CC : Please review : Compensation packages for waiver draft

[Nick]

Yes, "takes over a team in the bottom 12" you didn't take over a bottom 12 team, you managed it to the bottom 12. You've been the GM for a long time.


Mik was not alone in his view that you are not a new GM.

[Shoalzie]

Lee, what should've happened for you was since you took over a team that finished 28th (Tampa Bay in 2009-10...then Tampa before you switched with Nick to become Philadelphia) and you should've been compensated for taking over the team then.

http://bbkl.hockey.cbssports.com/standings/2009

You joined last June so you should should've gotten something towards the previous waiver draft...don't recall if you did or didn't. You shouldn't get compensation for finishing last this year when you were here all season.

What I've brought up with the CC is that the rule in the CBA is poorly written. The rule needs to be better explained for when that rule goes into effect. Do you receive compensation the moment you join based on where the team is when you take over or is it where you finish after the season is over. Me personally, I think it should from where you take over. If you take over a rotten team, you should receive a small bit of compensation to help you get started and you shouldn't have all season to improve or get worse and then receive compensation then.

In my case, I joined about 8 weeks or so into the 2009-10 season and the Wings were sitting in the bottom third of the standings. I don't recall what place exactly but it was probably around 8th, 9th or 10th from the bottom. All the information is gone because we switched to this newer message board. I've stated that I didn't get compensation but that's just because I wasn't really filled in on how that worked and by the time the season was done, I made the playoffs as the 8th seed in the West and I didn't understand the rule if that applied to me based on where I took over or where I finished. Based on the criteria, I should've gotten an extra pick at the end of the first round (bottom 8th-12th).

To me, the rule is poorly explained and it should either be redefined or removed. I've not asked for my missing compensation (if I was owed it or not) but I think you should get compensation based on the fact you took over a 28th place team the year before.

[Lee]

Yes, "takes over a team in the bottom 12" you didn't take over a bottom 12 team, you managed it to the bottom 12. You've been the GM for a long time.


Mik was not alone in his view that you are not a new GM.

The team I took over was 28th place. Of course I managed the team into the bottom 12. I had absolutely nothing outside of Logan Couture and a 1st round pick to start with.

[Lee]

Lee, what should've happened for you was since you took over a team that finished 28th (Tampa Bay in 2009-10...then Tampa before you switched with Nick to become Philadelphia) and you should've been compensated for taking over the team then.

http://bbkl.hockey.cbssports.com/standings/2009

You joined last June so you should should've gotten something towards the previous waiver draft...don't recall if you did or didn't. You shouldn't get compensation for finishing last this year when you were here all season.

What I've brought up with the CC is that the rule in the CBA is poorly written. The rule needs to be better explained for when that rule goes into effect. Do you receive compensation the moment you join based on where the team is when you take over or is it where you finish after the season is over. Me personally, I think it should from where you take over. If you take over a rotten team, you should receive a small bit of compensation to help you get started and you shouldn't have all season to improve or get worse and then receive compensation then.

In my case, I joined about 8 weeks or so into the 2009-10 season and the Wings were sitting in the bottom third of the standings. I don't recall what place exactly but it was probably around 8th, 9th or 10th from the bottom. All the information is gone because we switched to this newer message board. I've stated that I didn't get compensation but that's just because I wasn't really filled in on how that worked and by the time the season was done, I made the playoffs as the 8th seed in the West and I didn't understand the rule if that applied to me based on where I took over or where I finished. Based on the criteria, I should've gotten an extra pick at the end of the first round (bottom 8th-12th).

To me, the rule is poorly explained and it should either be redefined or removed. I've not asked for my missing compensation (if I was owed it or not) but I think you should get compensation based on the fact you took over a 28th place team the year before.

I signed up for the forums in June, but didn't take over the team until July. My first move on my first day was to make the 12th last selection of the 7th round, after the waiver draft had already taken place.

[Nick]

Yes Lee, last summer you joined and had lots of time to manage your team.


OT -> # of CC members who change their tones between the formal ruling and expressing public opinion is a joke. If you cannot form your own opinion and express the logic and reasoning behind it.... I dunno... just seems silly, not helping anything.

No, don't bother with me...I was just making a point that it wasn't really mentioned to me when I came in and there probably needs a better definition for the rule.

I think Lee doesn't fall under the scope of the rule as it's written but I think it's written a little vague where he can think he took over a last place team but really, he was in last place all season and didn't do much about that.

After topic had switched to Frank/CGY:

I think we should give these guys their picks but ...

perhaps you meant more then Bill/Frank?

anyways... I guess the CC needs to revisit the topic...

[Shoalzie]

Well, you should receive compensation proactive to last summer, not based on this year's results. I think we did our waiver draft prior to you taking over Tampa Bay and if you say you took over during the last part of the entry draft, you missed the window to receive compensation last summer but you still should get the opportunity to collect. However, based on the team you took over finishing 28th, not your team this year finishing last. Again, this is the flaw in that rule...it's very vague in how it's described.

[Lee]

I just don't understand how Calgary and Dallas will receive compensation , but everyone else who has taken over a team before them did not. How is it fair to compensate Dallas and Calgary, while all of the other teams , Colorado, Detroit, Carolina, Myself and whoever else has taken over a team and has not received compensation , not?

This needs to be an all or nothing deal. This isn't just about my pick. I just happen to be the most vocal about it. I've talked to people on MSN about this who've said that my compensation should be paid, but don't want to say anything about it because they didn't want to "get in trouble" with everyone else. It's in the CBA. Either we follow those rules or we throw the CBA out the window.

[Shoalzie]

Yes Lee, last summer you joined and had lots of time to manage your team.


OT -> # of CC members who change their tones between the formal ruling and expressing public opinion is a joke. If you cannot form your own opinion and express the logic and reasoning behind it.... I dunno... just seems silly, not helping anything.

Explain how I changed my view? My biggest beef is how the rule is written. What can't be denied is that he took over a 28th place team and he didn't get compensated when he joined. I don't think he should compensated for finishing 30th after a full season.

Where he fell through the cracks is that he takes over after the waiver draft...which is when he should've received compensation or he should've been given compensation towards this next waiver draft well before now. I think the other problem is that the waiver draft wasn't truly going to happen until later this season. I don't recall when it was announced that we'd do the waiver draft for sure.

My apologies for saying too much outside of our exclusive forum but this needs to be explained better to Lee than just saying no.

[Shoalzie]

After topic had switched to Frank/CGY:

I think we should give these guys their picks but ...

perhaps you meant more then Bill/Frank?

anyways... I guess the CC needs to revisit the topic...

A little unfair to take what I said out of context.

This was my complete post:

I think we should give these guys their picks but the rule needs to be better defined by the CC for when someone is eligible to collect these picks and we should document immediately if the rule is when they take over, we need to lock in those spots in the draft order then. For any GM like Lee who took over before a new season, you credit them for what position the team finished in the previous season. I believe (then) Tampa Bay finished 3rd from the bottom so that should be his position...but last summer should've been when he got his compensation. Frank should get picks now for taking over for Jay. Any new GM that takes over a team should have these picks given to them when they join so they can have the option to trade them at any point before the draft.

[Lee]

For the record, my proposed compensation package was based on a conversation with mike where I asked him if I should use this years standings as the basis, and was told yes (or "sure", for exact wording)

[Lee]

Another point,

Calgary was not included on the spreadsheet because this post was before he took over.

Also , I tried to address this a long time ago on forums and on msn with admins and the cc and my request was always ignored.

[Scott]

Another point,

Calgary was not included on the spreadsheet because this post was before he took over.

Also , I tried to address this a long time ago on forums and on msn with admins and the cc and my request was always ignored.

FTR I never ignored you.. I simply said it was a CC issue and you should talk to them.

[kyuss]

Yeah Scott, ignoring things written in the CBA while enforcing that aren't is certainly a "quit crying" scenario.

The CC ruled on the situation and came to the conclusion that you and Paul are not to be considered new GMs.. which I find was a great ruling. Accept it and move on, please..

The CC ruled on it, and it's a bullshit ruling. One member of the CC, Mik, is pissed off because his pick might end up being a couple of spots lower than it was when he got it. He isn't exactly a fair and impartial vote.

err.. you might be surprised, but you're wrong about this Lee. I never voted on it.

This is my main post on the argument:

several problems here..

- first of all, compensatory picks should have been added way before (theoretically as soon as the new-GM joined), not now when people have been trading for a pick that would turn out to be lower than expected (unlike later rounds in the entry draft where it doesn't change much, a few spots lower in the 1st round of the waiver draft can make tons of difference).

- Lee joined after the 2010 waiver draft, so he couldn't receive the compensatory picks established by the rules, which is kind of unfair for him. If someone joins after the waiver draft i guess his compensation should be due in the next waiver draft (taking into consideration which standings?)

- however that was not applied to other GMs before him


tough shit.

the only escape would be establishing compensation for all of them in 2012 waiver draft lol

in the next one i underlined i own the 9th overall hence i wouldn't vote on it as clearly affected by the decision.

As you can see, i agree it would be unfair for you not be compensated at all despite inheriting the 28th team. At the same time, i think it's obviously unfair that compensatory picks are added this close to the draft significantly diminishing the value of high picks already traded away. I guess our case where you traded me the 9th overall (valued like the 9th overall) before adding the compensatory picks is a good example of that.

[Lee]

My apologies.

[anton]

wait wait wait...wait....................wait




all of this is over a waiver draft pick?......

[kyuss]

wait wait wait...wait....................wait

all of this is over a waiver draft pick?......

lol, we were already beyond this.. recently arguing over post 7th rounds claims!

[kyuss]

My apologies.

no problem dude, i could see that looking to you like a probable scenario in your position.

[Scott]

I think people just need to let the CC do their job.. and when there's a ruling just live with it. It's not easy being in the CC..

[Lee]

I think people just need to let the CC do their job.. and when there's a ruling just live with it. It's not easy being in the CC..

So we should just ignore stuff from the CBA, that the CC put in place, and then choooses to ignore?

Man I can't wait to draft Nail with my waiver pick.

[anton]

the open roster spot is more valuable than any waiver pick past 15