Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 10:56:40 GMT -5
I appreciate your stance Dave on micro management. A question for you: what if we were forced to set our lines ups a certain way? For example, I played Mike Richards and scatched max pac because Richards was hot and max pac was cold. Would this be considered as tanking? According to some people here, they believe a GM is forced to play thier best players in the lineups at all times. I could not be allowed to scratch max pac. Or how about this : I keep a better quality waiver free player in the minors of year and play a weaker veteran on my starting roster in fear of losing my veteran through waivers. Would this be considered as tanking? again some people feel we do not have to right to manage our teams as we desire. Or the opposite: keeping a better quality veteran in the minors and play a weaker waiver free player in fear of having to call up a veteran and only to lose him later through waivers? Would this be considered as tanking? Some people here say this is tanking. So is micromanagement a two way street? Or is it for some and not others? I am interested to hear what you think about this.
In the spirit of cooperation, I will give you my opinion on this. Trying to create precise rules on tanking is about as practical as creating precise rules on when a trade should be vetoed. THere are too many variables and it's never black and white. Hence, for tanking, we only have a very general rule (games played = 1000). And an understanding that teams are to ice their best team, within reason. (This means starting the year with a competitive team, and using your bench in an appropriate manner.)
So, for example,
- if Crosby is in a slump: no, a team is not expected to put him on waivers to call somebody up from the minors.
- similarly, a manager would have the discretion to put crosby on the bench, in order to start someone on a hot streak.
It's more about the "smell test". For example, Richmond putting Kris Letang in the minors for the purposes of sitting him for the year did not pass the smell test for some (and caused one team to abruptly quit). And Long Island benching Nicklas Backstrom at the end of the year, when Brackstrom was not in a slump, also did not pass the "smell test" for some (and caused one team to threaten to bench all his good players too).
Tanking, like trades, are subjective. And if you try to create precise rules, it just leads to micro-managing and doesn't solve anything, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 11:21:45 GMT -5
Again, in the spirit of cooperation, I will give you my opinion on the 20% proposal. I don't like it. And this is why: I do not support changing any rules about roster management UNLESS the very purpose of the rule is about league parity.
Even Richmond has said that making a rule to limit pros stashed in the minors will have very little impact on parity. To do anything about league parity, the system would need to be looking at redistributing "real" assets of value.
And I continue to remind everyone that lower teams ARE benefiting from the "stash" rule. ALL of my trades last year were about me giving goods prospects and picks to rebuilding teams, for older and/or expensive pros, that went into my minors. Even now, PLK-Dave and myself have talked about a deal for Getzlaf - involving rebuilding assets going his way (as well as some NHL talent). Why do we want to create a rule that handcuffs a manager from rebuilding, if they so choose? Your proposals will just generally lower the value of vets and make it harder on them.
What makes it crazier to me is that Kelowna has been consolidating his pro-team talent. So what you are proposing will have very little impact on the top team, hurt some teams - like mine - that are trying to compete with him, and prevent other teams from making "solid" rebuilding type trades. What's the point of this?
I view this as mico-managing rosters and team strategy.
And to be clear, I'm not afraid - nor opposed - to losing some assets IF IT SERVES A GREATER PURPOSE for this league. But that means answering the questions I've posed twice already (is parity a problem? if so, is this problem specific to one team or larger than that? Do we need a one-time fix or a longer-term structural fix). These questions are about: identifying if we have a problem? if so, identifying the size of the problem? And then scoping out options for what to do about it.
In summary, I am against all your "stashing" proposals because I see no link between your proposal and league parity. And I see no reason why we need to go forward with something that stunts rebuilding type trades, will impact some teams disproportionately, and will do nothing to address parity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2016 11:28:12 GMT -5
Hey Frank here's a formula I figured out:
Stats from end of 2015/16: Goalies and Skaters.
682 Owned players (starting and minors)
24 Teams
23 Maximum players per team
24 x 23 = 552 starting players
552 starters / 682 owned = 0.81
19% would be the exact number we could use for fantrax score, but maybe 20% is just easier to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 5, 2017 15:28:07 GMT -5
time to revisit this..??
|
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on Oct 5, 2017 15:47:23 GMT -5
If you think so make another poll |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 19:41:48 GMT -5
Same goes for roster size. |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Oct 6, 2017 9:32:43 GMT -5
I vote to keep the roster sizes at 70. No need to increase them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Oct 6, 2017 13:24:51 GMT -5
I personally would be ok with dropping it to 60 max. It would increase the value of the waiver picks.
|
|
