|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jul 13, 2015 15:50:51 GMT -5
By next season, you mean 2016-17? Because "this season" (2015-16) would be ridiculous.
I traded for two C's this off season based on the fact that Zibby and Couture are C/W and that Fantrax had not updated their positions to C-only.
It's way too late to make a substantive change like this for this season.
You'd be forcing me to undue the trades I've already made, and putting me at a competitive disadvantage since everyone would know that I have way too many C's and not nearly enough W's.
Fantrax could still update those players to C only so trading for C/Ws when they play C is a risk you should be aware of when making a trade. I don't think anyone could make a legitimate argument that Kesler who only plays C and is a top faceoff guy should be C/W and Lewis who took 2 faceoffs per game last season should be a C only and not even a dual. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on Jul 13, 2015 15:53:43 GMT -5
yes...it would be 16-17 IF we change it....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 15:54:32 GMT -5
IF we were going to change this, I do wonder why we wouldn't just make all forwards as "F's." We don't distinguish between LW and RW. So why do we need to distinguish between C and W? The league was built on FOW as a category, so C's have always been a premium based on FOW's.
Having 12Fs (instead of 4C's and 8W) would allow more flexibility for line-ups, which is appealing, given that we carry a bench of 0 to 3. And it wouldn't devalue players that are currently C/W. And it would eliminate any need for every overriding, or even thinking about, a player's position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruyns (Barrie) on Jul 13, 2015 15:54:36 GMT -5
We also changed player positions for players last year if it was warranted, we just didn't strip C/W of that designation and doing that this season would be unfair to teams since Sabres isn't the only one who would be hurt by this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Jul 13, 2015 15:55:38 GMT -5
By next season, you mean 2016-17? Because "this season" (2015-16) would be ridiculous.
I traded for two C's this off season based on the fact that Zibby and Couture are C/W and that Fantrax had not updated their positions to C-only.
It's way too late to make a substantive change like this for this season.
You'd be forcing me to undue the trades I've already made, and putting me at a competitive disadvantage since everyone would know that I have way too many C's and not nearly enough W's.
16-17 season seems like the right thing in my book. I agree. 16/17 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:03:26 GMT -5
Trade Block: Couturier and Zibanejad, LOL.
I still think this could use more discussion, as there are many ways to "solve" this issue.
As a practical matter, I'm not a mod. If there a way to set up a rule in fantrax to adjust positions as suggested. Or would a mod have to go in at the beginning of each year and check everyone's position based on FOW's of the previous year. If a rule can be set up in fantrax, then the proposal is at least feasible. If it requires manually updating and verifying everyone's position, it sounds like a lot of extra work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:04:15 GMT -5
Trade Block: Couturier and Zibanejad, LOL.
I still think this could use more discussion, as there are many ways to "solve" this issue.
As a practical matter, I'm not a mod. If there a way to set up a rule in fantrax to adjust positions as suggested. Or would a mod have to go in at the beginning of each year and check everyone's position based on FOW's of the previous year. If a rule can be set up in fantrax, then the proposal is at least feasible. If it requires manually updating and verifying everyone's position, it sounds like a lot of extra work.
Shotty Zibs |
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Jul 13, 2015 17:58:19 GMT -5
I'm fully against any change to position eligibility. If fantrax arbitrarily changes it then we roll with it but to change it now is not getting my support, we've already changed sh-toi to toi. Which hurts my teams, any more changes that may hinder my clubs chances are unwanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by WillyBilly (Tire Fires) on Jul 13, 2015 18:34:08 GMT -5
I'm fully against any change to position eligibility. If fantrax arbitrarily changes it then we roll with it but to change it now is not getting my support, we've already changed sh-toi to toi. Which hurts my teams, any more changes that may hinder my clubs chances are unwanted. Sh-toi to toi was not an option it became a premium feature |
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on Jul 13, 2015 18:39:35 GMT -5
I know and now i have to adjust my team to the change, that was one of my better categories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 19:17:53 GMT -5
This is a non-problem.
C's with W eligibility may collect more FOW, but they are also less likely to collect hits and PIMs than a real winger, so it's a total trade off.
Breakdown of forwards:
Of top 120 for Hits: 13 C/W, 31 C, 76 W
Of top 120 for PIMs: 11 C/W, 31 C, 78 W
Nothing needs to change since this isn't a big deal to begin with.
|
|
