|
|
Post by Crapitano (Vikings GM) on Jul 18, 2011 11:53:41 GMT -5
I know that this depends on how big our teams are going to be. So you don't have answer this poll before team size has been settled.
But if you don't think that the team size matters, please cast your vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herman Hessian (Crab Kings GM) on Jul 18, 2011 12:42:35 GMT -5
hafta consider if there are going to be any other means of restricting keepers too - salary cap (in which case you have a fixed value and can keep any number of players up to that total ie to simplify if your cap ceiling is $100, you can keep two guys worth $50 each, or ten guys at $10 each, rather than having a fixed number of keepers - far better !)
i'd go for some kind of hybrid value and keeper cap - whereby player value is calculated by using both NHL salary and some sort of weighting based on the points they accumulate in our league - this obviously won't be an issue until next summer though, so plenty of time to decide !
|
|
|
|
Post by derick (Vitriols GM) on Jul 18, 2011 15:52:39 GMT -5
I don't think we should keep more than 5. 15 would pretty much mean that we'd only conduct the entry draft after the first year.
|
|
|
|
Post by cube on Jul 19, 2011 19:54:25 GMT -5
In my opinion this can only be decided upon once we have solidified our roster size choice. This is however a "Dynasty Keeper" so that usually entails that we keep the entirety of our rosters throughout each season.
However I would not be opposed to having some kind of limit to the players we can keep after each year but there will be plenty of time for everyone to discuss this as it will only really come into full effect next off-season. It would however be a good idea to get some sort of baseline/foundation set so GM's can take that into account when drafting there rosters.
|
|
|
|
Post by cuth (Smashers GM) on Jul 22, 2011 2:22:19 GMT -5
i like full dynasty ,draft after first year is 3 rounds of rookie ,freeagents picks can be traded also
|
|
|
|
Post by Herman Hessian (Crab Kings GM) on Jul 22, 2011 4:31:18 GMT -5
i like full dynasty ,draft after first year is 3 rounds of rookie ,freeagents picks can be traded also fine by me - i'm sick of leagues where you spend all season building a roster only to have to discard half of them to fit in with some spurious keeper limit what that does mean though is that a cap, of sorts, is going to be needed after year one, as long as everyone's going to be happy with that, then i'm all for keeping an entire roster and just having a limited draft year on year after that |
|
|
|
Post by Matt (Legionnaires GM) on Jul 22, 2011 17:47:40 GMT -5
With that, would we have a year, this year, as a 'learning' year as to what players are worth in the league so we can value them better?
And if this is the case, would it still be a good idea to have a full dynasty this year/the first year?
|
|
|
|
Post by cuth (Smashers GM) on Jul 22, 2011 23:54:44 GMT -5
i like full dynasty ,draft after first year is 3 rounds of rookie ,freeagents picks can be traded also fine by me - i'm sick of leagues where you spend all season building a roster only to have to discard half of them to fit in with some spurious keeper limit what that does mean though is that a cap, of sorts, is going to be needed after year one, as long as everyone's going to be happy with that, then i'm all for keeping an entire roster and just having a limited draft year on year after that what we do in my other league is simple no cap ,full dynasty keeper league ,no more than 10 on a minor league farm team with 40 games they have to be called up or dropped/traded ,this results in a consistent league with plenty of player turnover ,if a player goes to the khl ,you maintain his rights for 1 year ,takes a minor league or bench spot ,or he gets released ,ie emery and nabokov last year ,i had both lol ,there is no demotions once up hes up no going back even though he hasnt played 40 games |
|
|
|
Post by cube on Jul 23, 2011 5:40:19 GMT -5
fine by me - i'm sick of leagues where you spend all season building a roster only to have to discard half of them to fit in with some spurious keeper limit what that does mean though is that a cap, of sorts, is going to be needed after year one, as long as everyone's going to be happy with that, then i'm all for keeping an entire roster and just having a limited draft year on year after that what we do in my other league is simple no cap ,full dynasty keeper league ,no more than 10 on a minor league farm team with 40 games they have to be called up or dropped/traded ,this results in a consistent league with plenty of player turnover ,if a player goes to the khl ,you maintain his rights for 1 year ,takes a minor league or bench spot ,or he gets released ,ie emery and nabokov last year ,i had both lol ,there is no demotions once up hes up no going back even though he hasnt played 40 games Yea, from what I can tell most leagues follow that rule set, it seems to be pretty standard among the keeper leagues. However, I think we have a chance here to create something more then just a "standard" keeper. I would like to see this league be more sophisticated but not complicated, something that sparks the interest and also adds a hint of realism to give all the GM's a real sense of entitlement over their team. I think with some minor tweaks to the system we can get a great start to achieving all this. I have this borrowed philosophy about how teams should be run, I like to use the Red Wings as a prime example. Detroit has been the pioneers of building from within for a long time and I believe it is directly linked to there organizations continued success. Just recently other managers around the NHL have started to implement that ideology into their organizations and it is starting a league wide evolution that will eventually result in a much more entertaining and competitive league. I think by being a little proactive we can grow this league into something more in line with the "mother league" from which we base our keepers on. I have a few ideas in mind that I would like to discuss but before I even get into that I would like to know who is open to the idea of straying away from the "standard" and implementing some minor changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Herman Hessian (Crab Kings GM) on Jul 23, 2011 7:28:20 GMT -5
I have a few ideas in mind that I would like to discuss but before I even get into that I would like to know who is open to the idea of straying away from the "standard" and implementing some minor changes. go for it ! the other league i've been in for a while is now entering it's fourth year, and has several tweaks to standard stuff, notably what I keep banging on about in that player values are calculated based on the league's own scoring rather than NHL salaries or something else, so you are able to select players who contribute specifically in the leagues cats, and all those in the player pool have relative values. there is a team "value cap" to ensure as even a spread of the talent as possible, and other tweaks that depend on the scoring format that we adopt it's good, other than the fact that goalies are waaaay over-valued, and if you don't have two decent contributors between the pipes, you have no chance to win which is a real disappointment (especially for someone with backstrom and clemmensen on their roster !) it's also a deep league (18 teams x 25 man rosters), and with 16 x skater and 7 x goalie scoring cats in play so that more than just the same old players are able to be viable team members - means that with a bit of digging, you can pluck a guy off the waivers who may well be a 3rd/4th liner in Florida, for example, but he can still contribute if he wins a high percentage of face-offs, or is part of a good PK unit, regardless of the fact he may score few goals or take many PIM i know we're going for fewer teams than this (twelve at the last count ?), so maybe a couple of "ghost' rosters would be an option to thin the player pool a little - could have a mid season draft from the players on these "teams" where the last placed team in our league picks first to inject a bit of new blood in time for the second half ? another good idea from this other league is that draft order is based on improvement in a team for it's second half performance over that in the first half, so even if you are dead last at Christmas, if you are able to turn things around, you can still shoot for that #1 pick and retain some interest in things after the festive season... |
|
|
|
Post by cube on Jul 23, 2011 18:35:19 GMT -5
With all due respect I think a salary cap system may take away the "fantasy", in building a fantasy team. I see it over-complicating things to the point where building a team will be more of a numbers game then actually evaluating players on their skill-set/talent level. Essentially building teams may become a bit of a chore. I believe there is a better way to add depth into this league and make it enjoyable for GM's of all levels of hockey knowledge/activity, but like I stated before I would like to get a better idea of how everyone feels about the idea of change in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by derick (Vitriols GM) on Jul 23, 2011 19:40:34 GMT -5
I don't like this idea as it could lead to the league winner getting the first pick.
|
|
