|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Sept 30, 2006 17:28:00 GMT -5
I already voted to keep the fucking rules the same. Who are you trying to convince? I'm obviously in the minority here so it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Oct 2, 2006 8:52:47 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm late to this, but...
Man, honestly, lighten up a bit. Your team isn't even as bad as you sound.
Seriously though, why not take the team you got and try to make it better. If it was me, I'd just try to improve my team, which is possible, I don't know why you think you team can't possibly improve.
Not every team is going to be good, what do you want for us to take all the rosters each year and try to make every team exactly equal so they are on a level playing field?
If that's what you want, it sounds like you should join a redraft league, not a keeper league.
Just don't feel they should be changed after the draft, everyone drafted to make their team the best in accordance with the rules (and I know you weren't here for it), but that only seems fair rather than changing stuff after drafting to maximize our teams based on the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 2, 2006 11:33:01 GMT -5
alright so we have established no stat changes for now and no salary cap or anything like it for now.
the main thing that needs to be cleared up right now is the exact number of keepers and how the waier draft/prospect draft orders will be. keep posts limited to those subjects only if you would. this needs to be cleared up within the next couple days.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Oct 2, 2006 11:35:37 GMT -5
i think 10 should be good....just gettin my vote in now before i forget
|
|
|
|
Post by canucksgm on Oct 2, 2006 18:40:49 GMT -5
i like the idea of 10 keepers
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Oct 2, 2006 19:01:53 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm late to this, but... Man, honestly, lighten up a bit. Your team isn't even as bad as you sound. Seriously though, why not take the team you got and try to make it better. If it was me, I'd just try to improve my team, which is possible, I don't know why you think you team can't possibly improve. Not every team is going to be good, what do you want for us to take all the rosters each year and try to make every team exactly equal so they are on a level playing field? If that's what you want, it sounds like you should join a redraft league, not a keeper league. Just don't feel they should be changed after the draft, everyone drafted to make their team the best in accordance with the rules (and I know you weren't here for it), but that only seems fair rather than changing stuff after drafting to maximize our teams based on the rules. Thats exactly what i said. You're right. Redraft everyone. Im'm certain i said that somewhere. I vote for 19 keepers plus the farm. That's just my two cents. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 2, 2006 23:46:06 GMT -5
10 keepers sound good to me. This allows 2 keepers at each position. As for draft order, I say do it the way we drew up, and all drafts should be serpentine.
Also, how do the prospects work at the end of the year? Some are prospects now, but should be minor leaguers come season end. Will we have an opportunity to place them on our farm before we need our keepers in? I'd vote yes. I saw you talking about why Ovechkin and the like were so valuable, because they won't take up a keeper slot this year. I think that's reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Oct 3, 2006 7:26:45 GMT -5
If you're going to send prospects to the farm, it has to happen before their 150th game. You can send them down after that, but they will be subject to waivers as minor leaguers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 3, 2006 7:30:15 GMT -5
I know that, but Derrick made a point of saying anything is legal in the off season. Minor leaguers can go down without clearing waivers and I was wondering if we'd have a chance to put guys on our farm in the off season before we had to have our keepers in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Oct 3, 2006 8:51:44 GMT -5
10 keepers.
Prospects can move freely anytime.
Your entire farm team is kept for free each year.
Minor leaguers are subject to waivers.
You must submit your keepers before the "off-season" to prevent minor leaguer "player stashing."
a more tenative off season schedule will be made as the season draws on.
now on to something ive been meaning to ask about : the drafts. what is the concensus there? 1-12 1-12 1-12 for the prospect? both? waiver draft order decided by how well a team does in the consolation bracket? and then teams placed accordingly after that? random? talk to me people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 3, 2006 9:05:13 GMT -5
Ok, yeah that sounds good. As for the drafts...same thing I said before. Do what we drew up, prospect draft to be last place (#1 pick) to first place (#12 pick), waiver draft to reward the champ with a 7th pick, consolation bracket to fight for 1st pick (7th place wins 1st pick) and the champions bracket to fight for the 7th pick. They should all be serpentine. Fuck 1-12, 1-12. I hope that made sense. You can use the chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Oct 3, 2006 12:23:45 GMT -5
sounds good i agree with Nos on the draft stuff 1-12 12-1!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Oct 3, 2006 17:36:57 GMT -5
I still think 1-12, 1-12 is better than serpentine. Isn't the whole point of the draft to help the weaker teams improve? Since we have so many keepers the only real way to keep the league competitive is to have the waiver/prospect draft help the weaker teams the most. Besides, I thought the point of winning was to get the championship rather than #12 & #13 picks in the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Oct 4, 2006 0:34:24 GMT -5
I still think 1-12, 1-12 is better than serpentine. Isn't the whole point of the draft to help the weaker teams improve? Since we have so many keepers the only real way to keep the league competitive is to have the waiver/prospect draft help the weaker teams the most. Besides, I thought the point of winning was to get the championship rather than #12 & #13 picks in the draft. That's exactly my point. There has to be some reward for winning the league. How about winning the league? After all the discussion on how weaker teams can improve themselves, I thought the one thing everyone agreed on was that they would have that oppurtunity in the drafts. Not to mention, 1-12, 1-12 for every draft is in the rules. Consolation brackett to fight for the 1st pick? That's almost guaranteeing the worst team does not get the first pick in any draft. Derrick said something interesting to me the other day. What's to keep the bottom feeders from losing on purpose to get the first pick in the drafts? The answer is nothing. Technically there is nothing to stop this. I will say, first, that if a team wants to intentionally lose to get the first pick, that's their perogative. The bottom line is the bad teams will get the better picks, which is the way it should be. It is the same as someone trading Briere for the first overall prospect. They are giving up talent and a better chance to win now for a "better" chance in the future. That is their right. They're all "bottom feeders," and if you are contending for the title then why do you care? Teams still have to make minimum goalie starts so they can't just not start anyone. Secondly, I think an honor system is implied here. Just like in trades, you assume the team is trying to improve themselves. It sounds like good teams are trying to work a way they can stay just as good as they are now. But, hello? With so many keepers, the deck is already stacked in favor of the better teams. In regards to the keeper submission and offseason, keeper lists should not be submitted until shortly before the waiver draft. If the lists are submitted before the offseason, what happens if someone wants to make a trade? rosters will inevitably change during the offseason. Also in the rules that apparently no one read, there isn't any free agent signing, waiver pick-ups, or farm assigning and recalling allowed during the off-season. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 4, 2006 2:05:49 GMT -5
Uhhh, the worst team still gets the #1 prospect pick (which is huge) and the #6 waiver pick. What are you talking about? The reason we want to have the waiver draft this way is to get all teams to compete until the end no matter what. It makes for a much more interesting league. It's really not as bad as what you're bitching about. Bad teams still get all the draft perks, they just have to fight for a better position in the waiver draft. What's wrong with that? It has nothing to do with the good teams.
There is no honour in fantasy hockey. Put it this way, if I know I can get an Ovechkin or a Crosby if my team is the worst you bet your ass I'm going to bench every possible player I can and play the minimum goalie games and play the worst goalies/games I can to assure this happens. If you're in the bottom 6 why wouldn't you do this? You have nothing else to play for. How is that fair? You can still go this route in what we've drawn up, I just think if you're going to go that route you shouldn't get the #1 waiver pick also.
I agree with you about the keeper submissions though. That sounds like a good plan, trades should be allowed before keepers have to be in. Furthermore, we should be allowed to assign players to the farm after the end of the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Oct 4, 2006 21:47:46 GMT -5
Uhhh, the worst team still gets the #1 prospect pick (which is huge) and the #6 waiver pick. What are you talking about? The reason we want to have the waiver draft this way is to get all teams to compete until the end no matter what. It makes for a much more interesting league. It's really not as bad as what you're bitching about. Bad teams still get all the draft perks, they just have to fight for a better position in the waiver draft. What's wrong with that? It has nothing to do with the good teams. There is no honour in fantasy hockey. Put it this way, if I know I can get an Ovechkin or a Crosby if my team is the worst you bet your ass I'm going to bench every possible player I can and play the minimum goalie games and play the worst goalies/games I can to assure this happens. If you're in the bottom 6 why wouldn't you do this? You have nothing else to play for. How is that fair? You can still go this route in what we've drawn up, I just think if you're going to go that route you shouldn't get the #1 waiver pick also. I agree with you about the keeper submissions though. That sounds like a good plan, trades should be allowed before keepers have to be in. Furthermore, we should be allowed to assign players to the farm after the end of the season. Ok. Honestly, how many Ovechkins and Crosbys are going to come along? Meanwhile you just said that the worst team is getting the first prospect pick anyway so how do the rule changes prevent someone from losing on purpose to get an Ovechkin/Crosby type? What if all the teams compete till the end of the year and your team still ends up in last? You don't get the #1 waiver selection? What the hell? It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. You can't argue for the winner of the consolation bracket getting the #1 waiver(option A), and at the same time argue for a serpentine 1-12,12-1 draft order(option B). If option A is implemented, then the 6th place team (the ultimate middle-of-the-road team) will get the 6th prospect selection and the 12th waiver selection. That is the shittiest bunch of picks possible. But hey, that guys deserves it. Isn't finishing 6th reward enough? If option B is taken, then there is very little difference in winning the league and finishing middle of the pack. Thats the whole concept behind a serpentine draft. Yes, the #1 pick will get arguably the best player, but the 12th and 13th picks will arguably have more overall value in their first two selections. All of the draft procedures i have "suggested" are already laid out in black and white in the original rules governing this league. I could understand if someone wants to change a rule, but no one has even acknowledged that they have read them. I am no longer "bitching." I'm sorry if I came off a little crude in that one post, but I was frustrated. I am now simply arguing my case. So please don't dismiss my argument as a bitch session or rant of some kind. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 5, 2006 5:05:11 GMT -5
Nothing stops the guy from playing that way, I did say that in my post, but the difference is if you play like that you don't get both #1 picks that's all.
I understand the shitty position the 6th place team gets, which is sort of unfair and I can see your point, but we were just trying to draw up some way for the entire league to compete the whole way through.
Furthermore, I have read and understand all of the rules. Again, we were just trying to figure out a way the league could be more competitive and "fun" at the end of the year for the loser’s bracket. Yes, it would be a rule change if implemented.
Perhaps a compromise could be met, while the winner of the league still gets 12th pick in both drafts, the winner of the consolation bracket could get #1 waiver then allowing the 6th place team to still get the same pick (7th pick in each draft) he'd get if the last place team were to get both #1 selections. This would keep the bottom half of the league competitive and the top half of the league exactly the same as the current rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Oct 5, 2006 15:15:08 GMT -5
Nothing stops the guy from playing that way, I did say that in my post, but the difference is if you play like that you don't get both #1 picks that's all. I understand the shitty position the 6th place team gets, which is sort of unfair and I can see your point, but we were just trying to draw up some way for the entire league to compete the whole way through. Furthermore, I have read and understand all of the rules. Again, we were just trying to figure out a way the league could be more competitive and "fun" at the end of the year for the loser’s bracket. Yes, it would be a rule change if implemented. Perhaps a compromise could be met, while the winner of the league still gets 12th pick in both drafts, the winner of the consolation bracket could get #1 waiver then allowing the 6th place team to still get the same pick (7th pick in each draft) he'd get if the last place team were to get both #1 selections. This would keep the bottom half of the league competitive and the top half of the league exactly the same as the current rules. Let me just say that, no matter what is decided, there is nothing fun about the loser's brackett. Also, what is to be done if the last place team actually competes and STILL ends up in last? What if a team doesn't bench everyone but simply doesn't change his line-up daily? What if a team strategically benches some players because the manager believes it gives him the best chance to win certain categories? All of these things are very real possibilities that do not mean a team is purposely trying to lose. Where do we draw the line? The only difference in "your" plan and "my" plan is that yours guarantees the worst place team to not get the best picks. You act like losing on purpose is a foregone conclusion if the rules aren't changed. Granted, that could very well happen, but at the same time it might not. Nothing stops the guy from playing that way, I did say that in my post, but the difference is if you play like that you don't get both #1 picks that's all. Who decides if the guys loses on purpose? Are we to have a panel or board of inquiry at the end of every year to decide if a manager lost on purpose? Who are we to say? It goes along the same lines as vetoing trades. Who are we to deny a manager the right to conduct his team how he sees fit? Obviously getting higher picks will improve someone's team. Isn't that the objective when managing a team? It's not like the last place team gets to decide who gets the first pick. That team gets those picks and a better oppurtunity at improving. |
|
|
|
Post by Nos - Sharks on Oct 5, 2006 17:52:22 GMT -5
As I just finished saying, we were just trying to come up with a way to keep the bottom half of the league competitive. It doesn't matter how a manager decides to conduct his team. We were thinking about competition and fun throughout the year. We weren't thinking about punishing somebody who was dumping their team. The last place team still gets the best picks as I think the #1 prospect pick is the most important, and he will still get the #6 waiver pick. Anyway, we don't have to do this, it was merely an idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil - Blue Jackets on Oct 5, 2006 22:10:38 GMT -5
As I just finished saying, we were just trying to come up with a way to keep the bottom half of the league competitive. It doesn't matter how a manager decides to conduct his team. We were thinking about competition and fun throughout the year. We weren't thinking about punishing somebody who was dumping their team. The last place team still gets the best picks as I think the #1 prospect pick is the most important, and he will still get the #6 waiver pick. Anyway, we don't have to do this, it was merely an idea. But it is punishment. Giving someone lesser picks because they finished lower in the league. Sounds like punishment to me, especially when people say stuff like "Whats to stop someone from losing on purpose to get the last spot?" Your whole argument sounds like your dividing the league into two camps. The first camp, which you are obviously throwing yourself into, is expected to contend. I've read things like "we are trying" too often, like you're on the NAFHL committee that none of the "lesser" teams are privy to. I'm the one trying to make it better for the bottom half of the league, whether i finish there or not. Hence the 1-12,1-12 argument. |
|
So exciting.
Aug 28, 2024 22:53:08 GMT -5
So exciting.
Aug 28, 2024 22:53:08 GMT -5
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.
Sept 13, 2024 17:17:04 GMT -5
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.
Sept 13, 2024 17:17:04 GMT -5