VHLM Waiver Discussion

[Corco 1,124]

As to your last point, I would think that most GMs track the progress of the draftees during the season, but I may be too optimistic here.

I try to make the draft thread slightly less than a week before the draft itself, but even if I don't, there is a seasonal draftee tracker that Victor makes each season that has the players eligible for the VHLM draft (not draft eligible waiver players from the season before though.

[Guest]

What I don't understand is what GM's have to lose by claiming an inactive member and messaging them? Best case scenario you gain an active, and if nothing occurs, then you gain a player who will probably have no impact on your team. There is no reason a GM shouldn't try messaging these inactives.

This is pretty much my point.

Example: Say I am Da Trifecta.

If I claim a 0 TPE guy even though I'm "tanking" then he won't really obstruct me from tanking.

Now, if said guy does become active because I PM him, then I trade him to a team for draft picks.

If I simply don't want to add a guy to a team because he "isn't doing anything", well shouldn't that be what I want? Seeing as I'm tanking. Better to have him on a team gaining stats then to sit on the Waiver wire. Why?

Because if that guy does come back and sees that he had points and stats, he may stick around. If he sees he was never claimed he may just forget about us completely. To tell me that "if he does something" then he will get rewarded with a team, is playing hardball with a new member (regardless of being active or not).

I just see more positives in claiming then leaving them there. But hey, you guys can keep formulating excuses and such to prove to me why claiming him for your "tanking" team is bad. I won't butt into the VHLM stuff anymore cause all it does is get guys out of their shell. I'm trying to help here, it just seems like everyone has their own agenda. I will remind you on one thing though:

The VHLM was put in long ago to help develop and attract new members in the feeling out process. This is a step in the wrong direction boys.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

This is pretty much my point.

Example: Say I am Da Trifecta.

If I claim a 0 TPE guy even though I'm "tanking" then he won't really obstruct me from tanking.

Now, if said guy does become active because I PM him, then I trade him to a team for draft picks.

If I simply don't want to add a guy to a team because he "isn't doing anything", well shouldn't that be what I want? Seeing as I'm tanking. Better to have him on a team gaining stats then to sit on the Waiver wire. Why?

Because if that guy does come back and sees that he had points and stats, he may stick around. If he sees he was never claimed he may just forget about us completely. To tell me that "if he does something" then he will get rewarded with a team, is playing hardball with a new member (regardless of being active or not).

I just see more positives in claiming then leaving them there. But hey, you guys can keep formulating excuses and such to prove to me why claiming him for your "tanking" team is bad. I won't butt into the VHLM stuff anymore cause all it does is get guys out of their shell. I'm trying to help here, it just seems like everyone has their own agenda. I will remind you on one thing though:

The VHLM was put in long ago to help develop and attract new members in the feeling out process. This is a step in the wrong direction boys.

 

As stated before, it's hard to get someone on the team when someone with higher priority claims them. SMH if you didn't even read that.

[Guest]

As stated before, it's hard to get someone on the team when someone with higher priority claims them. SMH if you didn't even read that.

I did read that. But also keep in mind you put a claim in for a Goalie. Salo is active and will be active and you put a claim in for him correct?

[Victor 10,536]

What this thread has definitely shown me is there is no good reason to not assign players to teams after 72 hours of being available.

You can run bot teams as with the STHS, you dont need to have players on Minor league teams. It would likely ruin the league though or at least that is what I would theorize since four teams would be useless.

We should do a test sim of this situation. I'm sure there will be an effect but to what extent? All teams would play the useless teams an equal amount of times.

Or maybe we should consider moving to a two-sim system, with a separate simmer for the VHLM.

It's difficult to diminish teams once an expansion occurs. It becomes unfair to the members whose teams are revoked. It creates a terrible situation.

No one would lose sleep over Vasteras being removed. Bern can leave too, they've achieved close to nothing in their whole history.

North America would be more difficult. Brampton and Minot probably would have to go if we contract.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

I did read that. But also keep in mind you put a claim in for a Goalie. Salo is active and will be active and you put a claim in for him correct?

 

I did. Corco told me I had higher priority than Oslo and apparently he was sent to Oslo.

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

This is pretty much my point.

Example: Say I am Da Trifecta.

If I claim a 0 TPE guy even though I'm "tanking" then he won't really obstruct me from tanking.

Now, if said guy does become active because I PM him, then I trade him to a team for draft picks.

If I simply don't want to add a guy to a team because he "isn't doing anything", well shouldn't that be what I want? Seeing as I'm tanking. Better to have him on a team gaining stats then to sit on the Waiver wire. Why?

Because if that guy does come back and sees that he had points and stats, he may stick around. If he sees he was never claimed he may just forget about us completely. To tell me that "if he does something" then he will get rewarded with a team, is playing hardball with a new member (regardless of being active or not).

I just see more positives in claiming then leaving them there. But hey, you guys can keep formulating excuses and such to prove to me why claiming him for your "tanking" team is bad. I won't butt into the VHLM stuff anymore cause all it does is get guys out of their shell. I'm trying to help here, it just seems like everyone has their own agenda. I will remind you on one thing though:

The VHLM was put in long ago to help develop and attract new members in the feeling out process. This is a step in the wrong direction boys.

 

People disagree with you, so you're going to take your ball and go home?

[Squinty 116]

Why not consider a draft lottery for all teams? Maybe exclude the championship team and perhaps the runner up, but then throw every other team into a lottery. That way, there's no guaranteed benefit of tanking

[Guest]

People disagree with you, so you're going to take your ball and go home?

It's not so much that, it's just the stubbornness and overall neglect for what the VHLM was sought out to be. I'm only pissed cause recruitment efforts just go to waste. So I'm saying if people want their own agenda go at it. But when it comes to the VHL draft and only 7-8 guys are active, I know where to look.

[Guest]

Why not consider a draft lottery for all teams? Maybe exclude the championship team and perhaps the runner up, but then throw every other team into a lottery. That way, there's no guaranteed benefit of tanking

Yup!

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Why not consider a draft lottery for all teams? Maybe exclude the championship team and perhaps the runner up, but then throw every other team into a lottery. That way, there's no guaranteed benefit of tanking

 

Then that screws over teams like mine. What happens if I have no one on the team and have the worst record. Do I get to suffer because of that?

[Guest]

I did. Corco told me I had higher priority than Oslo and apparently he was sent to Oslo.

Okay besides the fact you need to talk to Corco haha. Why exactly did you put a claim in for a active goaltender? Just want a reasoning, not stepping on toes.

[Squinty 116]

Btw I don't think there is an obligation for VHLM-GMs to claim 0 TPE guys and try to get them active. It would be nice if as many of them as possible did that, but we can't expect that from every GM. What we should expect from every GM though is that he tries to get good value for his team and a great way to do that, especially for rebuilding/tanking teams, is to add low-risk guys that have a low chance, but still a chance, to pan out via the Draft or through Waivers. GMs shouldn't try to keep players active for the good for the league (although this would be a good reason too), but for the good of their own team. Taking a new guy and helping him out, or turning a 0 TPE guy into a 50 TPE guy over the course of the junior season isn't some abstract good deed you do for the league, it's something that's good for your team. A cup-run doesn't just start in the year you are going for the cup, it starts way earlier. I had to experience that first hand when I was drafted by a team full of inactives in the 3rd round, but their GM didn't just give up on the season, he did his best to keep me happy and interested. A season later, the second year of his teams rebuild, he was able to trade me for a 1st and a 2nd rounder - two picks that would help him win a championship a year later! So I think giving up on a season and not even checking the waivers/the draft is very short-sighted, most great teams build the foundation for their cup-winning squads in years where the actually didn't have a chance to do much damage.

Hey that's me!

[Guest]

Then that screws over teams like mine. What happens if I have no one on the team and have the worst record. Do I get to suffer because of that?

Well realistically turnover of the GM's wouldn't be so frequent. But your response gives me the feeling you are in it for the success and awards of the team, not activity?

[Seth 92]

Like I said, if a GM isn't willing to at the very least claim an inactive member and attempt to recruit them back via a PM, they should reconsider holding their position.

[Squinty 116]

Then that screws over teams like mine. What happens if I have no one on the team and have the worst record. Do I get to suffer because of that?

But for the most part, there tends to be only one or two teams that are in serious contention anyway, the rest kind of just try and stay afloat. More often than not, it's a battle for the WORST place in the standings, which can be closer than the point difference for the top two teams.

[Guest]

Like I said, if a GM isn't willing to at the very least claim an inactive member and attempt to recruit them back via a PM, they should reconsider holding their position.

Not that extreme, but they should be told the goal of the VHLM. Because it seems like that's something that people have forgotten.

[Seth 92]

Then that screws over teams like mine. What happens if I have no one on the team and have the worst record. Do I get to suffer because of that?

Who cares if it negatively affects one or two teams when it's better overall for the entire VHLM?

[Squinty 116]

I feel really good for coming up with probably the best solution for the VHLM. 10 TPE to Squinty!

[sterling 1,990]

Once everyone accepts the VHLM is and will always be flawed we can move on. What we really need is to get new members on teams ASAP. There will never be parity, that's not the goal of the VHLM imo

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

Who cares if it negatively affects one or two teams when it's better overall for the entire VHLM?

 

Yeah just who cares if there is a revolving door of GM's. As long as it makes other GM's happy right? That's real better overall for the VHLM right? LMFAO!

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

Why not consider a draft lottery for all teams? Maybe exclude the championship team and perhaps the runner up, but then throw every other team into a lottery. That way, there's no guaranteed benefit of tanking

 

While the details would need to be worked out, I do like the this idea.

[Seth 92]

Yeah just who cares if there is a revolving door of GM's. As long as it makes other GM's happy right? That's real better overall for the VHLM right? LMFAO!

There will only be a revolving door of GM's if they allow it to become a trend.

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

There will only be a revolving door of GM's if they allow it to become a trend.

 

It has already become a trend.

[Seth 92]

It has already become a trend.

I am aware of that, and perhaps that's because people are more focused on winning and get bored, opposed to the true purpose of the VHLM which is to promote activity.