Page 4 of 8

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Mon May 25, 2015 2:50 pm
by The BBKL Insider
Ya. Next announcement shoukd be the return of Cliff

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:42 pm
by Fraser
What are the goalie maximum Gp?

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Sun Jul 19, 2015 9:55 pm
by lightupdadarkness
Fraser wroteCOLONWhat are the goalie maximum Gp?
They are You're fucked

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:10 am
by kyuss
isn't that one of the topics supposed to be re-discussed? I think it was 82 till now

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:22 pm
by Nick
Goalie max needs to be:
4 per week
Total during BBKL regular season
Combined total to include playoffs.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:53 pm
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.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:57 pm
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

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:48 am
by bills09
This will turn into guys poaching systems

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:09 am
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..

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:08 am
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.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:44 am
by Matthew
Scott's right: We should raise the goalie gp minimum.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:00 am
by Shoalzie
I didn't say that.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:06 am
by Matthew
It was implied.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:15 am
by Shoalzie
Goalies that play 20-30 games shouldn't cost a 1st round pick when a starter costs a lottery pick.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:28 am
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.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:16 am
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.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:18 am
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.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:28 am
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.

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:35 am
by kimmer
Lol can you imagine what Fraser would want from me for vasilevski

Re: Ongoing CBA Discussion Thread

PostedCOLON Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:14 am
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.