Buds Board Keepers League

this rule does not affect me in the SLIGHTEST (for the cynics out there, no i do not even have a trade going thats being impeded by rule). but why is this rule in place? 60 man roster limit is very unrealistic. esp for rebuilding teams. for them the objective is to have as many prospects as possible so that the proportion of them that make the nhl is higher. and this rule does not in any way correlate with anything in the real nhl. and also, over time this is going to limit the trade activity in the league as gms accumulate better prospects over the years. im sure theres a reason its in place but could the CC shed some light on this? im confused as to why gms dont have every right to keep rosters as big as they want.

Reserve 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.

well, i really didn't expect 25-men-roster Shiv to be on this lol, but i do agree, as probably i mentioned in the past already.

Wouldn't we be already fine with the 50 contracts limit?
Adding another limitation that is not exactly known to be there in the real NHL (maybe there is something less restrictive that i don't know about though*) doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to penalize for no reasons teams that would like to build long term through the draft. Why adding and making good picks if you will be forced to drop those project-players before they can contribute?

*P.S. there you go (thx inferno), there is an overall limit, but is not a comparable limit, being higher by 20 units.

kyuss wroteCOLONwell, i really didn't expect 25-men-roster Shiv to be on this lol, but i do agree, as probably i mentioned in the past already.

Wouldn't we be already fine with the 50 contracts limit?
Adding another limitation that is not exactly known to be there in the real NHL (maybe there is something less restrictive that i don't know about though*) doesn't make much sense to me, and seems to penalize for no reasons teams that would like to build long term through the draft. Why adding and making good picks if you will be forced to drop those project-players before they can contribute?

*P.S. there you go (thx inferno), there is an overall limit, but is not a comparable limit, being higher by 20 units.

Yep at the start some people wanted a higher reserve list (not including 50 contract max) and some people wanted a lower one. So, we compromised, deciding to add 5 spots every year.

I think the rational behind not going to 80 to start was that we only started with 30 players each to begin with.

The problem though guys is that the NHL has a full out minors system. Does the 80 man limit you said neel include the minor system neel? I dont know the answer to that so let me know.

And none of this is to mention that assume a certain club decided to go the prospect/picks route, they are unable to capitalize fully due to these limits. how are rebuilding teams supposed to rebuild when we cap how many prospects they can have so as to redistribute the wealth. if we're going to do it the nhl way, the least we can do is make the limits equal to the NHL's which is 80. its an unfair limit imposed on teams trying to do a solid rebuild.

SuperMario wroteCOLONThe problem though guys is that the NHL has a full out minors system. Does the 80 man limit you said neel include the minor system neel? I dont know the answer to that so let me know.

And none of this is to mention that assume a certain club decided to go the prospect/picks route, they are unable to capitalize fully due to these limits. how are rebuilding teams supposed to rebuild when we cap how many prospects they can have so as to redistribute the wealth. if we're going to do it the nhl way, the least we can do is make the limits equal to the NHL's which is 80. its an unfair limit imposed on teams trying to do a solid rebuild.

The NHL has a minor system, but most NHL teams in fact do not own their AHL affiliate. Rather they the NHL has players playing in the AHL, but those players still count to its reserve list (contracted players). For example every Toronto Marlie is not directly Toronto Maple Leaf property.

So the limit we have is to mimic the NHLs, so their limit still applies as AHL players count towards their limit of 80 (and the 50 contracted) as well.

We should equal the NHL's 80, and that was my original argument as well. We compromised though at 50 and have been increasing it by 5 yearly. The reason being as Mike stated when the league started we only had 30-35 players. To put it straight to 80 some argued would be silly, so we put it to 50 and have been increasing as such.
Personally I think it should be higher, and increase by more than 5 yearly (each team has 7 draft picks on average yearly..) but this is the compromise that was made, so now you know why.

There is nothing wrong with our limit, 60 is a LARGE # in a 30 team league, that's 1800 players.

Increasing to 65 next year in order to allow for new draft picks + potentially a few decisions, encourages league activity and good GMing... just like our 55+5 did this year.

On top of that we don't enforce it over the summer, that is in an attempt to allow for movement and it's fun to see how GM's plan & evaluate prospects.

Anyone who is having issues @ 60 will have issues @ 80, LOL. Should we add a distinction from contracts to un-contracted?


-> NHL teams have AHL affiliates which mean they need to fill a second entire roster, many of whom have limited (no) NHL hopes.
-> NHL teams have an exact say in contracts.
-> It won't improve our league @ this stage, we'll continue stepping it up each year, can actually draft and evaluate our own prospects, doesn't seem to me like most of the GM's here do much homework on obscure prospects anyways to claim that they need the roster spots.

facey wroteCOLONThere is nothing wrong with our limit, 60 is a LARGE # in a 30 team league, that's 1800 players.

Increasing to 65 next year in order to allow for new draft picks + potentially a few decisions, encourages league activity and good GMing... just like our 55+5 did this year.

On top of that we don't enforce it over the summer, that is in an attempt to allow for movement and it's fun to see how GM's plan & evaluate prospects.

Anyone who is having issues @ 60 will have issues @ 80, LOL. Should we add a distinction from contracts to un-contracted?


-> NHL teams have AHL affiliates which mean they need to fill a second entire roster, many of whom have limited (no) NHL hopes.
-> NHL teams have an exact say in contracts.
-> It won't improve our league @ this stage, we'll continue stepping it up each year, can actually draft and evaluate our own prospects, doesn't seem to me like most of the GM's here do much homework on obscure prospects anyways to claim that they need the roster spots.

We already do - 50 contracted, 60 max

we started with FULL NHL rosters.

you could protect 30.
waiver draft = 35 players
entry draft = 42 players
---------------------------------
add in 13 random signings, and trades for quantity & your @ 55 for year one.
---------------------------------
+ 5 roster spots
--------------------------------
2010 started with 7 entry draft selections, so you need to make 2 decisions going into next year, assuming you were entirely maxed out.

repeat until we max out!

We already do - 50 contracted, 60 max

-> My bad.

facey wroteCOLON
Anyone who is having issues @ 60 will have issues @ 80, LOL.

how so?

-> It won't improve our league @ this stage, we'll continue stepping it up each year, can actually draft and evaluate our own prospects, doesn't seem to me like most of the GM's here do much homework on obscure prospects anyways to claim that they need the roster spots.

how do you know that?

facey wroteCOLON 2010 started with 7 entry draft selections, so you need to make 2 decisions going into next year, assuming you were entirely maxed out.

why force GMs to make those 2 decisions anyway.. especially over players just drafted?

I get adding 5 spots a year, but as we said 7 draft choices exist. Now you don't have to decide between the guys just drafted, rather you can decide between any of your players. However the issue I have now is that we have a 3 round waiver draft with international and college free agents. So now your not making just two decisions a year but closer to 5.

inferno31 wroteCOLONI get adding 5 spots a year, but as we said 7 draft choices exist. Now you don't have to decide between the guys just drafted, rather you can decide between any of your players. However the issue I have now is that we have a 3 round waiver draft with international and college free agents. So now your not making just two decisions a year but closer to 5.

It's not too far out of the realm of possibility that without making free agent signings the net result should be about even.

+ 5 slots
+ 7 draft picks
- 2 to retirement/Europe/whatever

That being said I am in favour of going 50/80 like the NHL. However, we've already made the decision to increase by 5 each year and I see no reason to go back on it.

Starpainter wroteCOLON It's not too far out of the realm of possibility that without making free agent signings the net result should be about even.

+ 5 slots
+ 7 draft picks
- 2 to retirement/Europe/whatever

That being said I am in favour of going 50/80 like the NHL. However, we've already made the decision to increase by 5 each year and I see no reason to go back on it.

Europe still counts as players do come back, unless you outright release the player.

But yeah we did make this decision already. As nick and mike have shown there was a reason behind it.

Add in retirements, flops and obvious AHLers and its pretty easy to see it allows for a relatively even split (+7 picks, + 5 spots).


FOR CLARITY --> we're talking about it in the CC again... if any changes are made we'll notify ASAP

Starpainter wroteCOLON It's not too far out of the realm of possibility that without making free agent signings the net result should be about even.

+ 5 slots
+ 7 draft picks
- 2 to retirement/Europe/whatever.

however, as inferno mentioned, you should add the 3 waiver picks.. besides i may want to hold on a player leaving for Europe. He could very well return to the NHL later.

anyway, my main problem is this rule prevent GMs to use stockpiling picks as a strategy.. cause you would have to cut on the draftees before seeing the full benefits or even worse before being able to judge who deserves to be cut..
i mean, it would be different if the prospects drafted in 2010 would not add to the limit until the start of 2011/12, that way we would have a year to evaluate our picks and decide who to cut among the double digit selections a GM may have made this Summer.. but if they count right after being drafted, you either cut someone else further ahead in development or you would have to cut the ones you just drafted without having many new elements to judge them.. which means, if you think the older prospects you already have on your team are decent, you are probably better without adding picks instead of drafting and then having to cut the older guys.

Bottom line: NHL teams can make more than 10 selections and wait for them to develop before making decisions (signing them or not), BBKL teams are instead discouraged from stockpiling picks as a long term strategy.

That being said I am in favour of going 50/80 like the NHL. However, we've already made the decision to increase by 5 each year and I see no reason to go back on it.

80 instead of 60 is a huge difference.. what about just planning to get to 80 quicker.. like adding 7 every year instead of 5 (if waiver draft is canceled for next seasons we would have 7 rounds and 7 new spots).
But the best option perhaps would be counting the unsigned Entry draftees against the roster limit only one year later.

i don't get why this is a big deal. this could easily be a circumstance where we simply mimic the nhl and there are no issues regardless. i see it as regulation for the sake of regulation than an actual benefit.

SuperMario wroteCOLONi don't get why this is a big deal. this could easily be a circumstance where we simply mimic the nhl and there are no issues regardless. i see it as regulation for the sake of regulation than an actual benefit.

I dont believe this but I actually agree with shiv. I really dont see the point with the 5 additions each year...I personally have already drafted 9. I fail to see how this is really an issue.

mimicing the nhl isnt realistic in this situation we do not have to ice a full ahl team as well as an nhl team
23 man roster
37 in reserves

imo thats a lot already

bills09 wroteCOLONmimicing the nhl isnt realistic in this situation we do not have to ice a full ahl team as well as an nhl team
23 man roster
37 in reserves

imo thats a lot already

billy what you say is fine but i ask again, does having a regulation suddenly change anything? all it is, is a restriction for the sake of one. removing the restriction does not suddenly give an advantage to any particular team. it evens out across the board. this rule is unnecessary, and imo it should not even be an issue. we should all just agree its redundant and unnecessary keep the limit at 80 and move on.

I am 100% going to make that number but i am more so saying for next year adding only another 5 spots is imo not enough. thats 150 for the league with how many people drafted? I dunno my beef is more with the amount of additions every year than the current number.