Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2016 17:26:57 GMT -5
so duals will be grandfathered out?
This discussion is only for when fantrax arbitrarily decides to remove a dual to C or W. We can challenge this to Dave who will assign either C or W. No new duals will be created. Correct?
Unless Fantrax is adding new duals I guess..
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 23, 2016 17:38:40 GMT -5
so duals will be grandfathered out?
This discussion is only for when fantrax arbitrarily decides to remove a dual to C or W. We can challenge this to Dave who will assign either C or W. No new duals will be created. Correct?
Unless Fantrax is adding new duals I guess..
This is correct |
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on Jun 24, 2016 6:41:25 GMT -5
Players who alternate with another depending on the zone or the opponents hand side could be affected by this.
Also against getting rid of dual eligibility it adds value and flexibility.
500 is a large number for the faceoffs requirement.
Just as an example from me Hertl at 457 would not qualify.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on Jun 24, 2016 8:01:27 GMT -5
To add to my comment I believe they moved Hertl to center midway through the season which is not a rare occurrence with coaching decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 24, 2016 9:45:50 GMT -5
I feel a small alteration to Dave's suggestion is best.
410 faceoffs and above can be changed to a center. (5/game)
500 and below can be changed to a winger. (6.1/game)
No changing to duals. Will let fantrax determine them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 24, 2016 10:31:14 GMT -5
why do you think this is drastic? I'm not sure how it really affects anyone negatively. I actually like the idea, as then whenever Fantrax changes C to W or W to C it doesn't affect us at all. The league was created on having Centers and Wingers and all strategy has been based on that. Changing to all forwards will change that fundamental strategy. I have no issues with going to all forwards but feel it should be phased in over a two year period. how does it change the strategy...I don't see it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 11:42:36 GMT -5
The league was created on having Centers and Wingers and all strategy has been based on that. Changing to all forwards will change that fundamental strategy. I have no issues with going to all forwards but feel it should be phased in over a two year period. how does it change the strategy...I don't see it.
I'm not sure I see it either. Moving to 12F's provides everyone with more flexibility and means that we will no longer be subjected to the random whims of Fantrax.
One could also argue that the league was created under the premise that Fantrax has a fairly healthy dose of C/W eligible players, and that - at least in the three years I've used Fantrax - only minor tinkers were made from year-to-year. This year, they made a drastic, large-scale change which is messing up a lot of leagues that distinguish between C and W. It wouldn't surprise me if many of these changes are reversed by Fantrax, based on feedback. But as a GM, it's very difficult planning when we have no control over how and when Fantrax makes positional changes. I never worried about this before because, as I say, their traditional approach was just to tinker a bit. What they've done this year has left a number of team, over the three leagues I'm in, with illegal or incomplete rosters.
I do get that you might have targeted different players under a 12F system. But I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make in the grand scheme of things. Yes - C's win more face offs. But wingers get more hits. So it's not like there is a heavy advantage rolling with 12 C's, or 12 W's, at least the way I see it.
It would be nice to hear from some other people on this issue.
Option 1 [Van]: create rules to allow for adjustments from C to W, or W to C, but leave C/W up to Fantrax. [This is essentially the status quo, given that existing rules permit positional changes. So it's just adding more guidance on how this should happen.]
Option 2 [Buf]: 12F, instead of 4C-8W.
Option 3: Option 1, moving to Option 2 in 2018-19.
Last thought: when we moved to the draft lottery, we didn't phase that in over two years. Presumably it is significantly harder for a rebuilding team to "adjust" to a draft lottery than it is for teams to adjust to more roster flexibility?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jun 24, 2016 11:50:19 GMT -5
how does it change the strategy...I don't see it.
I'm not sure I see it either. Moving to 12F's provides everyone with more flexibility and means that we will no longer be subjected to the random whims of Fantrax.
One could also argue that the league was created under the premise that Fantrax has a fairly healthy dose of C/W eligible players, and that - at least in the three years I've used Fantrax - only minor tinkers were made from year-to-year. This year, they made a drastic, large-scale change which is messing up a lot of leagues that distinguish between C and W. It wouldn't surprise me if many of these changes are reversed by Fantrax, based on feedback. But as a GM, it's very difficult planning when we have no control over how and when Fantrax makes positional changes. I never worried about this before because, as I say, their traditional approach was just to tinker a bit. What they've done this year has left a number of team, over the three leagues I'm in, with illegal or incomplete rosters.
I do get that you might have targeted different players under a 12F system. But I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make in the grand scheme of things. Yes - C's win more face offs. But wingers get more hits. So it's not like there is a heavy advantage rolling with 12 C's, or 12 W's, at least the way I see it.
It would be nice to hear from some other people on this issue.
Option 1 [Van]: create rules to allow for adjustments from C to W, or W to C, but leave C/W up to Fantrax. [This is essentially the status quo, given that existing rules permit positional changes. So it's just adding more guidance on how this should happen.]
Option 2 [Buf]: 12F, instead of 4C-8W.
Option 3: Option 1, moving to Option 2 in 2018-19.
Last thought: when we moved to the draft lottery, we didn't phase that in over two years. Presumably it is significantly harder for a rebuilding team to "adjust" to a draft lottery than it is for teams to adjust to more roster flexibility?
I think Sabres summed it up perfectly. At this point I think we need feedback from the other 20 GM's in this league. At the end of the day I am ok with whatever is decided upon. I will adjust accordingly however I do feel we need to deal with the C and W issue soon so we can plan for the upcoming season. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 12:13:38 GMT -5
One good thing about allowing Fantrax to make the arbitrary decisions on position eligibility is it removes the burden from an able body person here who would be tasked to make changes to positions on request. I also like the fact that it is a 3rd party (neutral arbitrator) so there is no favoritism.
I get that it is a pain in the butt sometimes but its fair for everyone.
Also, it doesn't always turn out bad when a position change occurs. When a change occurs (or doesn't occur) in the GM's favor, we don't hear about it publically.
I'd like an option 4 of just keep it the way it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 12:31:58 GMT -5
I suppose that makes Option 4. Keep the rule as is: "determined by Fantrax (can be manually changed by commish upon request, with backup info provided)". So we provide no guidance as to what back up info is required, and do not have any guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jun 24, 2016 12:39:12 GMT -5
for sure. I take a few things into consideration. # of face offs taken - depth charts from a couple sites - that type of thing. these are the current parameters and have worked just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Oct 6, 2016 7:30:19 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
