|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 11, 2014 15:15:31 GMT -5
WPG - Johan Larsson is no longer on IR, assigned to minors
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Oct 21, 2014 17:10:14 GMT -5
Columbus still has no NHL Goalie and we're 3 weeks in the season.
Additionally:
Griffin Reinhart, Brian Hart, Steven Santini, and Jason LaBarbera (4 total) are minor league players right now and on the active roster. Brett Connolly and Martin Marincin are both on NHL rosters and have both played more than one game this season but on the farm team. Brian Hart and Steven Santini have played zero NHL games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 21:24:18 GMT -5
How can we possibly mandate that a team have an NHL goalie? Given the goalie valuations in this league, there are some teams who wouldn't land a goalie if they offered up every single player they own. Further to that, a GM in need of a goalie would be completely at the mercy of the leagues other GM's...talk about tying someones hands and throwing them to the sharks......and this still doesn't bring up the fact that it's very difficult to define exactly who an 'NHL goalie' is. Last week Pickard was not an NHL goalie but now would he get a team off the hook for a roster violation? There will also be backups or even starters who will not end the season in the NHL so how would having them on your team to start the season make any difference to the final standings or their perceived ability to compete? Would Bryz, Broudeur, Thomas or Vokun count as an NHL goalie? If not, why not? Any one of them could be more valuable than any backup in the league at seasons end.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 21, 2014 21:51:26 GMT -5
it's part of the rules that GMs dress a complete team. When I joined the league I was forced to make trades to make my team compliant. it isn't impossible. I also spent this offseason trying to find a back up G to assure myself that I would have options.
The rules aren't new, everyone should be aware of them so if we are consistent, we have 30 teams all working at doing the same thing.
I am more concerned with a team like NYR who are not dressing as complete roster as they have available. checking the line changes for the past couple weeks there are active players on his bench or in his minors when he has open active spots available.
to me, that is much more tanking than not having an NHL G...but both are covered by the anti-tanking rules.
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Oct 21, 2014 22:24:53 GMT -5
Care to offer any suggestions for improvement Vancouver?
I just joined this league but based on my experiences so far, with proper planning and research, I think procuring one NHL goalie is very attainable. Many GMs offered NHL goalies for reasonable asking prices during the off-season when there was much less pressure to have a rule-compliant team. The definition of an NHL goalie is included in the rules (either a starter or a back-up on an NHL team). Goalies like Pickard who don't count one day and count the next day is just part of playing the game, just like any other player who's a minor league player one day and an NHL player the next.
Bryz, Brodeur, Thomas or Vokuon would not count right now but they still hold some value as most of them are owned. Those GMs who held on to them made sure they had an NHL goalie on their roster in the event those goalies never signed with another team, and obviously, their off-season planning paid off. When Sobotka signed with the KHL, were you forced to make a trade at the mercy of the other GMs? No, because you properly planned your team to be compliant even without Sobotka. Part of the game is to make sure you never fall into that situation.
29 other GMs managed to define what an NHL goalie is and have at least one NHL goalie before the season started, why would we think its so difficult to do? If there were many teams that couldn't fulfil this mandate, then perhaps we should consider changing the rules. But why would we change the rules to cater to just one team?
Based on the rationale above, I don't have a problem with the one NHL goalie rule, but if you do, please offer some alternatives for the leagues consideration.
The only problem I have is that there isn't a clear rule on what the punishment is if you don't have an NHL goalie on your roster for a specific period of time. I would suggest something like not having one for 2 weeks would count as a minor infraction, 4 weeks = moderate infraction and so on
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 21, 2014 23:04:15 GMT -5
Ideally every DTDL team should have an NHL goaltender to include rebuilding teams. I have expressed this to Columbus (Banger) as well as other to other teams who did not have one (Florida- has since acquired one) as well as likely/logical trading partners. This is especially true because this league is a head-to-head league and a team's competitiveness affects every team in the league. I have no intention to broker a deal and agree somewhat with Vancouver's recent comments. But there are still goalies out there (Clemmensen, Dubnyk and possibly Budaj depending on your take of his current situation) who should be available fairly cheap.
Teams are also expected to keep their best line up active. There are 30 teams out there and this is a daily league, so keeping an eye out for compliance is not an easy thing. between Zaph, Jets GM and myself; I think we do a decent job of policing things up.
Specfically in the case of the NY Rangers - Yes, His line up was illegal and both Schultz and Draisaitl were listed as inactive for Monday night's game, which was the only game going on last night. Seems inexcusable until you dig a little deeper. If you actually look at the NY Rangers line changes for the entire season, you'll see a few Admin updates, but overall, the NY Rangers (ED) have been doing his line changes. He has on occasion brought Schultz into the minors and has shortly thereafter brought him back out. All in all, it looks like Ed lost track and missed ONE necessary line change. So before we all over-react and quit the league, which one GM has already thrown out there. We may all want to calm down just a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado on Oct 21, 2014 23:06:28 GMT -5
Florida did not have an NHL goalie play a singal game the week I played him. Yet he beat me in Save Percentage. That is just wrong.
NYR not having playing players on their active roster, while have an illegal team because they do not have enough active players is garbage. The man should be embarrased to call himself a hockey fantasy fan. He should also be kicked out of the league.
Rich Colorado
|
|
|
Post by Colorado on Oct 21, 2014 23:16:06 GMT -5
Ideally every DTDL team should have an NHL goaltender to include rebuilding teams. I have expressed this to Columbus (Banger) as well as other to other teams who did not have one (Florida- has since acquired one) as well as likely/logical trading partners. This is especially true because this league is a head-to-head league and a team's competitiveness affects every team in the league. I have no intention to broker a deal and agree somewhat with Vancouver's recent comments. But there are still goalies out there (Clemmensen, Dubnyk and possibly Budaj depending on your take of his current situation) who should be available fairly cheap. Teams are also expected to keep their best line up active. There are 30 teams out there and this is a daily league, so keeping an eye out for compliance is not an easy thing. between Zaph, Jets GM and myself; I think we do a decent job of policing things up. Specfically in the case of the NY Rangers - Yes, His line up was illegal and both Schultz and Draisaitl were listed as inactive for Monday night's game, which was the only game going on last night. Seems inexcusable until you dig a little deeper. If you actually look at the NY Rangers line changes for the entire season, you'll see a few Admin updates, but overall, the NY Rangers (ED) have been doing his line changes. He has on occasion brought Schultz into the minors and has shortly thereafter brought him back out. All in all , it looks like Ed lost track and missed [font color="e64019"]ONE[/font][/b] necessary line change. So before we all over-react and quit the league, which one GM has already thrown out there. We may all want to calm down just a little bit. [/quote] No offense taken or being given but, did you skip over the NYI comments relating to the lineups of the NYR. It is just a couple above yours. Everynight, it appears that a few teams have illegal lineups. The league needs to fix the issue. Also just wanted to mention that I traded two backup goalies for third round picks in the summer. Rich Colorado
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 21, 2014 23:26:01 GMT -5
Florida did not have an NHL goalie play a singal game the week I played him. Yet he beat me in Save Percentage. That is just wrong. Rich Colorado that week you won 8.5 to 6.5. FLA got points in stats: G, A, +/-, PPP, Hit = 5 COL got points in stats: PIM, SOG, Blk, FO%, GAA, SV, SV% = 7 both teams tied and thus got half points in stats: SHP, W, SHO = 1.5 each thus you won 8.5 - 6.5 a team who does not dress a G does not get points, in spite of the red mark your 4.32 GAA shows in fantrax. you still got the win for that ugly GAA.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 21, 2014 23:28:40 GMT -5
I am not trying to start a fight, I don't tend to pick out GMs specifically but NYR line changes this season have been what I would consider tanking
Oct 20 - Draisaitl and Schultz on bench, no active players Oct 18 - Nate Schmidt in minors, Peter Harrold (in the minors) on active Oct 17 - Shawn Thornton and Scottie Upshall with open active spots Oct 14 - Dainus Zubrus and Chris Tierney on bench with open active spots
I went back 1 week and that is what I found. to me that should be unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 21, 2014 23:32:39 GMT -5
that sample size alone would lead me to suggest that NYR's 1st should be penalized half a spot for each glaring attempt to tank as is documented. these 4 instances = losing 2 spots in the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado on Oct 22, 2014 4:07:51 GMT -5
Appears that the Administration is noticing and trying to make the right decisions. Hopefully action will entice deliberate tankers to compete to win for the entire league's enjoyment and fairness.
Rich Colorado
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 8:57:03 GMT -5
it's part of the rules that GMs dress a complete team. When I joined the league I was forced to make trades to make my team compliant. it isn't impossible. I also spent this offseason trying to find a back up G to assure myself that I would have options. The rules aren't new, everyone should be aware of them so if we are consistent, we have 30 teams all working at doing the same thing. I am more concerned with a team like NYR who are not dressing as complete roster as they have available. checking the line changes for the past couple weeks there are active players on his bench or in his minors when he has open active spots available. to me, that is much more tanking than not having an NHL G...but both are covered by the anti-tanking rules. I understand the rules and I'm pointing out that I think they are flawed. A competitive franchise obviously wants to have active goalies on their roster, that goes without saying, but when you put yourself into the mindset of a rebuilding franchise it becomes clear that this rule can be easily be subverted (eg. if I was in that situation I'd grab the most useless goalie to play one NHL game and let him ride. It will do nothing to make my team more competitive it will simply force a 'compliance' roster move to avoid the optics of what's really going on....a tank) . I understand that the optics of a tank seem to bother some GM's but I see no reason for it. We can not have 30 competitive teams and, as in the NHL, the best route to the top often runs through the bottom. Is this a problem? Often times the guys pulling off the most astute tanks are some of the keenest GM's in the league and they're rebuilding their franchises in the most efficient means possible. Why do competitive teams care who finishes in 28th or 25th place? Further to the backup question; a team could spend their time trying to meet the minimum requirements for owning an 'NHL goalie' only to find out that the backup they thought they had didn't make the squad. A cursory count of AHL goalies shows me at least six who would have counted as an 'NHL goalie' last year who would no longer fill that role for a team this year. Does that mean that a GM who went out and made a sound investment in a rising goalie like Mrazek should be penalized because he's not on the team this year? I'd suggest we not get too upset about 'Tanking' and just worry more about utilizing the rosters to their fullest as you mentioned above. The salary floor forces teams into a minimum compliance and if we want to take it a step further I'd suggest adding in a minimum games played rule. Rebuilding is a slow and steady process that should be encouraged not demonized. So my question is this; what is the intended consequence of the goalie rule and is it a realistic means to that end? I think you all know what answer I'd provide to this question but I am interested to hear from others as maybe I've missed something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 9:00:08 GMT -5
Care to offer any suggestions for improvement Vancouver? I just joined this league but based on my experiences so far, with proper planning and research, I think procuring one NHL goalie is very attainable. Many GMs offered NHL goalies for reasonable asking prices during the off-season when there was much less pressure to have a rule-compliant team. The definition of an NHL goalie is included in the rules (either a starter or a back-up on an NHL team). Goalies like Pickard who don't count one day and count the next day is just part of playing the game, just like any other player who's a minor league player one day and an NHL player the next. Bryz, Brodeur, Thomas or Vokuon would not count right now but they still hold some value as most of them are owned. Those GMs who held on to them made sure they had an NHL goalie on their roster in the event those goalies never signed with another team, and obviously, their off-season planning paid off. When Sobotka signed with the KHL, were you forced to make a trade at the mercy of the other GMs? No, because you properly planned your team to be compliant even without Sobotka. Part of the game is to make sure you never fall into that situation. 29 other GMs managed to define what an NHL goalie is and have at least one NHL goalie before the season started, why would we think its so difficult to do? If there were many teams that couldn't fulfil this mandate, then perhaps we should consider changing the rules. But why would we change the rules to cater to just one team? Based on the rationale above, I don't have a problem with the one NHL goalie rule, but if you do, please offer some alternatives for the leagues consideration. The only problem I have is that there isn't a clear rule on what the punishment is if you don't have an NHL goalie on your roster for a specific period of time. I would suggest something like not having one for 2 weeks would count as a minor infraction, 4 weeks = moderate infraction and so on Short answer, forget the goalie rule as it accomplishes nothing and I'm not concerned about teams who are rebuilding. Hard to offer a solution when I see no problem. As for those leaving active NHLers on the bench....see my previous post
|
|
|
Post by Ken (ANA) on Oct 22, 2014 10:05:17 GMT -5
I'm actually not bothered by tanking at all. I agree that rebuilding should be encouraged so there will be competitive teams in the future and tanking is the most efficient way of doing that as well. The only concern I have (and potentially other GMs as well) is that people should be tanking within the tanking rules. Just like competitive teams need to make their rosters as competitive as possible but within the rules, tanking teams also have a set of rules to abide by to make their team as worst as possible.
Like you said, I don't care who finishes 28th or 25th, but I do care that bottom teams are complying to the tanking rules. I'm not trying to pick on any GMs here, I'm just trying to foster an environment where everyone is aware of the rules and is trying to follow them.
|
|