Buds Board Keepers League

inferno31 wroteCOLONReserve Lists
The list of players "belonging" to an NHL team is comprised of the following, the total of which may not exceed 80:

1. Pro players (maximum of 50)
2. Signed junior players (who have played less than 11 professional games)
3. Unsigned draft choices
4. Defected players (unsigned draft choices who are playing in Europe)

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26377


Thats the real rule is corresponds to. Any NHL team can only have 80 players total, 50 contracted.
We started lower, and were suppose to climb higher each year (as we had one draft then went on etc.)
I've been arguing it should be increasing by more, or just put it at that max that real NHL teams have as we mimic the rest. But so far this is the way we've decided to go, with small increasing increments yearly.

Going with this format wouldn't bother me at all if that's what we're working up to. We can essentially go with a 3-tiered roster...1. the active 20-23 with the NHL cap, 2. the remaining of the 50 in down the "minors" and 3. the remaining unsigned prospects on a strict reserve list. If a guy is signed to a contract, he moves off the reserve list and can be moved from the active roster and the minors as long as they fit the criteria of waiver-exemption or if they can clear waivers. A player can't go to back the reserve list once they have signed an NHL deal at one point in their career. (ie--Jaromir Jagr can't go back on reserve because he's had an NHL contract even though no NHL owns his rights)

We should also incorporate some sort of a term limit to holding a players rights on the reserve list. What's the usual rule in the NHL with unsigned draft picks? Do players go back in the draft after a year or two if they aren't signed? That to me would help move players off rosters if someone is hanging onto a guy for too long. If he has to re-enter the draft, you lose the rights to that guy or perhaps you just lose the rights to a guy after 2 or 3 years of being unsigned. I think we need to establish a limit to how long you can keep a prospect.

My thing is once a teams get up to 80 player limit...I don't want to hear any idea of moving up that rule because someone gets trade happy and has to many picks. Make a rule and put it in stone.

Make a rule and put it in stone.

We've done that. some people are just bitching because they've not planned for it, saying they want to find the Datsyuk, though you'll notice there are those amongst us who actually know who these 7th rounders are, that is how you'll find the late round gem... not just massing shit prospects.

OMGZ OH NOOOEESSS I CANTS KEEPS DRAFTS PICKKZZZZZ

facey wroteCOLON We've done that. some people are just bitching because they've not planned for it, saying they want to find the Datsyuk, though you'll notice there are those amongst us who actually know who these 7th rounders are, that is how you'll find the late round gem... not just massing shit prospects.

Care to elaborate?
i'm very interested.

I'm saying the red wings weren't just drafting a no-name, they did their home-work and they were tracking his progress, they didn't draft 10 players in the final 2 rounds and hope that one pans out.

if he had been brutal they would have cut him w/o remorse.

most GM's near 60 should consider cutting players drafted prior to 08 that are not showing positive signs, as well as considering the 08-09's who took a step backwards.


Anyways, its not changing this year, thats unfair. Any talks of changes are following the next season.

facey wroteCOLONAnyways, its not changing this year, thats unfair. Any talks of changes are following the next season.

Works for me...

facey wroteCOLONI'm saying the red wings weren't just drafting a no-name, they did their home-work and they were tracking his progress, they didn't draft 10 players in the final 2 rounds and hope that one pans out.

weird, i thought you were talking about BBKL GMs..

facey wroteCOLON .. though you'll notice there are those amongst us who actually know who these 7th rounders are, that is how you'll find the late round gem... not just massing shit prospects.

I realize its not going to be changed this year...although I dont think a single person would complain. However if its not at 80 next year I will be on this complaint band wagon harder than oprah on a smoked ham!

where are these assets of value coming from that people are all up in arms about?

80 x 30 = 2400 players


we started @
30x30 = 900
+ 90 (waiver)
+ 210 (entry)
-----------------
1200 going into year 1


+90 (waiver)
+ 210 (entry)
--------------------
1500 going into year 2


we are currently @ 60x 30 = 1800:

-thats 300 players claimed via waiver wire in order to hit that total # of assets in the league, w/o any judgement calls being made.

-how are we adding 600 assets next year?

- You guys gotta look at NHL team #'s.... and that's with years of building the pipeline, we're at the end of year one, try and be reasonable.

- There are a few teams with more then 40 contracts, and very few over 70 total players.

bills09 wroteCOLONOMGZ OH NOOOEESSS I CANTS KEEPS DRAFTS PICKKZZZZZ

Raptactics wroteCOLONMik, it really is unfortunate that you inherit a team in the position it was in but you've had months to adapt to the rules & guidelines of bbkl. Actually, you still have time too!

I'm really sorry you're having trouble getting down to the 60 men limit and trouble making a trade but everyone here has the same set of rules to follow and would have the same tough decisions to make!

That's part of my problem.. when something like 25 teams out of 30 are having troubles staying under the 60 men limit and have to reject trades or trade away picks becuase of that, well then it looks to me the established limit/increase turned out to be too low.

Just going over your current roster, imo, I see at least 7 disposable pieces that have almost no shot of stepping foot on NHL ice unless they got jobs on an arenas ice maintenance team!! But again, that's my opinion.

i would welcome your opinion to be more specific on this.
When i take away the FA signings i'm still well over the limit.. now, if you suppose all the europeans would cross the ocean
(i can't know who will and who won't, unlike real NHL teams who can negotiate with players they hold rights of and realize if they are interested in coming.. hence on some guys NHL teams can make an informed decision whereas i can not), i really have a hard time finding 7 guys that have no chance to make it to the NHL.

This will be a good lesson learned for you, Tony, and others who weren't aware that asset management is the most important part of our league.. unfortunately it had to happen to a couple new guys. Like I've always said, you either get it or you don't!

i'm not sure what you think we don't get, but i'm pretty positive you're wrong.

facey wroteCOLONwhere are these assets of value coming from that people are all up in arms about?

80 x 30 = 2400 players


we started @
30x30 = 900
+ 90 (waiver)
+ 210 (entry)
-----------------
1200 going into year 1


+90 (waiver)
+ 210 (entry)
--------------------
1500 going into year 2


we are currently @ 60x 30 = 1800:

-thats 300 players claimed via waiver wire in order to hit that total # of assets in the league, w/o any judgement calls being made.

-how are we adding 600 assets next year?

your problem is with the total going up to 80 next year?
actually i don't think that would be a real necessity, we would probably be fine with 64 this year and 72 next year, going up to 80 only the year after. The situation is worse this offseason than next season, as next year people will have had more time to judge and cut/trade some of their players. Then again, if we stay at 60 this season and only grow up to 65 next year, most GMs will be in troubles once again.

facey wroteCOLONThere is so much movement in our league that to say you need to draft to rebuild is insanity. make some trades, make some calls on players who are improving, sell guys before they crash...
Instead of bitching about the way the league is set-up put some work in bettering your own roster!

First off, i was not the one who started this thread.
Second, it's not like i didnt' try to make trades to reduce and better my roster.
It turned out that some teams are fine with a short roster and most have too many players already.. as a consequence only trades that imo would overall worsen my team are available, i would be able to build a better team waiting on the development of the guys i already have, if i could.

I know it takes patience, and probably a little luck, and you were given a crap deck to start with, but your not alone in that, and it would be a solid showcase of your fantasy GMing skills to turn that group around -> you have some sick prospects, as well as some guys that are wastes of a good stick and a pair of skates

again, i've put already too much time in looking for decent trades just to reduce the roster number.. actually i will have to forget about my fantasy GMs skills/tastes to complete the deals required to meet the 60men limit, taking away the fun of it.

As for wastes of a good stick and a pair of skates, i guess everyone has different opinions.. last time we talked trades, you were proposing and insisting on David Fischer as a very good prospect, someone who would probably be the very first cut on my gigantic roster full of supposed crap..
guess what, we learned yesterday the Habs are not even going to offer him a contract:
"Le CH ne fera aucune offre à David Fischer, le choix de 1er tour en 2006. Il deviendra UFA le 15 août."
http://twitter.com/JFChaumont

Mik, we are moving towards the 80 player limit, however given the # of assets that are circulation so far in the league, the pressure it adds to a few GM's who've failed to plan for the limit is not worth adding extra spots that are of no importance to the league.

Actually most teams are affected by this limit; and if that wasn't the case, it would be much easier to make decent trades while packaging players.

Of course i did know from the start about the 60 men limit (didn't know teams with 25 players would have not being interested in enlarging their roster though), so i've never bitched around saying this is unfair.. it's more about the league failing (rather, opting not to) to recognize the chosen limit was a tad too low and refusing to improve the situation despite increasing a little bit that number wouldn't hurt anyone.

if you took your word count and had a formula to increase post count, Kareem would have nothing on you!

[quote="facey"]I'm saying the red wings weren't just drafting a no-name, they did their home-work and they were tracking his progress, they didn't draft 10 players in the final 2 rounds and hope that one pans out.

if he had been brutal they would have cut him w/o remorse.

most GM's near 60 should consider cutting players drafted prior to 08 that are not showing positive signs, as well as considering the 08-09's who took a step backwards.


Anyways, its not changing this year, thats unfair. Any talks of changes are following the next season.[/quote]

if the red wings knew he would turn out to be a superstar, they would not have drafted him in the 6th round or whatever it was, i can assure you of that, why leave him till so late in the draft and have the chance that someone else takes him?

facey wroteCOLONwhere are these assets of value coming from that people are all up in arms about?

80 x 30 = 2400 players


we started @
30x30 = 900
+ 90 (waiver)
+ 210 (entry)
-----------------
1200 going into year 1


+90 (waiver)
+ 210 (entry)
--------------------
1500 going into year 2


we are currently @ 60x 30 = 1800:

-thats 300 players claimed via waiver wire in order to hit that total # of assets in the league, w/o any judgement calls being made.

-how are we adding 600 assets next year?

- You guys gotta look at NHL team #'s.... and that's with years of building the pipeline, we're at the end of year one, try and be reasonable.

- There are a few teams with more then 40 contracts, and very few over 70 total players.

posting this again cause it appears people failed to read it.

facey wroteCOLON posting this again cause it appears people failed to read it.

speaking for myself alone, i have only picked up a few FA guys recently but depending on this Summer develpoment i may cut all of them coming the start of the season..
i.e. FA signings or waivers pick up are not a real part of my problem and i didn't contribute much if anything to that 300 number you posted. Btw, that figure is clearly overstimated as some teams have 25-40 players.

Just remember you can only drop players without a contract.

The post shows the total # of assets in the league... and how our plan to increase makes sense given what's been put into/available the league.


We already have 300 open spots across the league that are either open, or filled with waiver-wire signings.

I still dont get the increase of 5 per year tho. 7 rounds of drafting and 3 rounds waiver....10 lol Ive cut 6 guys this offseason and will have to do more. The problem is I have very limited selection of guys who arent under contract and werent drafted either this year or the last...I dont wanna cut them