|
Post by johnnybower (Det GM) on Oct 25, 2011 18:39:26 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing that anyone is tanking at this point in the season. Some guys have had to take over teams that were gutted (in the first season of a league...defies explanation) and are struggling to compete due to crappy rosters and salary caps. Others are trying to decide whether or not they can take a run or need to rebuild to some degree. Others are in total rebuild. I think right now we need to build up some faith and respect among us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2011 18:56:36 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing that anyone is tanking at this point in the season. Some guys have had to take over teams that were gutted (in the first season of a league...defies explanation) and are struggling to compete due to crappy rosters and salary caps. Others are trying to decide whether or not they can take a run or need to rebuild to some degree. Others are in total rebuild. I think right now we need to build up some faith and respect among us. i guess tanking isnt really the right word. i just find it hard to believe a team is playing the best roster they can when they dont have the same minimum nhl players as everyone else, or they have guys that arent in the nhl in their nhl roster. i believe its fair that if a good team has to get rid of good players to get the right positions and stay under the cap, a weak team should get rid of good players to get the right positions and stay above the floor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2011 21:55:29 GMT -5
anaheim had 4 forwards dressed tuesday, and thus had an illegal lineup and accumulated no points. this is the sort of stuff i'm talking about that i wish managers didnt do.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 25, 2011 22:52:02 GMT -5
I have a hard time believing that anyone is tanking at this point in the season. Some guys have had to take over teams that were gutted (in the first season of a league...defies explanation) and are struggling to compete due to crappy rosters and salary caps. Others are trying to decide whether or not they can take a run or need to rebuild to some degree. Others are in total rebuild. I think right now we need to build up some faith and respect among us. i guess tanking isnt really the right word. i just find it hard to believe a team is playing the best roster they can when they dont have the same minimum nhl players as everyone else, or they have guys that arent in the nhl in their nhl roster. i believe its fair that if a good team has to get rid of good players to get the right positions and stay under the cap, a weak team should get rid of good players to get the right positions and stay above the floor. you are taking this thread off topic with your agenda. a strong team that has too many players has it MUCH easier. They just trade their quantity for better players, thus making their team better. weak teams are not going to get stronger by trading their good "prospects" to get players because nobody gives fair value on a "prospect" and if they already had good players, we wouldn't be having this discussion. but this thread is about the farm team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2011 8:35:55 GMT -5
I´m fully with the Jets here. I´m digging deep into prospects usually and i´m agreeing on that there at least 30 notables left that i would love to add to my stack and a decent amount of percent will make the NHL for sure. And the prospect pool in this league is the smallest i know in all leagues i´m playing in. ( 6 keepers) so i do not know why it should get any smaller. I see no problem with an increase if there are guys intrested in taking those 5 % chances. If you are not willing to digg that deep that is just fine. Nobody will force you. My point isn't that people shouldn't be interested in digging into the 5% it is that we already are! An NHL roster is made up of 23 players, that's a total of 690 active NHLers at any point in time. We already have 750 prospects drafted. If you start to figure out the average age of players in the NHL, how long they'll potentially be around and how many prospects enter the NHL each year to replace the departing players you'd find that out of the prospects we're currently carrying there might be 200 who make the NHL. That means we're carrying about 550 prospects who will never become NHL players yet people want to go further. Am I the only one who doesn't understand the logic here? I watch the NHL, I play NHL hockey pools, I love digging into prospects but I'm not interested in those guys who'll probably never play in the NHL. It seems some people should be playing CHL pools to get their prospect fix because we're not talking about NHL prospects here.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Oct 26, 2011 8:53:31 GMT -5
My point isn't that people shouldn't be interested in digging into the 5% it is that we already are! An NHL roster is made up of 23 players, that's a total of 690 active NHLers at any point in time. We already have 750 prospects drafted. If you start to figure out the average age of players in the NHL, how long they'll potentially be around and how many prospects enter the NHL each year to replace the departing players you'd find that out of the prospects we're currently carrying there might be 200 who make the NHL. That means we're carrying about 550 prospects who will never become NHL players yet people want to go further. Am I the only one who doesn't understand the logic here? I watch the NHL, I play NHL hockey pools, I love digging into prospects but I'm not interested in those guys who'll probably never play in the NHL. It seems some people should be playing CHL pools to get their prospect fix because we're not talking about NHL prospects here. I completely agree with Vancouver (not sure what's wrong with me, twice in two days? haha). That draft this past summer was painfully slow. Irrespective of what we decide wrt the size of the farm team, I would advocate for shortening the draft to three rounds. If the prospect nuts are hell-bent on having bigger farms, I would suggest that they be permitted to add through free agency and not the draft, for the sake of everyone's time. That said, I am also for keeping our current farm size or even contracting, which would decrease the number of long-shots everyone owns but increase the quality that is owned. As for not getting fair value on prospects, I think that it's bordering on absurd how highly fringe prospects are valued by a lot of people in this pool. The concept of a "rebuild" is all well and good but it's insane for a bottom-feeder to expect to close the gap through a collection of long shot prospects. Look at how real-life draft picks actually pan out. It strikes me as very odd that so many people here think that they can better the professional scouts' success rate. Complementing fringe NHL players with high-end prospects would work but a team full of middling to fringe prospects and no NHL players? The only way that I can see that working is if you suck for so many years that you keep getting top picks, and then wait the three-to-four years for them to approach their prime. That figures to be about a ten-year rebuild, for a fantasy league...
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 26, 2011 12:41:57 GMT -5
I think there likely are plenty of teams that have a ton of long shot prospects but I view my team as an example of a team that if you took away 3-5 farm slots away from my team, it would have some real impact on my team's future. Also even if we keep it the same than I am not sure what I am going to do with the picks I have for this upcoming draft if I also have to drop players I like.
I realize many of us are not in this situation but I think allowing teams to have long term projects is better than limiting a team's ability to stockpile prospects if they so choose. Yeah maybe most of us don't have great farm teams but many that don't have good NHL teams.
I really enjoy gauging prospects and sure some trades made probably overvalue the prospects. If anyone is referencing my trade recently and even if their not I'll use it as an example.
Huselius is injured so often and his contract expires soon and he isn't getting $4.75 million again so I knew I wanted to move him while at least his cap hit had some value. One of Brennan and Shugg had to be moved to make space for Kristo who is playing very well in the NCAA and I believe will be a key piece once the current regime gets pushed aside. Shugg was a guy Markus liked and I know about his junior glory days but he is in the ECHL right now and I have Tedenby and Evander for my LW long term.
Anyway I also have seen plenty of offers from others that undervalue prospects so it all depends on who you deal with.
On the farm size issue, I am against shrinking it since most of us will have plenty of guys still in our minors last year who are also good to very good prospects. Also I see no need to shrink the farm size. Yes I am for making the draft shorter down the road but really right now I don't see the point. Give people more choices with their team rather than take them away I think.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Oct 26, 2011 22:31:13 GMT -5
no to shrinking the farm, we do need to decide soon what the direction is for upcoming seasons re: farm & draft though. IMO this isn't something that can just wait until the offseason.
shrinking it is just not an option, period. not unless you have all 30 GMs on board and you don't.
I don't know how the future traded picks are but I would suggest ASAP knock the draft down to 3 rounds if you are going to cap the farm at 30 or less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2011 6:40:31 GMT -5
shrinking it is just not an option, period. not unless you have all 30 GMs on board and you don't. Well then it's settled, if you need 30 GM's onboard to shrink the farm then you'd also need all GM's to agree to expansion and that will never happen so I can live with it staying at 25. Has anyone traded 4th or 5th round picks beyond the 2012 draft? Can we keep the farm at 25, drop the draft to 3 rounds starting in 2013 and force GM's to choose between the players they draft each year and *gasp* a few of the dead weight prospects that everyone has on their team?
|
|
|
Post by keytolife on Oct 27, 2011 7:06:10 GMT -5
shrinking it is just not an option, period. not unless you have all 30 GMs on board and you don't. Well then it's settled, if you need 30 GM's onboard to shrink the farm then you'd also need all GM's to agree to expansion and that will never happen so I can live with it staying at 25. Has anyone traded 4th or 5th round picks beyond the 2012 draft? Can we keep the farm at 25, drop the draft to 3 rounds starting in 2013 and force GM's to choose between the players they draft each year and *gasp* a few of the dead weight prospects that everyone has on their team? I simply do not get your problem with the farm size. If you do not want to take a look at long shot problems don´t. But why force others to do the same? There are guys that pay attention and guys who don´t. There are always some late round gems that will be worth a pickup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2011 7:14:31 GMT -5
Well then it's settled, if you need 30 GM's onboard to shrink the farm then you'd also need all GM's to agree to expansion and that will never happen so I can live with it staying at 25. Has anyone traded 4th or 5th round picks beyond the 2012 draft? Can we keep the farm at 25, drop the draft to 3 rounds starting in 2013 and force GM's to choose between the players they draft each year and *gasp* a few of the dead weight prospects that everyone has on their team? I simply do not get your problem with the farm size. If you do not want to take a look at long shot problems don´t. But why force others to do the same? There are guys that pay attention and guys who don´t. There are always some late round gems that will be worth a pickup. How bout this then, as a team with a full roster of NHL players, I'd like to keep all NHLers and future NHLers that I have on my roster because I don't see why I should have to limit myself to a certain number of NHL players. To do this I'll need the rules for minor league eligibility changed so that anyone on my active roster can be sent down at will and this will mean I can stockpile NHL players indefinitely I'm not suggesting anyone be forced to change anything. This conversation started with people looking to change the minor league rosters not people looking to contract them. I'm fine with leaving it alone so if anyone's being 'forced' into anything it's certainly not you.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Oct 27, 2011 8:24:48 GMT -5
I agree with key, I look at my minors and leaving me stuck at 25 minors slots when I have two 1st and a 2nd round for the next two years would be unfairly limiting me.
In general, I also don't see the issue with keep long term projects. There is a huge difference between "stockpiling" NHLers and prospects:
1) most stockpiled NHLers will have limited value EVER because they lack the upside of prospects
2) it isn't practical to compare the two types of players since there are plenty of prospects around and not many NHLers left
3) Maybe the most important is that for cap and roster requirement reasons it would bend the league out of shape to do NHLer stockpiling
I realize you may have meant this in jest but even so to even insinuate that loading up on prospects would be like allowing us to load up on NHLers is misleading (last I checked prospects don't get us fantasy points so their place on our rosters don't mean much, especially since you think many of them are long term projects for most teams).
All the same I return to my original point, why limit a team trying to build for the future's ability to do just that? Not everyone will have 25 or 30 grade A prospects but no one is forcing them to try to so if you choose not to fill your minors with lower prospects realize there are some that are trying to maximize every minors spot that becomes available. Even freezing it is really unfair for those of us that want to use our higher picks and keep our players. This is a full keeper right? So most of draft picks shouldn't be hard to use/ should actually have a use to me and keep the players I pick I would think.
|
|
|
Post by stlouisgm on Oct 27, 2011 8:39:05 GMT -5
[/quote]
Has anyone traded 4th or 5th round picks beyond the 2012 draft?
Can we keep the farm at 25, drop the draft to 3 rounds starting in 2013 and force GM's to choose between the players they draft each year and *gasp* a few of the dead weight prospects that everyone has on their team?[/quote]
As mentioned at the beginning of this thread, picks have been traded through the 2013 season, therefore the draft will lot change length until 2014.
I've not weighted in to the conversation since early on because I wanted to hear what the GMs had to say about it. I've come away with two conclusions and these are my assessments.
There are two issues being discussed here really. Farm size and also draft length. Small farm sizes hurt teams who are the weaker teams in the league and help the stronger teams in keeping the status quo. Larger pools help the weaker rebuilding teams and have minimal affect on the stronger more dominate teams.
5 round drafts are only needed if we plan on continuing to grow the minor pools to a much larger level. Many of the "gems" who are still out there may be signed as free agents after the entry draft is over and free agency reopens.
In addition, our entry draft was severely painful last year in execution. I believe the format change I implemented earlier should assist in alleviating that painful process, but interest with the later rounds will still be lesser than in the earlier rounds.
Therefore, for the betterment of the league as a whole I am implementing the following:
- The farm size will be increased from 25 to 30 for next season and will be reassessed next season at a date to be determined.
- The entry draft will be reduced down to 3 rounds staring in 2014.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2011 9:10:19 GMT -5
I want a league wide vote on this. I've hardly heard anyone weigh in on this except for a few very vocal GM's who clearly want more prospects on their roster and a couple who are firmly against it. I have not seen nearly enough to indicate what the league feels on this.
When this league was formed there was never any intent to have an ever increasing farm size and the 25 man minor league was meant to be a LARGE farm system. If I've learned one thing about keeper poole it's that there are ALWAYS people who want bigger farms but it isn't always helpful to the league as a whole.
I completely disagree with your notion that stronger teams are unaffected by the increased roster and that weaker teams are helped, this is simply not the case in many of the leagues that I'm part of.
Here's a much more realistic scenario:
Teams at the top also tend to have the strongest GM's who usually manage to mine the best prospect talent, therefore as they start to lose some of their active roster players they're also sitting on many of the best prospects to take their place and the cycle continues. Every once in awhile a committed GM takes over a bottom dwelling team, sees a rebuild through with 2-3 1st or 2nd overall picks and then makes a run at it but more often than not it's a rotating door of GM's who get frustrated and leave the team in shambles. If the top teams aren't allowed to stockpile as many prospect assets it gives the bottom teams more to sift through and when we do get astute GM's they might have a chance of finding a diamond in the rough.
The issue raised of what to do with the picks is just nuts. Nobody has such a strong minor league roster that they can't make room for their top picks....nobody! This debate will never end if people aren't satisfied with 25 they won't be satisfied with 30 and it will go on and on.
If this goes to a vote and the league wants to expand then I'll accept it but if we're moving forward with unilateral decisions based on the whims of a few GM's then I'm going to have to seriously reconsider my place in this league.
|
|
|
Post by spitball on Oct 27, 2011 9:24:29 GMT -5
I want a league wide vote on this. I've hardly heard anyone weigh in on this except for a few very vocal GM's who clearly want more prospects on their roster and a couple who are firmly against it. I have not seen nearly enough to indicate what the league feels on this. When this league was formed there was never any intent to have an ever increasing farm size and the 25 man minor league was meant to be a LARGE farm system. If I've learned one thing about keeper poole it's that there are ALWAYS people who want bigger farms but it isn't always helpful to the league as a whole. I completely disagree with your notion that stronger teams are unaffected by the increased roster and that weaker teams are helped, this is simply not the case in many of the leagues that I'm part of. Here's a much more realistic scenario: Teams at the top also tend to have the strongest GM's who usually manage to mine the best prospect talent, therefore as they start to lose some of their active roster players they're also sitting on many of the best prospects to take their place and the cycle continues. Every once in awhile a committed GM takes over a bottom dwelling team, sees a rebuild through with 2-3 1st or 2nd overall picks and then makes a run at it but more often than not it's a rotating door of GM's who get frustrated and leave the team in shambles. If the top teams aren't allowed to stockpile as many prospect assets it gives the bottom teams more to sift through and when we do get astute GM's they might have a chance of finding a diamond in the rough. The issue raised of what to do with the picks is just nuts. Nobody has such a strong minor league roster that they can't make room for their top picks....nobody! This debate will never end if people aren't satisfied with 25 they won't be satisfied with 30 and it will go on and on. If this goes to a vote and the league wants to expand then I'll accept it but if we're moving forward with unilateral decisions based on the whims of a few GM's then I'm going to have to seriously reconsider my place in this league. you have my vote. i completely agree with this statement. imo, limiting the size of the farm system to 25 will help keep the league competitive. owners will be forced to release less than grade A prospects into the free agent pool, or trade them. allowing the top teams to hoard 30-35 prospects ( or more ) is potentially, over time, damaging to the league as a whole.
|
|