|
Post by Shaun (VAN) on Apr 6, 2014 18:15:43 GMT -5
That's fine, post an opinion and and give some facts/reasons why you think that way what I'm saying is we don't need pages of GM's going back and forth on who they offered for what player and that sort of thing. I understand your point though. that's fair... gonna sound defensive I know, but in total I think it was 3 msgs that mentioned specific deals... to say 'pages' is exaggerating I'd say... Moving on, I think it's absolutely relevant to consider goalie availability when considering a change in minimum goalie starts... Pages might have been a little bit of hyperbole on my part but you got my drift, I agree that it is absolutely relevant to consider the availability of goalies. Personally I like the way it is now with a 2 start min but there are pros and cons for each side of the argument. One thing I don't like is multiple matchups per week, I just can't see how that would work but all of the other ideas are intriguing IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor (Buf) on Apr 6, 2014 18:16:43 GMT -5
I need to clarify....I'm FOR maximum moves such as waiver and free agent claims....I'm against that rule if it would also apply to trades and farm movement....
|
|
|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Apr 6, 2014 18:23:04 GMT -5
My 2 cents on goalies: the market is ridiculous and I'm not sure that was the intention when the league was set up. Perhaps there is another way to "soften" up this market and increase league parity, without heavily penalizing those that have strong goaltending? My suggestion would be threefold:
1. Keep the min. 2 starts; 2. Change the start 1G daily to start 2G daily; and 3. Modify the requirements for minor league status for goalies to: 67GP (half of that for forwards) and under the age of 28.
The thing I find odd is that minor league goalies have the same eligibility criteria as skaters. Goalies take the longest to develop and reach the NHL (by far), and a backup might play 20 games a year. This results in things like Curtis McElhinney (30 years old, has been in the league since 2007) - and he still has tons of minor league eligibility left. So there are a crap load of older, backup goalies, that do virtually nothing in our league but sit in the minor leagues and keep the goalie market stunted.
If we set a more realistic minor league eligibility for goalies, it would mean that older backups would eventually either need to take up a valuable roster spot...or get dropped to the waiver wire. So teams with no starting goalies (or injury issues) might actually be able to pick a goalie of the wire for a spot start here and there.
I'm hoping this might be considered as a compromise between the two positions listed so far. And note that while I have the worst goaltending in the league, the rules I'm proposing will not be painless on me. McElhinney would lose his minor league eligibility; Stalock is 26 with 25GP, so he'd lose his eligibility in 2 years as opposed to 109 GP; Raanta will lose his eligiblity faster...etc. And note the rules would have no impact on young (i.e. legitimate) goalie prospects that are actually developing in the minors or AHL or whatever.
Cheers Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Apr 6, 2014 18:29:46 GMT -5
Re: +/-; I hate that stat. I'd be in favour of changing in with any stat...(first choice would be 'hits', second choice would be 'blocks'). I'd also be in favour of dropping +/- and not replacing it if people don't want to reward other aspects of team hockey.
Ideally, our league would have hits and blocks as categories, drop +/-, and combine SHP and PPP to Special team points. It also seems weird to have SHP as a category when the NHL leader in that category has 6 points. STP would mean less ties, and would also get rid of another pretty random category (SHP).
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 6, 2014 19:03:25 GMT -5
We have all season to discuss all of these issues and more. I didn't mean to overwhelm with numerous Let us start discussion on one at a time. For starters, +/-. If you so choose, you can weigh in now or after the playoffs end.
I want each GM to reply with a "yes" or "no" to replace the cat. You can state why you would like to see it stay or go. If you want it gone, provide a replacement suggestion for the cat. If there are enough "yays", I will put up a poll with the most popular suggestions and we will hold a league wide vote to see what will replace the cat. Once we finish on this matter, we will repeat the process for each case that warrants enough GM buzz.
|
|
|
Post by Shaun (VAN) on Apr 6, 2014 19:13:50 GMT -5
+/- is the worst stat in all of fantasy sports........... that is all.
|
|
|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Apr 6, 2014 20:08:59 GMT -5
Agree, drop +/-. Replace with hits.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Apr 6, 2014 21:52:52 GMT -5
Ya +/- blows... I'd agree with CHI that hits or blocked shots would be my favourites to replace it... but pretty sure some type of scoring cat will receive more support...
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Apr 7, 2014 2:49:16 GMT -5
Fair enough, but some teams, including myself, traded for additional goaltending with these parameters in mind... It's like if people were trying to eliminate FOW as a category because some other teams did a better job of acquiring them... Goalies are available, but you have to be willing to pay the price. The league originally had no requirements for goalie starts. Rules change, they have from the start. You need to adjust, this isn't just relevant in fantasy leagues either. Not a fan of +/- but I feel the same with hits and blocked shots as well. Would like to see it replaced with points instead.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 7, 2014 8:29:01 GMT -5
Good feedback so far. Keep it coming gentlemen!
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Apr 7, 2014 8:52:52 GMT -5
Fair enough, but some teams, including myself, traded for additional goaltending with these parameters in mind... It's like if people were trying to eliminate FOW as a category because some other teams did a better job of acquiring them... Goalies are available, but you have to be willing to pay the price. The league originally had no requirements for goalie starts. Rules change, they have from the start. You need to adjust, this isn't just relevant in fantasy leagues either. Not a fan of +/- but I feel the same with hits and blocked shots as well. Would like to see it replaced with points instead. hahaha, thanks for the life advice, person who's never met me and knows nothing of my life! But you're right, we started out with no requirments for goalie. When that DIDN'T WORK, we voted for and implemented the minimum 2 starts. Now people wanna go back to zero minimum? 'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' -Albert Einstein Also, in terms of adding Points as a category... I mean, we already have goals and assists, as well as PPP and SHP... Points would be really redundant IMO... One more thing - There seems to be a push for a LOT of changes this offseason... I would caution against changing too many things at once...
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 7, 2014 9:02:13 GMT -5
The league originally had no requirements for goalie starts. Rules change, they have from the start. You need to adjust, this isn't just relevant in fantasy leagues either. Not a fan of +/- but I feel the same with hits and blocked shots as well. Would like to see it replaced with points instead. hahaha, thanks for the life advice, person who's never met me and knows nothing of my life! But you're right, we started out with no requirments for goalie. When that DIDN'T WORK, we voted for and implemented the minimum 2 starts. Now people wanna go back to zero minimum? 'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' -Albert Einstein Also, in terms of adding Points as a category... I mean, we already have goals and assists, as well as PPP and SHP... Points would be really redundant IMO... One more thing - There seems to be a push for a LOT of changes this offseason... I would caution against changing too many things at once... I personally agree with the point issue, but we'll do as we always do and allow the process to unfold. Someone may come up with something more creative that appeals to the majority. As far as a ton of changes go, I'm more Leary of "drastic" change than I am the "number" of changes. If minor tweaks, it's all good. But major overhauls that turn the league on its head are not what I am looking for. I've seen things this year that I feel need to be addressed so as to make our gaming experience more pleasurable and hopefully levels the playing field.
|
|
|
Post by Dave (Chi) on Apr 7, 2014 10:46:41 GMT -5
My understanding is that we'll get back to the min games for goalies after addressing the +/- category?
[Personally, I think there are a ton of options to maintain the 2 game minimum, while making some tweaks to make it easier to hit this target.]
I've yet to really see anyone step up and make an argument about the benefit of using +/- as a stat; I'd like to know if there is support out there for keeping this category?
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 7, 2014 11:11:43 GMT -5
My understanding is that we'll get back to the min games for goalies after addressing the +/- category? [Personally, I think there are a ton of options to maintain the 2 game minimum, while making some tweaks to make it easier to hit this target.] I've yet to really see anyone step up and make an argument about the benefit of using +/- as a stat; I'd like to know if there is support out there for keeping this category? I don't want to be a closed door regarding a concern. However, we've done the 1 min start and it failed miserably. So bad was it that I was set to leapfrog straight to 3GP min. After looking at each teams tending situation, I agreed with others to do a 2 start min. To date, i'm actually pleased with a min of 2 starts a week. 2 is not a lot to start in 7 days. There are other matters more pressing, IMO, that should be looked at first before engaging this topic again.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor (Buf) on Apr 7, 2014 11:35:45 GMT -5
Can we have a thread for each topic and/or suggested change? I think that would keep everything more organize especially if we do it now, rather than when we are a month into discussions.
|
|