| Date | 2015-09-02 04:18 |
| Message | Looks like we have ourselves a new rivalry brewing. Looking forward to watching Wiebe and Brown duke it out in Browns backyard before the draft this year! |
| Date | 2015-09-01 10:10 |
| Message | Wow. Rob. Spoken like a GM with the most to gain. I understand that last years draft was not precedent setting. I also understand we operated all last year with no clear rules on how things would evolve in the future . If i sold you on a trade by telling you prospects would be atuomatically protected in the future( which i have no memory of) you probably should have called me on overstepping my role of making rules in this league. Having said that.....its not a huge deal.....although im sure some of the other rebuilding gm's wish they had this inside knowledege last season so they could have stocked up on prospects as well . I vote for proposal A Just call me Phil |
| Date | 2015-09-01 01:07 |
| Message | Yes GM Wiebe. Teams that have multiple prospects certainly do have an advantage. However, this advantage was all squared up with last year's expansion draft. Last year's proceeding was not precedent setting - it was a special draft that was customized to help level the playing field for all GMs who could not have anticipated the collapse of 2 franchises, and followed by a subsequent expansion draft. At that time we exposed all but one of each team's prospects to create a level playing field. At that time we also acknowledged that league would be creating some sort of roster player protection list of around 20 players. It was common knowledge at that time for all GMs that prospects would not need to be protected. This information was known at that time, as club's used this knowledge as a bargaining chip when making trade offers. (i.e. the trade between your club and the Blazer's (Kane/Josi for Gaudreau (a prospect)/Brodie and a pp) the Blazers were told they would be acquiring an asset that would not be subject to a protection list in the following season, this was noted as a benefit to the Blazers during the transaction). This particular waiver format is intended to be a yearly format - having rebuilding clubs consistently expose their prospects to a waiver makes it much harder to re-build (and ultimately lessons the value of the prospect picks). |
| Date | 2015-08-31 09:56 |
| Message | A concern i expressed to Derksen was that these scenerios could potentially be hugely benificial to the teams with more players on the prospects list. I would suggest 1 prospect per team may be aoutomatically protected and the rest would need to be included in the 15 or 20 man protected list. I believe this is what we did last year. |
| Date | 2015-08-31 09:22 |
| Message | If GM Jono or GM Wiebe or GM C-dogg wish to give input I would argue that it is incumbent upon them to do the "reaching out." |
| Date | 2015-08-31 06:27 |
| Message | I spoke with GM Wiebe today, and he voiced some concerns with the various scenarios. I don't want to speak on his behalf, but do encourage Brown to reach out to GM Wiebe and gather his input before any significant decisions are made. |
| Date | 2015-08-31 11:15 |
| Message | I have verbally talked to GM Terror on the matter, he is certainly interested in 'c' however, will need some time to process upon reflection (he is currently studying hard for an exam tomorrow and was not going to look at the proposal in detail until after this exam). I have also talked verbally to GM Derksen, he too favors 'c', but wondered about the 2nd round of protection. He wondered if teams should be able to protect less than 5 for each round. I am going to do a mock draft considering that suggestion. Re: too long - my hope is that this would be done on the same evening. GMs should be able to have their protection lists prepared prior to the even (yes there might be some strategies to consider depending on who is picked from your roster, but hopefully that could happen on the fly). The very first list (roster cut to 27) would be expected a week prior to the event. |
| Date | 2015-08-31 07:34 |
| Message | Ok. I prefer C. If Cam doesn't like the number of protected players in C.2 and C.3, then I agree with him. I like the structure of C, but I'm not married to the # of players. Cam's paid his dues and finally built his juggernaut, so he should have more say than anyone. One draw back is the length of time involved to get everyone's protections twice and do three separate "drafts". |
| Date | 2015-08-30 06:34 |
| Message | Thanks for the input Duke - I am partial to "C" as well. By not having a cap on how many players taken from each team, it allowed for more quality dispersion among all the teams. When I did the mock draft for this season, there was only one team that had more than 3 players chosen from it. In the end that team was able to find suitable replacements. My thinking on the 4th rd addition (b/c of lack of waiver quality) is that it doesn't help the value of the 3rd re-draft picks. In the mock draft there was plenty of suitable players (unless a GM was looking for youth). By having proposal 'c' it will force GMs to work on their core - and then have to work every re-draft on filling out the rest of their team. It should help facilitate movement and also help distribute talent. |
| Date | 2015-08-30 07:21 |
| Message | nice work on the proposal and mock drafts! I really like protecting the 3 round re-draft and the value of those picks. What would the effect be on proposal C if we capped each team's # of lost players at 3 and then removed item C.7. where teams fill out their rosters? or if the waiver rounds aren't deep enough teams can decline to make a waiver round pick and receive a 4th rounder in lieu? |