Input on waiver rules

[JiriHrdina]

Hey guys, this is another rule change that was discussed during the year.

Current waiver rules are such that teams that make a claim go to the bottom of the list for future claims. The list resets at the start of every regular season.
Tiebreaker is standings (either current, or during summer last regular season)

Proposed rule change is to just make it ALWAYS go by standings.

Please vote.

[MJK]

I really have no preference.

[Da_Chief]

Current rule. Shouldn't be close.

[Knut]

Dallas would get first crack at every player and still suck. I am good either way.

[flamesfan6]

Current rule. Shouldn't be close.

disagree strongly, waivers should be there to help the worse teams.

There are still roster limits, inability to send them to the farm, and cap issues to make it so the bottom teams just can't claim everyone.

I'm glad that the majority of voters disagree with you at the moment.

At the very least if it manages that the remaining 14 teams vote for the current rule, we should be able to see the list publicly instead of it just being behind the scenes.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

I voted no preference, I agree the worst teams should have rights to the waiver wire pretty much constantly because it helps improve parity. The only bad part about the rule change is if one team is last place all year then they get all the good guys (usually these teams arent up against cap) and the 2nd last place team that could also benefit, will get leftovers if anything at all.

[Goffie]

I voted current rule. My reasoning wasn't to help stacked teams get guys. But to help the 11th-8th place teams pushing for the playoffs. Some of these teams may need a guy for a playoff push and not get them cause the two bottom feeders keep picking them up.

[Caged Great]

With there being so many rules favouring the playoff teams, I think having the waiver rule benefit the bottom feeders is one of those things that can help to level the playing field even slightly.

[Hanna Sniper]

Current

or else one team can claim every player and trade him off for future. There won't be a loophole to prevent one team from blocking and controlling all waiver wire moved. Claim A player and trade him for a 5th this year, claim player 2 and trade him for a 5th nest year, claim player 3 and trade him for 200K next season,

Top team contacts worst team in the league... "claim player 5 for me and I'll trade you a 5th in 2019".... "sure thing just throw in a 100K for next season as well"

As long as the bottom team remains the bottom feeder there is nothing stopping someone from exploring it. The 2nd worst team would never have a chance ever at a player. it's not like the bottom feeder changes spots throughout the year. That team usually runs the gauntlet (I think nor sure if true)

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm correct or even majority

[mbeauchamp76]

I voted to change the rule however after seeing some of these comments it has put me on the fence a bit.

IF the rule is changed it does make record keeping pretty simple for the league and actually gives GM a clue where we are in the waiver order. I am sure the league would have something to say if a team is stockpiling waiver picks JUST for the purpose of trading them.

As an added part to this possible rule change may I suggest a maximum of 3 waiver claims per team per season. This would mitigate collusion in the first place.

[Pacem]

With the current rule and a GM of a team that is likely going to be in the bottom five next season I would have a hard time picking someone up on waivers. I could see a player that might benefit my team but wouldn't pick him up because of the whole "there could be someone better coming up soon".

I could also be potential screwed by this change to for the same reasons people list. If i'm 3rd or 5th in the order I may not get a chance on a decent player.

With that said. How valuable are waiver wire players anyways? If a player is even just a little bit decent, hasn't the GM waiving the player at least tried to move him? If waiver wire players are really only worth 5th rd picks or 100k or so in cap. Is it really that bad that teams so low in standings are picking up minor assets if that were to happen as people suggest? And at some point all the lower teams cap has to be eaten up with the waiver claims.

Maybe go with the older rules but have it reset every month, and waiver order is determined by the end of the previous months standings. Would easier for the guys tracking this stuff to go by as well. A thread every month with set waiver order. (pts percentage could be easiest cause of different amount of games played by each team) Player goes on waiver on Oct 19th, im 3rd on list I make claim. I go to back of the list for October. Novemeber 1st roles around. New waiver order for the month is set by October 31st standings. My team goes to their spot, say 5th this time around.

I am relatively new to the league so again, not sure how valuable waiver wire players really are.

[Da_Chief]

With there being so many rules favouring the playoff teams, I think having the waiver rule benefit the bottom feeders is one of those things that can help to level the playing field even slightly.

I've heard this couple times from you now. I'd like to hear some of these.

[Caged Great]

I've heard this couple times from you now. I'd like to hear some of these.

Sponsorships mostly favour the good teams with only some marginal ones go for the lower end teams
Playoff round winners get cap bonuses
Award winners get cap bonuses (most award winners are on good teams)

The only thing that would clearly favour the least among us would be the waiver thing if modified for the bad teams to get the best of it.

[Cheese]

This possible rule change wont swing the advantage to anyone "unless they trade". If the teams pattern is not to do that now, or not to make smart deals, it wont matter.
The rule should be left as is.

[Da_Chief]

Sponsorships mostly favour the good teams with only some marginal ones go for the lower end teams
Playoff round winners get cap bonuses
Award winners get cap bonuses (most award winners are on good teams)

The only thing that would clearly favour the least among us would be the waiver thing if modified for the bad teams to get the best of it.

So basically about 2-3 mill in money? Playoff teams don't really have an advantage. If you want that bit of an extra money, invest into proper sponsorships, nominate your players for weekly/monthly awards. Awards like Priakin, Poster, new GM, coach, Commisioners etc can go to anyone.

I don't really care for bad teams, its not hard to fix bad teams, look at NJ and Phx from last year as an example, huge talent difference. If you're a good GM you will fix your team in a hurry.

Like Goffie said, teams that are pushing for that last playoff spot will never have a shot at a guy that can help them get that spot.

Should be left as is.

[flamesfan6]

Current

or else one team can claim every player and trade him off for future. There won't be a loophole to prevent one team from blocking and controlling all waiver wire moved. Claim A player and trade him for a 5th this year, claim player 2 and trade him for a 5th nest year, claim player 3 and trade him for 200K next season,

Top team contacts worst team in the league... "claim player 5 for me and I'll trade you a 5th in 2019".... "sure thing just throw in a 100K for next season as well"

As long as the bottom team remains the bottom feeder there is nothing stopping someone from exploring it. The 2nd worst team would never have a chance ever at a player. it's not like the bottom feeder changes spots throughout the year. That team usually runs the gauntlet (I think nor sure if true)

Just my opinion, doesn't mean I'm correct or even majority

Most likely the team who places the person on waivers would probably tried to have traded that player before doing so, going to a new team doesn't change the players value, so there is probably no market for trading them.

And so what? if the bottom 5 teams constantly claim and trade, then they are getting assets and hopefully better, which would be good for the league. With the current rule the bottom teams make one claim, and then they could miss out on better players for the rest of the season which would help them more than it helps a play off/almost play off team. A team could claim a player in month A and never be able to get another claim on players to improve their club.

As far as I know, the proposed rule is how the NHL works... How come when it comes to rules everyone is like, try to follow the NHL as close as possible, but when it comes to a rule that impacts playoff teams it's a cannot change this rule mentality, must not have rules that help bottom feeder teams.

As for the person who suggested a max on waiver claims, there are roster limits, not being able to send the player down, and cap that prevents teams from just claiming everyone, don't need to add in a random number of just preventing waiver claims.

And if the bottom team claims that player, then try making a trade with that team! If it is a player that you want that you couldn't work out a deal with the original team, then maybe you can work something out with a team that needs future prospects, maybe you would be able to get that player then.

[Caged Great]

So basically about 2-3 mill in money? Playoff teams don't really have an advantage. If you want that bit of an extra money, invest into proper sponsorships, nominate your players for weekly/monthly awards.

I've seen teams in the past that have closer to 10 million in extra money. That extra money buys another 1st line calibre player, which is a distinct advantage over teams that can't do that.

Awards like Priakin, Poster, new GM, coach, Commisioners etc can go to anyone.

Yes, that's definitely true. However, the most any one non playoff team can realistically hope to get is maybe 2 million from the awards. You win 2 rounds in the playoffs and you get that even before heading into the awards, which if you're good enough to get to the conference finals, you have players that win awards. Now before you say only 4 teams make the conference finals, there usually is only 4 or 5 truly bad teams as well with everyone else in the middle zone.

I don't really care for bad teams, its not hard to fix bad teams, look at NJ and Phx from last year as an example, huge talent difference. If you're a good GM you will fix your team in a hurry.

Phoenix and New Jersey had plenty of talent on their teams and while they improved, they were not that bad to begin with. There are some teams out there that have extremely little to work with. Getting a small benefit of some 60 OV or worse players could help them string a few smaller pieces in trade to get something actually useful to get them out of a multi year rebuild.

Like Goffie said, teams that are pushing for that last playoff spot will never have a shot at a guy that can help them get that spot.

If you are fighting for a playoff spot and are relying on the waiver wires for other team's marginal 4th liners and 7th defensemen and aren't trying to trade for someone, maybe you better do some better GMing.

[RT14]

The biggest concern I see people having with the old rule is after one claim, it puts the supposed worst team in the league at the very end of the order and thus they only have a small advantage for being the worst team.

Just a suggestion but what if we made it so the claiming team is moved to the back of the non-playoff teams instead of to the back of the entire league? That way non-playoff teams still always have an advantage over playoff teams when players are waived, but the last place team can't just keep claiming every player and trading them.

[JiriHrdina]

People are over thinking this. The majority of the time bott teams don't even submit claims. This rule is relatively minor. I'm a little surprised that people think rules favour good teams. This league constantly sees teams go from bring bad to contenders by making solid moves and being active.

I put a call out for rule suggestions and got one reply. If folks have suggestions on how to make this league more fair then lets hear them. But either way this rule will do little to turn a team around

[RT14]

^^^^
Not sure if that is in response to me or not, but I just want to say the only reason I made a suggestion was because I was blown away with how many people voted in favor of the change. I believe the rule as it stands now is by far the more fair choice of the two, and allowing the same team first dibs on players again and again has the potential to lead to a problem so was trying to suggest something that might be a middle ground for both sides. Did not mean to offend if you took any (not sure if you did or not).

Anyways, I'd still rather just leave it as is if nothing else. More realistic and fair imo, but honestly don't really care that much either way because as you said, it will rarely matter.

[JiriHrdina]

No wasn't in response to you. Just general response. I think too much is being made of a minor rule.

[Caged Great]

People are over thinking this. The majority of the time bott teams don't even submit claims. This rule is relatively minor. I'm a little surprised that people think rules favour good teams. This league constantly sees teams go from bring bad to contenders by making solid moves and being active.

I put a call out for rule suggestions and got one reply. If folks have suggestions on how to make this league more fair then lets hear them. But either way this rule will do little to turn a team around

It's one of those things where once you're ahead, it's a bit easier to stay ahead. There are not any mechanisms out there though that assist franchises that have extremely little to work with. That's why I advocated for the waivers based on standings as it's a little something that teams that are low on assets can get a little boost (not much mind you, but it's something)

The main thing that will determine how good/bad a team will be in the long term is how active and skilled at managing their roster they are. Having little things to keep teams from getting too good/too bad also help (the cheese rule for example) overall competitiveness.

[Da_Chief]

If you are fighting for a playoff spot and are relying on the waiver wires for other team's marginal 4th liners and 7th defensemen and aren't trying to trade for someone, maybe you better do some better GMing.

IF you're a garbage team and relying on these waiver wires to get you help then you need to do some better GMing.

This isn't rocket science. Good GMs have built good teams without the waiver wire help. To give advantage to one really bad team over the rest of them makes no sense to me. Sometimes you can find a waiver player that turns into something, those other bad teams should have a fair shot too.

Only thing I can suggest is if a non-playoff team puts in a claim they are put in ahead of playoff teams but they still get moved behind the other non-playoff teams if they get the player. From this the only way playoff teams get can claim a player is if non of the non-playoffs put in a claim. This list will change as playoff positions change. Make sense?

[MJK]

Too much uncertainty and no real majority for this vote. I voted as 'no preference' but after seeing the results I think we just keep it as is.

[TurdFerguson]

I voted to change it.

1) it is what the NHL does
2) it requires no additional work from the league to administer or to make the list public
3) in the rare instance that a quality player is waiver (think eddy lack), I would prefer to see this player go to a bad team then a top team. As we discussed, in length, earlier in the year good teams don't make as many waiver claims as bad teams because a)they don't need to b) they don't have the room. So they tend to live at the top of the claim list (or bottom...however you view it). When an actual quality players becomes available they are at an advantage despite needing them less.

It is not totally fair, and it does favour lesser teams but in the interest of helping (in a very small way) the 'poor' teams turn things around, I'm all for it.

[JiriHrdina]

Need to think more about this, but whatever rule change we make won't go into effect until the start of the regular season.

[Daradon]

I voted for the current rule, but it's not of much concern for me, both ways seem fair. And as mentioned players on waivers won't really turn a team around. I guess anything could happen, sometimes a balance comes from a third line player, but I don't see it very likely.