Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 8:55:32 GMT -5
See details of all previous discussion here.
We are moving to another vote as the majority has requested a change (12 to 7).
In this poll is a list of some of the suggested ideas to fix the problem of NHLers stashed in the minors. Every GM has multiple votes. Please vote for at least one of the options. If you are not going to vote (for various reasons) please make a comment stating as such so we know you actually viewed this discussion.
Once we get a feel of where the majority of GMs would like to go with this, then a decision can me made on implementing the proposed solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on May 4, 2016 9:29:24 GMT -5
Didn't get to participate in the discussion since I was away, but like Vancouver brought up we only have 24 teams so it is inevitable that we will have lots of NHL players in the minors when there are 120 extra players from the 6 teams we don't have. If this was a 30 team league with a bunch of NHL players being stashed in the minors and teams not being able to dress a full lineup then we would have a big problem. I'm not sure that making fringe guys available is really going to help parity and also think that it would hurt the value of the NHLers in the minors making it tougher for rebuilding teams to get value for their vets if they try and trade them for futures. I don't think parity is a huge issue in this league, sure Jimmy's team is beastly right now, but after that teams are grouped pretty closely together and the bottom teams could maybe use some help, but that is common in all fantasy leagues and giving them access to other team's older cast offs isn't going to make them much better. I'm open to ways to help parity, but not sure anything in the poll above accomplishes that and if it does it is barely helping and might hurt those same rebuilding teams if they can't get as much value for depth players at the deadline. The poll said vote for at least one so I voted 25 man rosters since it is the change that affects teams the least, but none of the options stick out to me as big improvements for the league. If I were to lose Schenn I would have just played him in the last week of the season and then sent him down in playoffs for waiver free. The best solution is lets just take Jimmy's 3 best players and give them to the 3 worst teams  |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on May 4, 2016 9:34:50 GMT -5
I personally don't mind the optin of a limited amount (5) of veterans in the minors (say 120/24=5)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 4, 2016 9:41:20 GMT -5
I would say only a set number over the age of 28.
No set number under 28.
But I really don't think it's a major issue, as Matt says.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on May 4, 2016 9:58:47 GMT -5
I personally don't mind the optin of a limited amount (5) of veterans in the minors (say 120/24=5) I'm fine with that too, but then we just have players that are the 6th worst in a team's minors being made available. Does that really have any impact on league parity? I don't think it does at all and we already have NHL players sitting unclaimed after multiple waiver drafts. Limiting minors is just going to result in more fringe guys sitting unowned like the following guys IMO. Gionta Z. Smith D. Moore M. Brown Scuderi VandeVelde Skille Other than Smith these guys won't help a team and we will just see an increase of players like this sitting unowned rather than sitting in the minors and does that make anything better? I wouldn't care if I lost Upshall, Jordie Benn, Andreoff, Grossmann, Bollig, Latta, Trotman, Gazdic, Elias and I don't think teams would be lining up to claim them for free nevermind trade me something for them. So instead of these NHLers sitting in my minors they can just sit as unclaimed players, I don't see how this changes anything. I already lost a ton of value when TOI was added as a stat making my goons who gave me PIMs and hits essentially negative value players. That was a big change and people adapted so I'm not against change, but there has to be quantifiable benefit to the league for me to get behind it and not just change to maybe increase parity, but also maybe do nothing to parity and hurt player values and decrease trades. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on May 4, 2016 10:36:39 GMT -5
The original poll where the 'Yes' majority vote was obtained was specifically with regard to 'Figure out Something to balance top and bottom teams somewhat'. That does not necessarily tie into this issue of 'Restricting Stashing in the Minors' - this is only one of the perceived ways to address.
Read through that thread fully again and you'll find others which I feel will be more better - specifically with regards to granting real asset value to the bottom teams truly in need.
There should be another option of:
'Do nothing in this regard (Stashing in Minors) as it will not help balance Top and Bottom teams - look at other options to address this parity issue'
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on May 4, 2016 11:02:27 GMT -5
I see two different topics here:
-Stashing vets in minors
-league parity
I agree that limiting vets in the minors will not help with parity but it will do other things such as forcing owners to make moves which will increase activity. It seems to me that a few owners would rather just move a bunch of players to the minors at the beginning of the season (something that I personally refuse to do). Hence the reason I will trade Buff this off-season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 11:16:52 GMT -5
This vote is about Stashing NHLers is the minors. Keep your vote regarding this issue only.
It is not solely about league parity, however I do think it benefits parity a bit.
If GM's would like to discuss league parity, I suggest starting a different thread.
Keep the votes on topic guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on May 4, 2016 11:57:34 GMT -5
Then there should be a 'Do Nothing' option here - as the previous Yes vote may have been for addressing League Parity the way it was worded, not necessary to do a change with respect to Minors. I'm going to pull an Eric and abstain from voting on this one until this option exists  Note I may not even utilize that option, but believe it should exist for those who choose so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 12:10:26 GMT -5
Then there should be a 'Do Nothing' option here - as the previous Yes vote may have been for addressing League Parity the way it was worded, not necessary to do a change with respect to Minors. I'm going to pull an Eric and abstain from voting on this one until this option exists Note I may not even utilize that option, but believe it should exist for those who choose so.
I ammended the top post for you Jimmy.
Honestly though, your "pulling an Eric" has less to do with not having a no-vote option and more to do with the fact that your team will suffer most by this change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 4, 2016 12:35:45 GMT -5
apparently you can vote for all 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 12:46:37 GMT -5
apparently you can vote for all 5
Yep.
My goal is to see which options our GMs are OK with.
Vote all 5 if you are OK with all 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on May 4, 2016 12:49:07 GMT -5
I ammended the top post for you Jimmy.
Honestly though, your "pulling an Eric" has less to do with not having a no-vote option and more to do with the fact that your team will suffer most by this change.
Try looking at my team before making erroneous statements Eric - my team will be far from one which will suffer the most from this. I'm actually looking at it the other way, to keep competitive balance so these other contenders still have a good chance of competing - it's not much fun for me either to run away with the league year after year. We actually had pretty great races this season. Vancouver was right there with me to the very end for the President's Trophy. Buffalo was a hair away from the Championship also. Both of them beat me in our head to head match-ups. Belfast is also very strong annual contender and right there in overall stats. Helsinki is much improved and can easily see him challenging next season and being in the top 5. I would not advocate having top-end assets sit in the minors either as to 'Nucks point - specifically why I traded away Datsyuk last off-season. Then again, some amount of depth is essential to a long playoff run - you'll need a lot of luck to last through five weeks unscathed, particularly late in the season when injuries inevitably prop up or teams start to rest players. This actually makes for a more competitive playoffs that is reliant on the foresight and strategy of GMs in acquiring this depth, trading away futures for present. I am simply advocating transparency in this process, to ensure there are no hidden agendas and that changes are done for the good of the league that takes a multitude of factors and ramifications into account. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2016 12:57:04 GMT -5
Thanks for your comment Jimmy, but you are going off topic. Your first paragraph is regarding "competitive balance". There is a seperate thread for this. I suggest speaking this valid point in that that thread.
It is possible to be FOR league parity, and AGAINST stashing players in the minors. And Vise Versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on May 4, 2016 13:50:58 GMT -5
Then why not add a 'No Change' option to this poll - so it is clear who may be against any changes for this specific one. All you have here are options for change (when none may be the best option) - that should be in there to allow for all considerations to be taken into account.
|
|
Note I may not even utilize that option, but believe it should exist for those who choose so.