pretty clear. That or simply decide the lottery standings based on total points/actual games played. Re-rank based on the lowest points per gp.

[kimmer]

hey foof

i had to pay up last year, be like me and try hard to make GP and almost the playoffs nxt yr

[dave1959]

is there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

I get the standings adjustment for the offending team re drafts etc, but I don't get why it should affect GM the pick has been traded to.

[foofnik]

hey foof

i had to pay up last year, be like me and try hard to make GP and almost the playoffs nxt yr

I own the CHI pick, I don't owe compensation my point is the opposite and that I should be receiving it assuming CHI pick does not win the lottery

[foofnik]

To be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

Yeah, this does not make sense to me either.

If a team is intentionally tanking, and his roster is devoid of talent, he likely has an even harder time trying to climb back to relevance. He is punishing him or herself by trading away everyone and not rostering any actual players. If you are fining this team draft picks, you are just prolonging his rebuild. This league needs more competition, not less. Hell, most of the top teams are hording 5-6 actual NHL'ers on their farm anyways. There is seldom enough players to go around. It's tough building a top keeper team dammit! Incentives are better motivators than consequences.

Now, I was obviously not around when those rules were created, and I am sure they were put into place to stop some idiots from having 0 players on their roster. But if I am a rebuilding team, and my team suffers multiple injuries, I am not going out and trading my valuable assets for roster players just hit some damn GP threshold. That's counter-productive to a rebuild.

Point is not to necessarily be a punishment but rather a deterrent to not miss the GP mark, which is there to set a minimum acceptable standard roster level in the league.

[foofnik]

To be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

unlikely, he's neck and neck with NYR, and my own team is next about 90 something points higher so he would be in the same spot basically

[foofnik]

is there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

I get the standings adjustment for the offending team re drafts etc, but I don't get why it should affect GM the pick has been traded to.

Theory being they are effected since the pick they traded for is now worth less. But the rule predates me so that's an educated guess not a fact

[dave1959]

is there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

I get the standings adjustment for the offending team re drafts etc, but I don't get why it should affect GM the pick has been traded to.

Theory being they are effected since the pick they traded for is now worth less. But the rule predates me so that's an educated guess not a fact

what I'm saying is, it shouldn't be worth any different than if he had made GP...there should be no penalty to a traded pick.

[CasperX22]

is there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

My assumption is that it's designed to be a standings adjustment to reflect if that team had made gp. The offending gm compensating the gm owning the pick was likely put into place to appease the gm that has the pick moved back. Just an educated guess on my part though.

I get the standings adjustment for the offending team re drafts etc, but I don't get why it should affect GM the pick has been traded to.

Bc it's an adjustment to the pick itself. The owning gm is inconsequential to where the pick should wind up.

[Matthew]

is there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

This isnt true.

[Matthew]

To be fair, the fact that another gm is getting paid picks in the first place is stupid. If this thing were done right then the picks would just be dropped by the offending gm.

And if he had played those gp then his pick would likely be a worse pick.

Yeah, this does not make sense to me either.

If a team is intentionally tanking, and his roster is devoid of talent, he likely has an even harder time trying to climb back to relevance. He is punishing him or herself by trading away everyone and not rostering any actual players. If you are fining this team draft picks, you are just prolonging his rebuild. This league needs more competition, not less. Hell, most of the top teams are hording 5-6 actual NHL'ers on their farm anyways. There is seldom enough players to go around. It's tough building a top keeper team dammit! Incentives are better motivators than consequences.

Now, I was obviously not around when those rules were created, and I am sure they were put into place to stop some idiots from having 0 players on their roster. But if I am a rebuilding team, and my team suffers multiple injuries, I am not going out and trading my valuable assets for roster players just hit some damn GP threshold. That's counter-productive to a rebuild.

You misread what i was saying.

[dave1959]

yes, but what I am saying, is it shouldn't be.

[dave1959]

is there a reason the GM owning the traded pick loses the chance at getting first overall?

this rule was in place before I became a GM here.

This isnt true.

pretty sure it's been a rule since the league began...or shortly thereafter.

[Arian The Insider]

I think the rule needs to be adjusted slightly going forward

[Matthew]

It used to be the pick slid back after lottery so the team owning it couldnt win the lotto. Now its pre lotto.

However we disallow the team owning the pick, if it is the team who missed gp, from winning a lotto spot.

[koomzzz]

i thought i understood this rule until i read these posts, I have no idea what's going on anymore.

[Da_Hawks]

It used to be the pick slid back after lottery so the team owning it couldnt win the lotto. Now its pre lotto.

However we disallow the team owning the pick, if it is the team who missed gp, from winning a lotto spot.

That doesn't make much sense though. The team should still have a shot at winning the lotto, just reduced to reflect his GP. As suggested, just re-rank the non-playoff teams by their adjusted points per games played value. This levels the playing field perfectly.

[Matthew]

It used to be the pick slid back after lottery so the team owning it couldnt win the lotto. Now its pre lotto.

However we disallow the team owning the pick, if it is the team who missed gp, from winning a lotto spot.

That doesn't make much sense though. The team should still have a shot at winning the lotto, just reduced to reflect his GP. As suggested, just re-rank the non-playoff teams by their adjusted points per games played value. This levels the playing field perfectly.

I agree, moved back and a fine of a 2nd i think with a possibility to still win lotto. But some people dont agree, so the rule cqnnot change.