Buds Board Keepers League

for the record, voting was:

850 - 4
870 - 0
keep at 1100 - 1

I'm not sure this should have been done: 78.6% of NHL regular season games had been played through week 21 therefore we should take 78.6% of the previous total of 1100. Sure it's almost right but it isn't in the end.

21 is 80.77% of 26. Which lies the discrepancy that everyone is seeing. We were 2.17% further through the the season + playoffs than the NHL was through their season. This is why the ratio that casper is mentioning doesn't correlate. I would have liked to see 870, but it appears CC didn't like that number

We were going for a round number so 850 or 875 or 900 were probably the direction we were going to go. I'm actually the guy who threw out that 850 number so get mad at me if you don't like it.

850 compared to 870 is a matter one less a game a week. If a team was capable of getting 40 games a week to reach 850, I think they're capable of 41 or 42 games a week.

Shoalzie wroteCOLONWe were going for a round number so 850 or 875 or 900 were probably the direction we were going to go. I'm actually the guy who threw out that 850 number so get mad at me if you don't like it.

850 compared to 870 is a matter one less a game a week. If a team was capable of getting 40 games a week to reach 850, I think they're capable of 41 or 42 games a week.

not gonna blame anyone for anything really. i think a higher number just shows that that a rule-making committee isn't willing to drive up the potential for teams to play who can cut it the closest to a smaller number. I can use myself as an example, I had 1105 through week 21. I could trade away Kucherov (58 GP), Radulov (63 GP), Krug (66 GP) and Shattenkirk (65 GP) for strictly futures that would amount to 0 GP this year and still made 850 (853). And I was already dressing guys like Tyutin and Yannick Weber all year.

should I have to trade away a 2nd rounder just to get some 4th liner for games played??

the lower number should help in not having to do trades like this.

dave1959 wroteCOLONshould I have to trade away a 2nd rounder just to get some 4th liner for games played??

the lower number should help in not having to do trades like this.

no one would. no one did in our other league either. I think a 4th was paid for GP, but i can't recall anything more than that. the punishment for missing should govern that. if you don't think it's worth a pick or two to try to get GP because the punishment is a slap on the wrist then that's a problem.

dave1959 wroteCOLONshould I have to trade away a 2nd rounder just to get some 4th liner for games played??

the lower number should help in not having to do trades like this.

And when teams strip down even more in order to continue to come close to the new number, then they'll be paying that same 2nd or potentially even more when they're still worrying about meeting the mark.

No matter what line you set, bottom teams will gun for it, and inevitably some will miscalculate or have injuries and then freak out and try to reach it, thus giving more power to teams with depth who can sit on their perch and demand a 2nd or more now that penalties will increase for missing the mark.

Lowering it is a short term 'solution'. Give it a year or two and you'll be in exactly the same boat as right now.

A lower number helps bad teams to remain bad.

koomzzz wroteCOLONnot gonna blame anyone for anything really. i think a higher number just shows that that a rule-making committee isn't willing to drive up the potential for teams to play who can cut it the closest to a smaller number. I can use myself as an example, I had 1105 through week 21. I could trade away Kucherov (58 GP), Radulov (63 GP), Krug (66 GP) and Shattenkirk (65 GP) for strictly futures that would amount to 0 GP this year and still made 850 (853). And I was already dressing guys like Tyutin and Yannick Weber all year.

Nothing is stopping you from trading guys away. There's nothing in the rules against trading away veterans for futures in a value-for-value deal. A lot of us here have done it. The minimum is there so you have to have most of active roster.

There's no blueprint on how to build a winner in this league. We all have our different approaches...

You can finish near the bottom for a few years and collect young talent and hope it works out.
You can trade futures for proven players and "win now".
You can build a strong NHL roster and keep your picks and build up your prospect pool over the years and fill roster spots with your own guys.

There's plenty of opportunities for GMs to be creative. I think we spend way too much time worry about what other guys are doing instead of handling your own business. Anyone breaking rules will be dealt with.

Lee wroteCOLONA lower number helps bad teams to remain bad.

And what's the reward for that? There's not always a Connor McDavid or Auston Matthews or Patrik Laine to pull you from the abyss. Ask Will or myself or Cliff about trading away these highly touted prospects for multiple pieces. One draft pick won't help a team but sometimes it takes moving that asset for more assets to strengthen your overall team. And with lottery, finishing last doesn't always mean you pick #1.

In the real world, no one is trading those guys away...in this league, they're only as good as their numbers.

Lee wroteCOLONA lower number helps bad teams to remain bad.

So does pissing away assets to chase crap players for gp

Arian The Insider wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONA lower number helps bad teams to remain bad.

So does pissing away assets to chase crap players for gp

Oh shit, people will actually have to spend assets getting good players? That sounds awful.

BTW, what I am advocating is what I did. Spend assets to get good players. Don't spend them on shit players. If someone wants a 2nd for a shit player, don't fucking pay it. Pay more to get good long term assets.

People would be singing a much different tune if they were bottom teams lacking assets and not solid-good teams at the moment

I like higher GP limits for the most part, but this isn't a big change from the current numbers and wasn't designed to be it's just shifting GP limits to when teams are actually still playing. This league is at a point right now where there aren't many teams trying to tear everything down and dress a bare bones lineup anyways. Thankfully most of the teams that were in terrible shape have good GMs who are building them up.

Lee wroteCOLON

Arian The Insider wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONA lower number helps bad teams to remain bad.

So does pissing away assets to chase crap players for gp

Oh shit, people will actually have to spend assets getting good players? That sounds awful.

BTW, what I am advocating is what I did. Spend assets to get good players. Don't spend them on shit players. If someone wants a 2nd for a shit player, don't fucking pay it. Pay more to get good long term assets.

You can't get good players for 2nd round picks in this league though, unless they are 38

Shoalzie wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONA lower number helps bad teams to remain bad.

And what's the reward for that? There's not always a Connor McDavid or Auston Matthews or Patrik Laine to pull you from the abyss. Ask Will or myself or Cliff about trading away these highly touted prospects for multiple pieces. One draft pick won't help a team but sometimes it takes moving that asset for more assets to strengthen your overall team. And with lottery, finishing last doesn't always mean you pick #1.

In the real world, no one is trading those guys away...in this league, they're only as good as their numbers.

You need a core of players to begin with. I took me 6 years to build a respectable team from absolutely nothing. I was really bad for a really long time. No one else should have to be in a rebuild phase for nearly as long as I was. Perennial basement teams are bad because:

They choose to be
They lack the talent to make their team better
They lack the desire to make their team better

If you want to better your team, you need to:

Scour free agent markets - college players - AHL - CHL over agers that are coming into the league
Spend a lot of time looking for late round steals. Ondrej Palat - Tyler Johnson - David Desharnais - Conor Sheary. What do these names have in common? They are all late round steals by me because I put in the work to find them. There are plenty more from me and others.
DOn't be afraid to look out for your teams best interests. I have a well earned reputation around the league, because I am willing to do what it takes for my team.

Arian The Insider wroteCOLONPeople would be singing a much different tune if they were bottom teams lacking assets and not solid-good teams at the moment

I was significantly worse than any current team is and I bootstrapped myself out of the basement through sheer force of will.

Arian The Insider wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLON

Arian The Insider wroteCOLON

Lee wroteCOLONA lower number helps bad teams to remain bad.

So does pissing away assets to chase crap players for gp

Oh shit, people will actually have to spend assets getting good players? That sounds awful.

BTW, what I am advocating is what I did. Spend assets to get good players. Don't spend them on shit players. If someone wants a 2nd for a shit player, don't fucking pay it. Pay more to get good long term assets.

You can't get good players for 2nd round picks in this league though, unless they are 38

So keep the 2nd round pick. Don't pay something you are uncomfortable with, especially for an expiring asset.

Also be willing to live with the consequences of your choices.

Every team is looking for late round steals so no need to include that. You got lucky with some picks but all GMs try to pick players they hope will be steals.

If you find a good late round steal, you found a late round steal. If you consistently find late round steals...?