There are still ways around this. I will bury full time NHL capable players who are waiver exempt just to keep those who aren't in my lineup and off waivers. Anyone else i can keep in the press box. Problem solved. Its not like there are any consequences to doing that. Its not like I have a fan base to pander to or an owner to explain to.

I get it, we don't want GM's hoarding players. More importantly, we shouldn't want GM's hoarding good players. If you really care about the Jamie Mcbains and Richard Bachmans, fine. I just see so many more important issues then teams feeling like this is what this game needs. Condon and Barberio may be the exception to the rule but even then Condon was traded a month after being claimed for a 5th so its not like there isn't an opportunity to move these players with a benefit to the team that has them.

As to your Paul Byron comparison. Its a moot point. Even if you waiver claimed these players, there is no way of evaluating that players performance when he still stuck playing in the AHL of that team he was originally on IRL. I mean if you really wanted Paul Byron on your team back then, you could always trade a 6th for him as I'm pretty sure that team isn't going to hold that player highly anyway.

Yeah, your keeping players in the NHL in the GM game but those players are playing in the AHL IRL. What advantage do you have for doing that if there is no benefit to you in the GM game. That's why I feel its more time consuming then anything.

The GM game is built with specific constraints that we have to adhere to because this isn't real life, its only a simulation. I don't care all that much if we want to go ahead with waivers. I'll put players on waivers, etc if its necessary and will do whatever the BOE continues to agree on. Just pointing out the pros and cons and frankly I don't see all that much that within the GM games constructs, helps us all that much with having waivers.



You're fake news Booth!! Get out of here before I grab you by the P****.

I don't know, if we're planing on making it realistic Booth, half the trades wouldn't happen, half the GMs wouldn't be hired in the first place and we'd all have assistants and managers taking care of the day to day for us. The goal isn't to make it completely realistic. Its to make it as realistic as possible given what we can control and what we can't in a simulation type game like this.

My jibber-jabber comment seems to be taken out of context here. I just meant I think its a waste of time over analyzing the small stuff that has so little bearing on the game while other bigger details that are crucial to the game could be attended to instead.

EDIT: Btw I'm ok with doing waivers. Just throwing some perspective out there. This is the reason why the NHL has GM meetings.

Sorry, I just wanted to repeat jibber-jabber one more time

Honestly, if we are going along with waivers, then the BOE probably needs to re-do everything. Redo in which I mean, the BOE first makes a full list of all the players that would require waivers to be sent down per team. Teams review the list, then submit who they're sending down in a new waivers thread, before a deadline that shouldn't be changed this time. If they do miss the deadline, the BOE does it for them, but there should also then be a punishment (ex. you move to the end of the waiver order). Teams have 48 hours to make their claims, then BOE sorts out winner. FAs signed after September 15th also need to be dealt with, as in what their contracts would be, etc. Perhaps a standard, 1 year, 1M, 1 way contract for all of them to make it simple.

If we're not doing waivers, then the BOE should make sure every GM knows they can do whatever the hell they want with their roster

I think keeping waivers is fine, but the thing that is making it take so long are two things. One, GMs not complying with the rules, and two, people that don't understand the whole process. There are endless resources that the average person can look up and have their rosters set in like 10 minutes. However, we still have GMs asking "do I have to put players on waivers" and "how do I know if players go on waivers" etc which slows everything down. In the amount of time it takes to type up those type of questions/comments and wait the few hours for a response they could be done if they did it themselves. That's what's most annoying about this process. I think if people don't do it right and they lose players or cannot claim any then it's their fault.

And to your point Marco, yes you could send all your waiver exempt players down, but if they are in the NHL IRL then they won't be waivers exempt as long as they would be in this game. That's how the real life effects can influence our game. You can keep a stud prospect in the minors but if he scores 60 points at the nhl level (IRL) it doesn't do anything to increase your teams value or influence your teams caliber at the NHL level which goes into the rankings. You're only hurting yourself. Also, you can move players around on lines all you want that doesn't change anything or force you to put them on waivers. If you want to send players down then it does. You could always make an armchair team as a "saved draft" for your team and play with lines that way and just never post the team to the armchair GM section - at least that's what i do to verify cap/etc. before i do trades.

Jibber Jabber - TRADEMARK! ™




Edit: to your point booth, Waivers can be done but it would need a prolonged amount of extra time for a GM to make those decisions. You and I are on here every day but there are some who won't be able to be. I also felt like waivers came out of nowhere as well. Wasn't' aware we had it going this year and the start of the month I encountered a really busy couple of weeks at work which I wasn't able to come very frequently.

Adding to my point is paragraph 1. We want this to be realistic but we have people who aren't qualified to play the GM game in a realistic way and hardly enough GM's to play the game in the first place. We are only helping those who are already hockey aficionados. We all know who they are. There is a reason why Taboo was bled dry of his valued assets..........

Paragraph 2 is the crux of it. I guess. Yes you're right, eventually they'd become waiver eligible. It would buy myself time to trade certain players in order to fit them in though. To my point then becomes at what point are the BOE checking to see whose waiver eligible and as these games get played? If waivers is done once a year in GM game at the beginning of the year, i'd be more inclined to be okay with it but if we have it running although the season, can you not see the level of time it will take to put all these measures into place..... Its going to be a tricky thing to enforce and i already foresee some GM's losing players they didn't realize they had to protect because they didn't have the time to investigate a bit further. Imagine due to some complications a player was forced to be put on waivers because a Gm didn't follow protocol? Yeah I know to bad so sad right? This is what i mean by it shouldn't be too realistic. The rules would be but the GM's aren't.

Also I don't really care about rankings at that level either. It won't make or break my team. Making bad trades will though. Taking a hit on power rankings but not losing a player for nothing when I then traded him for draft picks at a later time however would vastly improve my rankings as opposed to the contrary. I won't keep good young players in the minors forever but I will use it to my advantage when I need to.

We've gone back and forth about this overall larger theme Nate. If there was a brigade of accountants and lawyers analyzing my every move making sure there is no circumvention's or ways around certain rules, I'd be way more conceding. The GM game however has loopholes in it and ways to consistently maneuver ones self to their advantage precisely because there isn't a organizational watch dog other than the BOE who already have their hands tied in certain/more important things.

So let me rephrase the whole thing. Waivers would be a good rule that would be a fun one to implement IF all aspects of the game were following protocol as well. I'm skeptical ALL GM's on here would be following along enough to ensure that these errors wouldn't happen.

I think the one point Marco brought up that has me thinking here, is tracking every GM's roster. I don't think it'll be able to happen. As of right now, there are only 2 BOE members, both of which are busy throughout the day. That's understandable, we all have lives. But I don't think, while having to deal with everything, they'll have time to even remember checking over team's rosters to say "hey, you sent that player down when you couldn't". GMs can easily get away with it.

To add to my point of re-doing waivers of we're continuing with them, the BOE would always need to develop a "plan" I guess, as to how they want to keep track of this. It's do-able but it'd be a burden to them in some ways. Not calling anyone out, but some of the village idiots around here probably don't even understand what waivers exactly are, so that's the toughie part to deal with.

Yup. Like i said, I'm not adversely opposed to waivers (although my first comment probably made it look that way). Its a good rule to have in the NHL. Its just a tough one to have in the GM game. That's all I'm saying. That's why rather than have a botched up version of it with half the GM's prolly not understanding it or having the extra time to verify each player it applies to, I'd rather not have it at all.

Its not like there aren't any alternatives for some of the scenarios that it is used for however. Teams that want to put guys on waivers to purposefully lose that player will still be able to. Any team that wants to pick up that player for free still can. Or for buyout purposes for example still can. I'm talking about the day to day recalls and reassignments that will make GM'ing a full time job on here which is monotonous and a little too "real" for some of the folks on here. Not to mention the NHL type work that the BOE will need to be doing/monitoring. Its a lot of work to do all of this stuff correctly. That's why guys like Marc "Im ruining the Habs" Bergevin are paid MILLIONS of dollars to do it.

Hence my jibber-jabber™ comment. Let's not sweat the small stuff. Let's nail down the important stuff that make significant changes to the game. Waivers in the grand scheme of things is a smallish but complex aspect of it.

P.S. If we had 31 GM's like Booth or Nate for example, waivers would need to be implemented. That's not the case unfortunately.

Outta subjet, I think new GM's should be able to make their 4 trades.. It should be.. 4 trades, per GM, per month... I think I should still be able to make my three trades left... applies to me and kravkovitz.. Just an idea.. to make it fair you know..

hard to wait to make trades eh... I know that the limit is harsh, but it just limits the overall damage you can do to the structure of a team (although a couple rosters have been blown up lol)

I know that.. but he destroyed the team.. I just gotta make my three NON DESTRUCTIVE moves and it will be good.

I just want to make my three moves left.. I'm new here you know..

I tried to vouch for you to get an extra move... kind of unfair to just allow you one deal when you are new...

I agree !

Luckily for me, my team got destroyed during September so I can still make my max trades lmao

Lol

Can the BOE please respond to all the waiver concerns and sort this out. It's really become disorganized, hate to say it

Typically, we don't usually have users post anything other than pertinent to the thread.

Anyone who posted players after Bo53Horvat's post in the Waiver Thread, but is a new GM whose predecessor didn't follow the waiver rules, is less likely to be subject to penalization. It's not their fault that the former GM didn't complete waivers.

The plan now is that, after this first waiver claiming, waivers will be able to run itself; GMs are able to send players down on waivers whenever they feel like and GMs can claim them within 48 hours, if the have the appropriate measures to do so. If a GM sends a waiver exempt player down on waivers, then egg on their face for not taking the 7 seconds it takes to check if they are or not.

Not until all of the claims are completed.

We are still discussing the nature of FAs and their contracts. The last time we left deliberations, the maximum contract was going to be 1 year x 1,000,000 AAV

Just to help out...here's the list of all stuff the BOE needs to deal with ASAP

-------------

AGENDA:
1) WAIVERS
Just say phillyjabroni's waiver plan. Once again, I think GMs who didn't do theirs on time (exception of krakowitz and Bergevin) should go to the end of the waiver order.

And what about teams like Pittsburgh, Calgary, Buffalo, Arizona, etc, who haven't even bothered to do their waiver placements yet? Is anything going to be done with them? Obviously, they'll have to place players on waivers to get down to 23 players.

I still think it'd be beneficial for us, if possible, if the BOE created a master list of every player who requires waivers to pass per team. Again, if it's too time consuming, forget it


2) UNSIGNED PROSPECT RULES
Some GM's including myself are confused as to how this works. Say I have an unsigned RFA, I'll use Elias Pettersson as an example. If I wanted to sign him, what would he be signed to? Would it need BOE approval? Where would I make that clear? The rules are a little fuzzy on what to do with our unsigned FAs

3) FREE AGENTS WHO HAVE SIGNED WITH CLUBS AFTER SEPTEMBER 15TH
Some GM's are asking for free agents, who signed with a club after September 15th, or was on a PTO with that team, to be able to sign/have higher waiver priority on. I feel as though for example, Calgary should have the highest waiver priority on Jagr, given that IRL, he did sign with that team, just not before this game started. Speaking of Calgary...

4) CALGARY INACTIVITY/INACTIVITY IN GENERAL
Thornton MVP, Calgary GM, has been inactive for a full 10 days now, since October 5th. I noticed phillyjabroni did ask him if he was okay on his page.

Is there even an exact activity rule in the rules? I was scrolling through it yet couldn't find anything. There should probably be something where, unless notified by the BOE, GMs who don't comment in the forum for any more than 7/10 days are automatically demoted to AGM. Not sure whether you want to deal with a rule or Calgary job first. I belive Taboo is the next AGM in line unless I'm mistaken, there are some other AGMs however as well.

5) SURVEY IDEA
I still feel as though this is a very good idea. I'll copy and paste my idea over here:

Perhaps any new GM that comes in should have an "interview" process. Questions like, I don't know, "how good do you think Dan Girardi is", or "what's your opinion on Garth Snow". Granted maybe those aren't the best questions, but it's just the idea I'm talking about here.

If the newcoming thinks Girardi is a top pairing defenceman, or thinks fondly of Snow, that should immediately be a red flag for the BOE. They should then go take a look at the GMs previous comments in other forums, and see how much knowledge (or rather, lack of it) they have.

If it's then deemed that the GM is not very knowledgeable and isn't a good fit, then the BOE does not let them get a team, and encourage them to learn as an AGM, as to how to handle the ropes.

Or, anytime a AGM comes in, they'd have to do the quiz. Questions could be included like, "how active could you be", "what's your favourite team", etc. This would be for GMs who want to see what kind of person this wannabee-AGM is. A thread could be created solely for people to respond to the survey, based on formatting provided by the BOE. When the AGM turns GM, that's when the BOE reviews the survey.

Phillyjabroni, you said that if we're in need for GMs, we'd just take them. However, compare rangerfans team, to Taboos team. RAIF may be the worse GM, but his team is much better. Why? Because he hasn't done anything. Similarly, no GM is better than a bad GM

Hope this helps

1.) Punishments will be handled, as necessary with those GMs. (krak and MacB are exceptions).

2.) We would have to work on a contract terms, so that GMs don't just sign those top prospects to the minimum. However, I do support the idea that GMs can sign their unsigned rookies, we just need to further implement a contract guide.

3.) FAs are eligible to be claimed through Waivers. Seeing as how the Game doesn't recognize anything after September 15th, nobody has priority on anyone. Not only that, but Jagr didn't even engage in talks with Calgary until a couple of weeks ago, for example.

4.) We don't have a rule with GM inactivity, but Thornton has been a valuable member of the GM Game in v1 for a long time. I am personally willing to give him more lee-way than I was with ZackBoychuck, for example, who was here for about 4 posts. I will further examine the case specifically with Calgary and their GM, Thornton_MVP.

5.) As a said before, I like the idea of implementing a survey, but we don't have some "reverse army" waiting in the sidelines itching to get in. However, I would need to take more time to ponder whether or not it would make sense to have it even with the scarcity of GMs. The issue is that those big Ads don't really work as much as they would in theory, unless they are targeted specifically to a user (mine to NateElder12 in v1). I think he % of GMs that come over and stay over in the Game is around 10% (We_Want_The_Cup was recruited in a mass ad). However, when we go to individual pages, such as Ak_tunes, we get higher results.

I have reached out to (4) recruits and will check in with them later if they are interested in joining.

4) Would the BOE consider adopting an inactivity policy? I think it would be useful in the long run. Without the rule, it's not fair if one GM gets the boot after 7 days, yet another after 14,15,16 (unless, as you say, it's a case like Boychuck's.) I'm all in for Thornton staying, but if he hasn't been online in 10+ days, is not responding to offers, nor participating in things like waivers, then why should he get leeway?

In v1, I felt as though there was a solid inactivity policy that was put in place. I can copy and paste it here if you wish to use it as a base for a potential new activity rule.

Sad news. AK has gone.

He has given his position to Missouri, and he and Jmac are talking to him about his responsibilities.

Just an FYI