Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 7:46:34 GMT -5
Mostly I agree with you Dave.
My only concern is this is not exactly like the NHL as you say. NHL GM's are the best in the world. There is no discrepancy. It is their job to be the best and work at it full time.
In fantasy hockey, we have to realize and respect that all GM's have different levels of commitment. Some can be here Multiple times a day. Others are lucky to log in once a week. Some have the time to read and analyze hockey all day, where others are lucky to watch one game a week. Even though we all have good intentions to win and succeed, there is an imbalance that is created due to our various levels of time spent in the fantasy hockey world.
Mostly because this is a "fun" league as our logo states, I lean on the side of helping weaker teams. I don't think it was ever the intention of our league to have large imbalance of power. At least that was my interpretation when I joined three years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Apr 18, 2016 10:30:17 GMT -5
A question in Buffalo's case, as he traded for vets for playoffs.
Would he not be able to keep Staal, Raymond, Jokinen, Bouwmeester, and Georges had any of them played a week for the other team? This would then give buffalo minimum 2 playoff seasons with the vet.
worst case, trade luke schenn for Josh georges (examples only) after calling both up for a week, send each down through waiver-free minors (via trade rule) and they're yours for 2 seasons. Nobody loses an asset, trade activity is increased not decreased.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 11:29:21 GMT -5
Yes - good point. I did not check if those players played previously with buffalo's trade partner. He would keep them if that's the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 21:49:55 GMT -5
Mostly I agree with you Dave. My only concern is this is not exactly like the NHL as you say. NHL GM's are the best in the world. There is no discrepancy. It is their job to be the best and work at it full time. In fantasy hockey, we have to realize and respect that all GM's have different levels of commitment. Some can be here Multiple times a day. Others are lucky to log in once a week. Some have the time to read and analyze hockey all day, where others are lucky to watch one game a week. Even though we all have good intentions to win and succeed, there is an imbalance that is created due to our various levels of time spent in the fantasy hockey world. Mostly because this is a "fun" league as our logo states, I lean on the side of helping weaker teams. I don't think it was ever the intention of our league to have large imbalance of power. At least that was my interpretation when I joined three years ago.
Hi Eric, just to be more clear, I'm not against doing "something" to increase league parity. I just don't favour your specific proposal, because I believe it will not do much to address parity while decreasing trading and making this league significantly less fun.
I believe there are better and more meaningful ways to address league parity. But I don't see the point in putting any alternative proposal forward until I have more information about what this league is going to do about absentee teams. Are we replacing Abititi and Nepean? Is MED returning? There has been talk before about the potential for contracting 2 teams, but I have no idea if that is an option. And clearly, contraction would have significant implications for league parity because we'd design something to address the weaker teams. [And as I mentioned earlier, even if contraction is not in the cards, there is the potential to rebalance a bit taking away a few assets from Abititi to help lower teams.]
Another question I'd like answered is if the concern is primarily Will's team, or something larger. As well as if we want to implement a "one-time" solution, or something that is year-after-year. I tried very hard pushing an expansion draft last year to help Will's team, and get shot down left-right-and center. Dave didn't want to do anything that would set a precedent for propping up weak teams. While I respect his opinion, I still think an exception should be made for Will - because the league failed via letting Jon run that team into the ground.
My concern is much less about what assets I'd lose under your proposal, and much more about how I think your proposal will make this league even less transactions oriented than it already is. And that's alarming, considering there is no waiver wire, limited trades, and limited ability to shift from farm to pro team.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltcompton (Red Army) on Apr 19, 2016 22:07:16 GMT -5
I;m in favor of a change here because I think stashing veterans in the minors without having to pass thru waivers just isn't a realistic representation of real GM activity. On some level, even in a "fun" league, we are still trying to make it a challenge and prevent hoarding of veterans that real GMs couldn't get away with.
There are a couple of ways to deal with this fairly for folks on both sides of the issue:
1. I think young NHLers should be exempt at a higher threshold: 80 or 100 total NHL games or if they are on a two way deal/entry level deal.
2. In addition, we should have a finite number of veteran players who are "grandfathered" for waiver purposes such that any team can have a maximum of 3 veteran players in the minors a any time. Once a veteran player gets promoted from the minors to the main squad then he must stay there or if that player is subsequently demoted to the minors, he must first pass through waivers.
3. Increase roster sizes from 23 to 25.
This would allow any team to have a potential limit of 6 veterans (3 in reserve, 3 in minors) that are not on the active roster at any given point in time.That gives teams some flexibility but also prevents guys from hoarding veterans with no intent to use them.
Just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 5, 2017 15:30:28 GMT -5
another poll showing we voted for change.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on Oct 6, 2017 17:43:24 GMT -5
another poll showing we voted for change. It was 6 votes to 8 votes and i think like 5 of our new members weren't here for it let's make a new poll that requires everyone to vote. |
|
