I like two waiver drafts. I have had to deal with the most timezone change and dial up internet (that might be changed for the Entry draft - fingers crossed). I like the trading the WD stimulates and the hockey discussions I sometimes get with other who I rarely talk to. I will need to be convinced to change to one draft.
The argument for one WD is relatively simple for me;
- Waiver Drafts are time consuming, not only to conduct, but to organize for.
- WD's provide a service, but having two of them makes that service less impactful.
- Having one WD would actually be a return to our past tradition.
- Holding the WD at the All-Star weekend would make scheduling easy.
The truth is I live out of town, and will have two young kids moving forward - so my attendance at two WD's is highly unlikely and the time commitment to participate in two is difficult.
I'm going to re-iterate that I find the waiver draft stressful, and I have for the three years we've done them. Exploring why might be a lot of fun, but it will still come down to "I find them stressful" for me.
As for the claim that the waiver drafts change the fortunes of teams; I'm much more persuaded that a winning team comes from a remarkable entry draft, or canny trading. Is there any examples of team that won because of good drafting in WD2?
I would prefer only one draft (obv date moved back). I find by the 2nd waiver draft only a couple of teams really care anyways and half the teams just phone their lists in.
When we had one WD over a decade a go we found January was to late for a team to benefit and as the 40 game mark often occurred about christmas it was almost impossible to get everyone together.
The wavier draft alone will not win anyone the pool. No one aspect will do it. I certainly benefited from WD1 two years ago when I was 10/11th as I picked up a few key players which helped to be leading the pool going into the final weekend. Last Year WD2 provided me the players to get out of dog race that was avoiding last place. Yes the wavier drafts does have an impact.
Part of the impact is the trading it stimulates as GM's do not want to drop good players for nothing.
By going to one WD, holding it mid season is to late to help the recovery. Also by having two drafts it keeps more people interested later in the season.
As for those of you who find it stressful or cannot find the time. This is not a good reason. We are all busy and stressed. That is part of life. Maybe the single guys are little less busy or maybe not. But at least half the pool is married or with significant others. We all work. Some of us two jobs. Some of us have kids. Some take courses. Hockey as much as we want it to is no longer near the highest priorities in our life.
But I need it as it is part of my stress relief. 2 Waiver drafts are important to me because it is an escape from all the other stresses. Yes I fret about not have lists prepared. More than once I have had to borrow someones. But being able to talk hockey for 3 or 4 hours even if it only online is part of my escape.
I continue to agree with Rob on this and that if GMs want to cut down on our get togethers, the pool sort of seems to be dying.
Its already sad when GMs have to submit a list to a draft when they have known for 3 months the day of the draft and can't find 2 hours. But... I'm open to discussion and if everyone wants less to do with eachother, so be it.
Regarding the: "we tried it once" argument. My impression is once upon a time the league was run by a bunch of hard-drinking college kids. And that the monthly line-ups had to be delivered by pony-express before sundown on a monday.
It seems we've changed the league a little since Cam scribed down those original hieroglyphics for his buddies.
And the needs of the members are still changing. The sensible thing to do is let the league evolve again. There is no sense in defending an artifact; particularly because if the change doesn't work, it's really easy to go back to the way it was.
Fine, we tried it once, let's try it again. Your two newest GMs are saying that the 2nd WD isn't accomplishing anything. That may be worth listening to.
When I brought up the past in this thread, I was mearly pointing out the experience we had.
As for the benefit of the second wavier draft. The Lost boys picked up Mason in the draft which would have gone a long way to keeping you out of last place this past season.
I agree with Mike we should meld this with the continuous waiver wire proposal as they are inextricably linked. WD's become almost moot with a continuous wire, except for the requirement to cut 2 of your active roster players.
While life is busy (and I have had to do WDs by phone a couple of times), I still wouldn't reduce them on that basis.
Perhaps the issue is more the timing of the WD's and when they would be most meaningful to the pool ie is the current 2nd WD too late to offer much in the way of good pick ups? The 1st is always good for unexpected performers, maybe the 2 drafts need to be front heavy in terms of schedule?
Go with a 'permanent' Waiver Wire where any player dropped to it stays available until picked.
Reduce to one WD; (at the All-star game) where cuts are made, etc. to free up roster players that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day, to increase the pressure to make trades, etc.
The waiver wire would not allow undrafted players to be available - just cut players. Any undrafted players would make their appearance at the WD to retain the importance and integrity of the WD.
All of which would have the following effects;
- injury replacement players continuously available (presumably) for lower ranking teams based on cuts created by prospect promotions. This pool of players would grow until the WD after which we start fresh with a new waiver wire.
- one major WD to prepare for where undrafted players and roster cut players will be available. The WD could be held at its traditional slot of the All-Star game (roughly half way through the season).
There's a perhaps a consequence you are not considering with your interpretation Cameron (though it's the plan I most like, so this is not a critique.)
Let's suppose that after the ED, there are 12 prospects promoted to the line up. That gives us a waiver pool of 12 players.
When the WD comes along, that pool will get wiped out making the second half of the season much tighter. Or, as I think about it, people will demote their prospects, draft a waived goober, and then waive the goober. Do the WD, draft a brand new goober, and then waive them in the next week. (or wait to see if goober #2 out performs your prospect.)
Anyway--is this laudable behaviour, or do you want to prevent it?
If we were to have only one waiver draft (still does not have my vote), it should occur long before the allstar break which usually occurs about game 50. Somewhere around game 30 would be much more appropriate.
"When the WD comes along, that pool will get wiped out making the second half of the season much tighter."
- I tend to agree, the majority of players to be waived would occur towards the beginning of the season. However, I'm not sure if that isn't a feature more than a bug.
Richard: Or, as I think about it, people will demote their prospects, draft a waived goober, and then waive the goober. Do the WD, draft a brand new goober, and then waive them in the next week. (or wait to see if goober #2 out performs your prospect.)
- It would be unusual to demote a prospect prior to the WD unless they were promoted to take the place of someone injured. The majority of prospect promotions are based on the merit of the prospect.
Further, it would be unusual to draft a 'goober' when presumably a 'non-goober' is available. The better the player you draft the more tradeable that player is to someone else. Even if you planned on re-promoting a prospect after the WD it would make more sense to explore the possibility of trading the player you intend to waive rather than automatically assuming you will waive them.
As for the commentary about the All-Star break being too late to hold the WD, I agree. A more rational place to hold it would be prior to the X-mas season 1/3 the way through the year. The bottom rung teams would be able to get better by picking up undrafted talent, and those teams struck by injuries would be able to reload for the majority of the season.
Last but not least, by moving to one WD early in the season we would promote trading over the later portions of the year as no quick fix for injuries would exist after X-mas.
I think that teams struggling at 2/3 point of season will be regretting any such rule change... top teams will NOT have to drop extra players like they currently do at WD2 ...and after WD1 - there will be NOTHING to pick up (i.e. all the good available players will have been picked up at WD1 and the waiver wire will be non-existent after WD1. Just my thoughts - and like Rob, I am not yet convinced to vote for any change bot open to ongoing discussion.
Re: Brian's comment, that people will regret not having a chance to benefit from the WD 2/3 of the way through the season.
How many people showed up, in the flesh, prepared and eager to participate in WD2 this year?
You're arguing a lot of emotion into a context where not a lot of emotion has existed from what I've seen.
The truth is: if you think your team is doing badly, a WD isn't going to help you. The best you'll get out of that process is a prospect or an RFA. There are no examples of WD2 giving anyone the pred cup.
Moreover, I'm kind of surprised, given your general enthusiasm to trade Brian, that you don't see and endorse precisely what this will do: encourage GMs in the bottom half to trade more often. There's no advantage to waiting until the WD: it's not coming.
A waiver draft is a great hindrance to trading; particularly for traders as... predatory... as you are. The fewer WDs, it stands to reason, the more trades we'll see.
In any case, why not vote in favour of it; it's a change that's very easy to restore if it doesn't work out?
I actually agree with most of Brian's conclusions above with some exceptions.
Having one fewer WD and having it earlier will definitely mean less help for lower rung teams (as well as injury stricken upper rung teams) at the 2/3 mark of the season.
However, I see no reason why the amended waiver wire wouldn't be in place after WD1 (it would just start 'fresh') - i.e. any prospect promotions that create a roster cut could surely be placed on the wire for teams to pick from.
I would share a couple of other thoughts;
- The waiver wire is never 'open', that is only players cut by teams can be picked from the wire. This leaves the WD as the important place to draft undrafted players.
- The more prospects we have, the more prospects there are to promote and therefore the more useful the waiver wire. Everything effects everything (this is my backhanded argument for raising the number of prospects to 10 - however, the truth is I am quite happy with 8).
- While it will reduce the fun of hanging out, WDs are becoming often sparesely attended events, and as noted by others the impact of the second one is muted compared to the first. Personally, I like WDs more for a reason to promote a get together of the pool than for any benefit to my team they provide.
- The time gained by reducing the number of WDs will likely be lost twice over in the trade talk necessary to accomplish the same results. Tweaking ones roster at the WD is much easier and less time consuming than doing so by cold-calling 11 Gms and making the same number of deals. In other words, getting rid of a WD may actually cost a GM more rather than less time.
- Further, Rob is correct in noting that the get togethers themselves are an impetus for trade talk (many GMs are present, most others are on-line).
I guess I am about Janus faced about all this. I can see the case for reducing to one WD as being appealing for reasons stated elsewhere, but also acknowledge that the case for making the switch isn't a 'no-brainer' for me.
ONE WD IS FINE BY ME, BUT WHEN IS MORE THE QUESTION. ATTENDANCE IS LOW AND EVEN TRADE TALK IS GETTING WORSE. PEOPLE ARE BUSY. I'VE HAD TO DRAFT FROM LISTS FOR OTHER GMS, AS HAVE OTHERS IN THIS POOL HAVE. PEOPLE LEAVE HALFWAY THRU A WD BECAUSE OF THEIR BUSY LIVES AND WE DO CELLPHONE CALLING TO UPDATE THEM AND GO FROM THERE. BUT TO BE FRANK, IT IS THE 1ST 2 RNDS OF THE WD2 WHAT MATTER; WD1 IS FAR MORE INTERESTING. WDs ARE FAR FROM THE SOCIAL GATHERINGS OF THE PAST. SLOTTING ONE WD IN EARLY JAN. COULD BE SOLUTION, NEAR THE HALFWAY POINT OF THE SEASON. LAST WD2 7 ONLINE, 2 ON CELL, 3 LISTS. HARDLY A FRENZY OF TRADE CHATTER, SOCIAL GATHERING , ETC...
24 comments:
I like two waiver drafts. I have had to deal with the most timezone change and dial up internet (that might be changed for the Entry draft - fingers crossed). I like the trading the WD stimulates and the hockey discussions I sometimes get with other who I rarely talk to. I will need to be convinced to change to one draft.
The argument for one WD is relatively simple for me;
- Waiver Drafts are time consuming, not only to conduct, but to organize for.
- WD's provide a service, but having two of them makes that service less impactful.
- Having one WD would actually be a return to our past tradition.
- Holding the WD at the All-Star weekend would make scheduling easy.
The truth is I live out of town, and will have two young kids moving forward - so my attendance at two WD's is highly unlikely and the time commitment to participate in two is difficult.
I'm going to re-iterate that I find the waiver draft stressful, and I have for the three years we've done them. Exploring why might be a lot of fun, but it will still come down to "I find them stressful" for me.
As for the claim that the waiver drafts change the fortunes of teams; I'm much more persuaded that a winning team comes from a remarkable entry draft, or canny trading. Is there any examples of team that won because of good drafting in WD2?
Richard.
I would prefer only one draft (obv date moved back). I find by the 2nd waiver draft only a couple of teams really care anyways and half the teams just phone their lists in.
When we had one WD over a decade a go we found January was to late for a team to benefit and as the 40 game mark often occurred about christmas it was almost impossible to get everyone together.
The wavier draft alone will not win anyone the pool. No one aspect will do it. I certainly benefited from WD1 two years ago when I was 10/11th as I picked up a few key players which helped to be leading the pool going into the final weekend. Last Year WD2 provided me the players to get out of dog race that was avoiding last place. Yes the wavier drafts does have an impact.
Part of the impact is the trading it stimulates as GM's do not want to drop good players for nothing.
By going to one WD, holding it mid season is to late to help the recovery. Also by having two drafts it keeps more people interested later in the season.
As for those of you who find it stressful or cannot find the time. This is not a good reason. We are all busy and stressed. That is part of life. Maybe the single guys are little less busy or maybe not. But at least half the pool is married or with significant others. We all work. Some of us two jobs. Some of us have kids. Some take courses. Hockey as much as we want it to is no longer near the highest priorities in our life.
But I need it as it is part of my stress relief. 2 Waiver drafts are important to me because it is an escape from all the other stresses. Yes I fret about not have lists prepared. More than once I have had to borrow someones. But being able to talk hockey for 3 or 4 hours even if it only online is part of my escape.
I would support one WD as I too have time limits.
As for timing, I would have the WD earlier rather than later so the undrafted gems can be scooped up more quickly and your bums can be voided quicker.
I continue to agree with Rob on this and that if GMs want to cut down on our get togethers, the pool sort of seems to be dying.
Its already sad when GMs have to submit a list to a draft when they have known for 3 months the day of the draft and can't find 2 hours. But... I'm open to discussion and if everyone wants less to do with eachother, so be it.
I have to disagree with Rob though that being single makes life less busy... time with wife + kids is replaced just by more time at work for me ;-)
Regarding the: "we tried it once" argument. My impression is once upon a time the league was run by a bunch of hard-drinking college kids. And that the monthly line-ups had to be delivered by pony-express before sundown on a monday.
It seems we've changed the league a little since Cam scribed down those original hieroglyphics for his buddies.
And the needs of the members are still changing. The sensible thing to do is let the league evolve again. There is no sense in defending an artifact; particularly because if the change doesn't work, it's really easy to go back to the way it was.
Fine, we tried it once, let's try it again. Your two newest GMs are saying that the 2nd WD isn't accomplishing anything. That may be worth listening to.
When I brought up the past in this thread, I was mearly pointing out the experience we had.
As for the benefit of the second wavier draft. The Lost boys picked up Mason in the draft which would have gone a long way to keeping you out of last place this past season.
Perfect point Rob... and Richard, you are too funny ;-) Man, I feel old now.
Actually there is no point in having a WD if we have an open waiver wire through out the year.
We should look at all of the proposals and decide which direction we should move in.
I agree with Mike we should meld this with the continuous waiver wire proposal as they are inextricably linked. WD's become almost moot with a continuous wire, except for the requirement to cut 2 of your active roster players.
While life is busy (and I have had to do WDs by phone a couple of times), I still wouldn't reduce them on that basis.
Perhaps the issue is more the timing of the WD's and when they would be most meaningful to the pool ie is the current 2nd WD too late to offer much in the way of good pick ups? The 1st is always good for unexpected performers, maybe the 2 drafts need to be front heavy in terms of schedule?
I'd favour a two pronged approach;
Go with a 'permanent' Waiver Wire where any player dropped to it stays available until picked.
Reduce to one WD; (at the All-star game) where cuts are made, etc. to free up roster players that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day, to increase the pressure to make trades, etc.
The waiver wire would not allow undrafted players to be available - just cut players. Any undrafted players would make their appearance at the WD to retain the importance and integrity of the WD.
All of which would have the following effects;
- injury replacement players continuously available (presumably) for lower ranking teams based on cuts created by prospect promotions. This pool of players would grow until the WD after which we start fresh with a new waiver wire.
- one major WD to prepare for where undrafted players and roster cut players will be available. The WD could be held at its traditional slot of the All-Star game (roughly half way through the season).
Thoughts?
WD2 usually occurs at 2/3 point in the season... so if we have a combo deal then the 'lone' WD perhaps needs to be earlier?
There's a perhaps a consequence you are not considering with your interpretation Cameron (though it's the plan I most like, so this is not a critique.)
Let's suppose that after the ED, there are 12 prospects promoted to the line up. That gives us a waiver pool of 12 players.
When the WD comes along, that pool will get wiped out making the second half of the season much tighter. Or, as I think about it, people will demote their prospects, draft a waived goober, and then waive the goober. Do the WD, draft a brand new goober, and then waive them in the next week. (or wait to see if goober #2 out performs your prospect.)
Anyway--is this laudable behaviour, or do you want to prevent it?
If we were to have only one waiver draft (still does not have my vote), it should occur long before the allstar break which usually occurs about game 50. Somewhere around game 30 would be much more appropriate.
Richard said;
"When the WD comes along, that pool will get wiped out making the second half of the season much tighter."
- I tend to agree, the majority of players to be waived would occur towards the beginning of the season. However, I'm not sure if that isn't a feature more than a bug.
Richard: Or, as I think about it, people will demote their prospects, draft a waived goober, and then waive the goober. Do the WD, draft a brand new goober, and then waive them in the next week. (or wait to see if goober #2 out performs your prospect.)
- It would be unusual to demote a prospect prior to the WD unless they were promoted to take the place of someone injured. The majority of prospect promotions are based on the merit of the prospect.
Further, it would be unusual to draft a 'goober' when presumably a 'non-goober' is available. The better the player you draft the more tradeable that player is to someone else. Even if you planned on re-promoting a prospect after the WD it would make more sense to explore the possibility of trading the player you intend to waive rather than automatically assuming you will waive them.
As for the commentary about the All-Star break being too late to hold the WD, I agree. A more rational place to hold it would be prior to the X-mas season 1/3 the way through the year. The bottom rung teams would be able to get better by picking up undrafted talent, and those teams struck by injuries would be able to reload for the majority of the season.
Last but not least, by moving to one WD early in the season we would promote trading over the later portions of the year as no quick fix for injuries would exist after X-mas.
I'm gonna put all my chips on Cameron's construction.
Standing waiver wire until the WD, which should happen around early December (first weekend of?).
The WD rinses out the waiver pool, players who are not drafted at the WD remain undraftable for the remainder of the season.
Richard.
Richard.
I think that teams struggling at 2/3 point of season will be regretting any such rule change... top teams will NOT have to drop extra players like they currently do at WD2 ...and after WD1 - there will be NOTHING to pick up (i.e. all the good available players will have been picked up at WD1 and the waiver wire will be non-existent after WD1. Just my thoughts - and like Rob, I am not yet convinced to vote for any change bot open to ongoing discussion.
Re: Brian's comment, that people will regret not having a chance to benefit from the WD 2/3 of the way through the season.
How many people showed up, in the flesh, prepared and eager to participate in WD2 this year?
You're arguing a lot of emotion into a context where not a lot of emotion has existed from what I've seen.
The truth is: if you think your team is doing badly, a WD isn't going to help you. The best you'll get out of that process is a prospect or an RFA. There are no examples of WD2 giving anyone the pred cup.
Moreover, I'm kind of surprised, given your general enthusiasm to trade Brian, that you don't see and endorse precisely what this will do: encourage GMs in the bottom half to trade more often. There's no advantage to waiting until the WD: it's not coming.
A waiver draft is a great hindrance to trading; particularly for traders as... predatory... as you are. The fewer WDs, it stands to reason, the more trades we'll see.
In any case, why not vote in favour of it; it's a change that's very easy to restore if it doesn't work out?
Richard.
I actually agree with most of Brian's conclusions above with some exceptions.
Having one fewer WD and having it earlier will definitely mean less help for lower rung teams (as well as injury stricken upper rung teams) at the 2/3 mark of the season.
However, I see no reason why the amended waiver wire wouldn't be in place after WD1 (it would just start 'fresh') - i.e. any prospect promotions that create a roster cut could surely be placed on the wire for teams to pick from.
I would share a couple of other thoughts;
- The waiver wire is never 'open', that is only players cut by teams can be picked from the wire. This leaves the WD as the important place to draft undrafted players.
- The more prospects we have, the more prospects there are to promote and therefore the more useful the waiver wire. Everything effects everything (this is my backhanded argument for raising the number of prospects to 10 - however, the truth is I am quite happy with 8).
- While it will reduce the fun of hanging out, WDs are becoming often sparesely attended events, and as noted by others the impact of the second one is muted compared to the first. Personally, I like WDs more for a reason to promote a get together of the pool than for any benefit to my team they provide.
- The time gained by reducing the number of WDs will likely be lost twice over in the trade talk necessary to accomplish the same results. Tweaking ones roster at the WD is much easier and less time consuming than doing so by cold-calling 11 Gms and making the same number of deals. In other words, getting rid of a WD may actually cost a GM more rather than less time.
- Further, Rob is correct in noting that the get togethers themselves are an impetus for trade talk (many GMs are present, most others are on-line).
I guess I am about Janus faced about all this. I can see the case for reducing to one WD as being appealing for reasons stated elsewhere, but also acknowledge that the case for making the switch isn't a 'no-brainer' for me.
ONE WD IS FINE BY ME, BUT WHEN IS MORE THE QUESTION. ATTENDANCE IS LOW AND EVEN TRADE TALK IS GETTING WORSE. PEOPLE ARE BUSY. I'VE HAD TO DRAFT FROM LISTS FOR OTHER GMS, AS HAVE OTHERS IN THIS POOL HAVE. PEOPLE LEAVE HALFWAY THRU A WD BECAUSE OF THEIR BUSY LIVES AND WE DO CELLPHONE CALLING TO UPDATE THEM AND GO FROM THERE. BUT TO BE FRANK, IT IS THE 1ST 2 RNDS OF THE WD2 WHAT MATTER; WD1 IS FAR MORE INTERESTING. WDs ARE FAR FROM THE SOCIAL GATHERINGS OF THE PAST. SLOTTING ONE WD IN EARLY JAN. COULD BE SOLUTION, NEAR THE HALFWAY POINT OF THE SEASON. LAST WD2 7 ONLINE, 2 ON CELL, 3 LISTS. HARDLY A FRENZY OF TRADE CHATTER, SOCIAL GATHERING , ETC...
Post a Comment