Gator Posted Tuesday at 06:44 PM Author Share Posted Tuesday at 06:44 PM 2 minutes ago, chris12345 said: @Gator Chicago Blackhawks Front office Budget: 2024/25 Season: 100m Player Relations Department: 20m Player Development: 10m Medical/Training Facility: 20m Minors Budget: 20m Scouting Department:30m Only 3 options for the scouting department $0 - No pick $10m - free 5th $60m - free 1st Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted Tuesday at 08:32 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 08:32 PM Florian Xhekaj + Florida = ELC of 775k x 3 #shortandsweet#wtfisthatguysnameagain 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris12345 Posted Tuesday at 08:47 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 08:47 PM 2 hours ago, Gator said: Only 3 options for the scouting department $0 - No pick $10m - free 5th $60m - free 1st Whoops. Let's try again. Chicago Blackhawks Front office Budget: 2024/25 Season: 100m Player Relations Department: 20m Player Development: 0m Medical/Training Facility: 0m Minors Budget: 20m Scouting Department:60m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted Tuesday at 09:10 PM Author Share Posted Tuesday at 09:10 PM NEW VOTE PUT UP This is the last vote being put up to try and loosen the restrictions on trade clauses. If this vote doesnt pass we can revisit the idea in the offseason. RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL * Rule 3.7 in the CBA will be scrapped. If this passes you will be allowed to trade a player with a NTC to any team, regardless if on your list or not. However there will be harsher penalties if you trade them to a team not on their list. The penalties will ultimately hurt your team morale which could in turn make it difficult to extend your pending UFAs and lock up your youth to long term extensions. Proposed penalties for moving these clauses to teams on and off their list is as follows: NTC on list - 1 Point NTC off list - 3 points NMC on list - 5 points You cannot move a player with a NMC to a team not on their list NMC will be given 5 team lists, rather than 3 team lists. This wouldn't take effect until lists get released on January 1st 2025. - For change - Not for or against - Against change 75%+ of votes submitted by Sepember 30th 11:59pm needed for vote to pass. EXAMPLE If only 20 people submit a vote, only 15 needed to pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatchesMalone Posted Tuesday at 09:59 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 09:59 PM My issue with it is mostly just realism. IRL if a player has a no-trade clause that is binding and they can only be traded according to the conditions of the clause. I can see the appeal I guess but to me it doesn't outweigh the hit to the realism factor. When I see fantasy leagues with weird rules like this it starts to feel like turning the sliders away from sim and over to arcade mode. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted Tuesday at 10:18 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 10:18 PM (edited) 18 minutes ago, MatchesMalone said: My issue with it is mostly just realism. IRL if a player has a no-trade clause that is binding and they can only be traded according to the conditions of the clause. I can see the appeal I guess but to me it doesn't outweigh the hit to the realism factor. When I see fantasy leagues with weird rules like this it starts to feel like turning the sliders away from sim and over to arcade mode. I dunno what the state of waiving NTCs is in this league, but reality is IRL, there are lots and lots of examples of players that waive their NTCs when asked. In real life, if a team asks a player to waive their NTC, it's most likely because said team doesn't value you very much anymore, and therefore, it's in the best interests to just waive and move on unless there is a compelling reason to stay (ie. a stronger contender, family reasons, etc). I don't have any stats to back it up, but I feel that whenever we hear of a player being asked to waive their NTC in real life, 95% of the time it happens. Just my opinion. Edited Tuesday at 10:19 PM by HKSR 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatchesMalone Posted Tuesday at 11:09 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:09 PM 27 minutes ago, HKSR said: I dunno what the state of waiving NTCs is in this league, but reality is IRL, there are lots and lots of examples of players that waive their NTCs when asked. In real life, if a team asks a player to waive their NTC, it's most likely because said team doesn't value you very much anymore, and therefore, it's in the best interests to just waive and move on unless there is a compelling reason to stay (ie. a stronger contender, family reasons, etc). I don't have any stats to back it up, but I feel that whenever we hear of a player being asked to waive their NTC in real life, 95% of the time it happens. Just my opinion. I see what you're saying and I think there would be a way to structure this that make sense. But let's take a year and figure it out rather than jump into something that I believe is ill-conceived. I'm not a fan of the whole 3 team / 10 team thing to begin with. That's not what NMC and NTC mean. In real life when you trade a player with an NTC without their approval, a. that would simply be blocked by the league in 99%+ of cases, and in the case of the Senators and Dadonov where it somehow slips through, the team gets penalized a first round pick. I see where you guys are coming from now though - I guess I missed the discuss on Discord. You're looking at it not as a modified clause where there's a finalized list that the player would accept to, but a full NTC where it's up to the player (in our case the agent/commissioner on the player's behalf) to decide to accept a trade to a team they don't really want to, but they want to get out of a bad situation (hence signalling a hit to PR reputation). I do think there's potential for something interesting here, but I think it needs to be better formulated. I also think you're completely wrong about your 95% stat. Veteran players fight for those clauses in their contracts. They have families and own homes and have kids in schools with friends. They're not just gonna be waiving them every time they're asked. And trading a player doesn't mean you don't value them or it's a bad fit or situation; you always have to give something good to get something good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyBOI Posted Tuesday at 11:32 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:32 PM 21 minutes ago, MatchesMalone said: I see what you're saying and I think there would be a way to structure this that make sense. But let's take a year and figure it out rather than jump into something that I believe is ill-conceived. I'm not a fan of the whole 3 team / 10 team thing to begin with. That's not what NMC and NTC mean. In real life when you trade a player with an NTC without their approval, a. that would simply be blocked by the league in 99%+ of cases, and in the case of the Senators and Dadonov where it somehow slips through, the team gets penalized a first round pick. I see where you guys are coming from now though - I guess I missed the discuss on Discord. You're looking at it not as a modified clause where there's a finalized list that the player would accept to, but a full NTC where it's up to the player (in our case the agent/commissioner on the player's behalf) to decide to accept a trade to a team they don't really want to, but they want to get out of a bad situation (hence signalling a hit to PR reputation). I do think there's potential for something interesting here, but I think it needs to be better formulated. I also think you're completely wrong about your 95% stat. Veteran players fight for those clauses in their contracts. They have families and own homes and have kids in schools with friends. They're not just gonna be waiving them every time they're asked. And trading a player doesn't mean you don't value them or it's a bad fit or situation; you always have to give something good to get something good. I kinda agree, you never hear about the NTC that wasn't waived... wouldn't be good for the player or the team to let that leak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted Tuesday at 11:33 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:33 PM (edited) 24 minutes ago, MatchesMalone said: I see what you're saying and I think there would be a way to structure this that make sense. But let's take a year and figure it out rather than jump into something that I believe is ill-conceived. I'm not a fan of the whole 3 team / 10 team thing to begin with. That's not what NMC and NTC mean. In real life when you trade a player with an NTC without their approval, a. that would simply be blocked by the league in 99%+ of cases, and in the case of the Senators and Dadonov where it somehow slips through, the team gets penalized a first round pick. I see where you guys are coming from now though - I guess I missed the discuss on Discord. You're looking at it not as a modified clause where there's a finalized list that the player would accept to, but a full NTC where it's up to the player (in our case the agent/commissioner on the player's behalf) to decide to accept a trade to a team they don't really want to, but they want to get out of a bad situation (hence signalling a hit to PR reputation). I do think there's potential for something interesting here, but I think it needs to be better formulated. I also think you're completely wrong about your 95% stat. Veteran players fight for those clauses in their contracts. They have families and own homes and have kids in schools with friends. They're not just gonna be waiving them every time they're asked. And trading a player doesn't mean you don't value them or it's a bad fit or situation; you always have to give something good to get something good. Maybe not 95%, but it's pretty high. Ullmark, Mikheyev, Tarasenko, Mcdonagh, Markstrom, etc all waived their NTCs recently. There's probably others too, I just can't recall off the top of my head. The number is probably much, much higher for players going from non playoff teams to a playoff team too. Edited Tuesday at 11:33 PM by HKSR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted Tuesday at 11:34 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:34 PM 2 minutes ago, PeteyBOI said: I kinda agree, you never hear about the NTC that wasn't waived... wouldn't be good for the player or the team to let that leak Nah you hear about them too. Varlamov and Krug come to mind as recent examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteyBOI Posted Tuesday at 11:38 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:38 PM 3 minutes ago, HKSR said: Nah you hear about them too. Varlamov and Krug come to mind as recent examples. my bad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatchesMalone Posted Tuesday at 11:56 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:56 PM 22 minutes ago, HKSR said: Maybe not 95%, but it's pretty high. Ullmark, Mikheyev, Tarasenko, Mcdonagh, Markstrom, etc all waived their NTCs recently. There's probably others too, I just can't recall off the top of my head. The number is probably much, much higher for players going from non playoff teams to a playoff team too. Ok but even if you're right, that number of players actually asked to waive would be miniscule compared to teams "self-censoring" that never try to trade or even entertain trading players who have trade clauses. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatchesMalone Posted Tuesday at 11:57 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 11:57 PM 22 minutes ago, HKSR said: Nah you hear about them too. Varlamov and Krug come to mind as recent examples. As a Sens fan, Heatley to Edmonton is still seared into my brain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted yesterday at 12:54 AM Share Posted yesterday at 12:54 AM 57 minutes ago, MatchesMalone said: Ok but even if you're right, that number of players actually asked to waive would be miniscule compared to teams "self-censoring" that never try to trade or even entertain trading players who have trade clauses. Don't disagree with that, but we are talking about teams wanting to move guys with NTCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatchesMalone Posted yesterday at 01:12 AM Share Posted yesterday at 01:12 AM (edited) 18 minutes ago, HKSR said: Don't disagree with that, but we are talking about teams wanting to move guys with NTCs. Yeah so your 95% turns into maybe 5 or 10% when you factor in teams that might want to trade a player with an NTC but just don't; In the real world teams don't operate in a vacuum; coaches and managers are in dialogue with players and they have a pretty good idea who wants to be there and who may or may not be receptive to a trade. Edited yesterday at 01:13 AM by MatchesMalone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted yesterday at 01:16 AM Share Posted yesterday at 01:16 AM 1 minute ago, MatchesMalone said: Yeah so your 95% turns into maybe 5 or 10%. In the real world teams don't operate in a vacuum; coaches and managers are in dialogue with players and they have a pretty good idea who wants to be there and who may or may not be receptive to a trade. We're not talking about that though.... We are talking about when a player is asked to waive their NTC. I said, "but I feel that whenever we hear of a player being asked to waive their NTC in real life, 95% of the time it happens." In reality, it might not be 95% of the time, but it's very high, and definitely more than 50%. Tying this back to our fantasy game, the point of the rule change is so that we can kinda simulate GMs asking their players to waive their NTCs without having to go through the whole process of having someone play the role of the player. Since in real life, the majority of players waive their NTCs if asked, it is generally pretty realistic that players with NTCs can be traded, albeit a penalty to team morale. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatchesMalone Posted yesterday at 01:20 AM Share Posted yesterday at 01:20 AM 1 minute ago, HKSR said: We're not talking about that though.... We are talking about when a player is asked to waive their NTC. I said, "but I feel that whenever we hear of a player being asked to waive their NTC in real life, 95% of the time it happens." In reality, it might not be 95% of the time, but it's very high, and definitely more than 50%. Tying this back to our fantasy game, the point of the rule change is so that we can kinda simulate GMs asking their players to waive their NTCs without having to go through the whole process of having someone play the role of the player. Since in real life, the majority of players waive their NTCs if asked, it is generally pretty realistic that players with NTCs can be traded, albeit a penalty to team morale. OK then I guess we're having two separate conversations and there's not much point continuing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted yesterday at 01:28 AM Share Posted yesterday at 01:28 AM 2 hours ago, MatchesMalone said: I also think you're completely wrong about your 95% stat. Veteran players fight for those clauses in their contracts. They have families and own homes and have kids in schools with friends. They're not just gonna be waiving them every time they're asked. And trading a player doesn't mean you don't value them or it's a bad fit or situation; you always have to give something good to get something good. Good post. I think that IRL the NTC clauses make it very rare for a team to even ask. Perhaps in a future rethink on the idea, maybe each GFL club can only ask one NMC guy to waive his clause in a given year, but still suffer big penalties to moral for having asked. Maybe the GM who asks to waive his own given NMC could be penalized by not being allowed to offer an clauses or have any new deals with clauses, taking that leverage away from future negotiations for two years if they ask a guy with a NMC to waive it? I mean on top of moral loss. In short yeah i agree its too hastily thought out I think to vote yes this year. I am interested for future seasons though. Most leagues introduce rules changes a year in advance of the changes, which may benefit stability here. I dunno. I think I will vote no on this one though just to give a year of time to think on the best rule to replace the existing rule. Change for change sake doesn't make sense, unless it is a great change with positive results. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grinch Posted yesterday at 03:56 AM Share Posted yesterday at 03:56 AM (edited) Player Relations Department: 35M Player Development: 20 Medical/Training Facility: 10 Minors Budget: 25M Scouting Department:10 Current projected lines(subject to change): B.Tkchuck R.Thomas J.Kyrou O.Tippett T.Zegras T.Seguin K.Kapanen M.Rasmussen T.Foerster M.Olivier D.Voronkov J.Armia N.Hanifin B.Skjei R.Sandin W.Borgen N.Knyzhov J.Zboril Fighting for a spot : J.Lekkerimaki X.Bourgault C.Hanas R.McGroarty Edited yesterday at 04:05 AM by Grinch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted yesterday at 04:11 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 04:11 AM Safe to assume your vote is a no? @MatchesMalone.. Sorry for tag, just want confirmation before submitting your vote on discord. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted yesterday at 04:22 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 04:22 AM TO COL Parker Wotherspoon Lucas Ciona Graham Sward 2025 CGY 5th TO CGY Future Considerations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted yesterday at 04:24 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 04:24 AM TO MIN Ryder Ritchie 2025 STL 4th 2026 VAN 2nd TO VAN Vasily Podkolzin 2026 MIN 5th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris12345 Posted yesterday at 04:38 AM Share Posted yesterday at 04:38 AM 5 hours ago, HKSR said: Nah you hear about them too. Varlamov and Krug come to mind as recent examples. Ryan Miller said no to Calgary! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatchesMalone Posted yesterday at 04:38 AM Share Posted yesterday at 04:38 AM 26 minutes ago, Gator said: Safe to assume your vote is a no? @MatchesMalone.. Sorry for tag, just want confirmation before submitting your vote on discord. Cheers Lol yeah I'll say no for now. Not as strongly against it after chatting with HKSR, but I definitely think it could be formulated better. Just not sure how exactly. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator Posted yesterday at 05:51 AM Author Share Posted yesterday at 05:51 AM (edited) Players Fighting For Spots Jordan Dumais Bradly Nadeau David Goyette Amadeus Lombardi Jagger Firkus Ville Koivunen Aatu Raty The Vancouver Canucks feel very good about where our team is at heading into year 2. After a last place finish in the inaugural season we are looking to have a big bounce back season. We have a very solid young core here in Vancouver with a chunk of them coming in for their rookie seasons! Fresh off of their ELC Slides are Simon Nemec & David Jiricek. Both are very promising defensmen with a lot of upside. They join another promising young defender that we acquired via trade last season in Olen Zellweger. There's going to be a lot of inexperience, but there's no denying their talent. They will be led by some veteran guys back there in Jeff Petry & Ben Chiarot so we feel they will transition to the big stage fairly well. We have a lot of high hopes for them for years to come. We have a few holes to fill for our forward group, but we feel very good about what we currently have in place. The additions of Kopitar, Duchene, and Drouin were huge, and will provide a much needed boost ro our team this season. The experience leadership they bring to the table will do wonders for our young guys, and we cant wait to see it all begin to unfold next month. Our goaltending room is probably the strongest part of our team. We fully expect Asakarov to start 30+ games this year, and wouldnt be surprised to see him turn heads in his rookie season. As for Binnington we really liked what we saw from him last year, and hope to see that continue this season. We feel very strongly about our tandem. We have about $10.5m of cap space to do a little free agent shopping. With our Top 6 basically set outside of 1 missing piece, it is basically just depth shopping. If we can manage to get the right pieces in free agency or via trade we may see ourselves eying a playoff spot come April. It'll be a tall task, but we have the talent in place to do it Edited yesterday at 05:52 AM by Gator 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.