|
Post by JetsGM on Jul 3, 2011 22:50:29 GMT -5
I think the draft pool is good when u take into account that it is any player with less than 39 game. I think magicstew has a good suggestion that we should vote to allow players who were already onaroster but now fa and still prospect eligible to b eligible next season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2011 0:02:25 GMT -5
I think the draft pool is good when u take into account that it is any player with less than 39 game. I think magicstew has a good suggestion that we should vote to allow players who were already onaroster but now fa and still prospect eligible to b eligible next season. When you take into account our incredibly deep farm system our draft is amazingly weak!! Most of the players drafted from this point forward will never play in the NHL and if they do they'll have very little impact. I guess if people are really into putting tons of work into researching these complete longshots then all power to them but I have a feeling there are going to be lots of people simply selecting the next highest drafted player because it doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM on Jul 4, 2011 9:53:53 GMT -5
I When you take into account our incredibly deep farm system our draft is amazingly weak!! Okay, I guess we just disagree on this issue. I see the league as a very deep keeper with extensive farm system. Some prospects aren't gonna make the NHL, but they can be cut at anytime at no cost and replaced. Imo, there are still a number of solid prospects available, and our draft will be strengthened next year due to a stricter offseason roster freeze and, hopefully, the inclusion of prospects previously on a DTDL roster(magicstew's idea)
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM on Jul 4, 2011 12:55:44 GMT -5
Hey I know alot of guys are on vacation now, can we send out a league-wide email about this vote and extend the poll for a couple weeks?
Curious what you guys think of this proposal, think it addresses some of the concerns voiced so far-
Allow contract drops up to the start of the season. We treat them like regular waivers. In the waivers folder, make a new thread such as, "Player X, Contract Drop"In the thread list their new contract with $ and years. The standard 1 week time applies(using non-rotating prioritybased on standings). This gives bad teams a chance to get a player or two, and it gives those without 24/7 internet access time to get a claim in.
For general FA(including Jagr)- set a date for FA to start on a weekend around 2pm pst. Send a league wide email 2weeks in advance announcing the time/date. First come first serve. BUT one very important rule that we need to maintain is that if you do not have a roster spot to sign a player, you must put a player on waivers first, then post your signing thread. this will open up a bunch pf players on waiver wire that teams can put claims on as well. Whether 30 teams or 2 teams have interest in a player the result will always be the same, only 1 team will get him. I also think there will be very few quality quality players "contract dropped", coz anybody good is either gonna be traded for assets or room will be made in order to keep the player.
Thinking bout the draft pick bids -they can work against bad teams cause if they bid a 1st(top 10 pick) if a very good team bids 1st(20-30) big difference in what you give up. Therefore more incentive and opportunity for good teams to use this bidding process to get players. Also if very bad teams give up picks, good teams move up in draft position.
sorry for the long post, too much time on my hands right now, what do you guys think?
I think there will be very few quality quality players dropped through this means, anybody really good is either gonna be traded for assets or room will be made in order to keep the player.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 4, 2011 14:10:41 GMT -5
I really really like what Thrashers is saying guys. I'd be glad to follow this course of action as it is closer to our current regular season rules as anything and seems pretty fair to me. If at least a core of us can agree that this is the direction to go I think we can scrap this vote and send out an league e-mail with this as the plan.
The only thing I think I would like to add is maybe starting a thread of players that you are interested in and once some one expresses interest in a player I'll add them to the main thread with a date that a claim can be put in. I'll send a league wide e-mail before that date to remind everyone.
Thoughts?
Great idea Thrashers. love to hear more feedback on both his and my idea.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 4, 2011 14:15:09 GMT -5
assuming we get enough diversity in player types I think we could do a mix of a few players that claims could go done for that week. so Jagr would be put with the best prospect or younger NHLer that you guys think up so that way people would have to choose. We could than limit people to one claim overall or successful claim (depending on what you all think) per week. That way people have to pick and choose what they think fits their team the best.
|
|
|
Post by Staden (TOR) on Jul 4, 2011 15:01:25 GMT -5
in regards to dropping players to make bid its not a bad idea, but you will see drastic player drops
for example i drop freddy meyer for jagr, end of stream. I was going to drop him anyways and i doubt anyone would want him (despite his good per game numbers).
In Regards to pick bidding as for the valuing of a #1 pick over a #26 pick I agree but only way to do it is to base it on this past seasons standings. And that is not necessarily correct, and really not valueing it more is to give the better teams a shot at getting him instead of a poor team just matching.
although i guess a lower team likely wont want to give up a first for jagr anyways where i wouldnt be surprised to see a higher team doing so. Remember i am one of the lower teams so valuing a #1 over a #26 is in my favour so i didnt decide to value them equally to benefit myself. In fact i have a feeling I wont get Jagr with this format since I am willing to bet other teams are willing to offer more picks than me. The two formats i am most against (salary bidding and First come first serve) are my best bets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2011 18:00:25 GMT -5
I really really like what Thrashers is saying guys. I'd be glad to follow this course of action as it is closer to our current regular season rules as anything and seems pretty fair to me. If at least a core of us can agree that this is the direction to go I think we can scrap this vote and send out an league e-mail with this as the plan. The only thing I think I would like to add is maybe starting a thread of players that you are interested in and once some one expresses interest in a player I'll add them to the main thread with a date that a claim can be put in. I'll send a league wide e-mail before that date to remind everyone. Thoughts? Great idea Thrashers. love to hear more feedback on both his and my idea. I'm not sure I completely understand the idea. It sounds like a modified 'first come/first seve' approach where GM's attempting to claim the player would first have to first open up a roster spot. If this is the idea then I like it better than straight FCFS but I still don't really get it as it still requires people to be online at a certain time on a certain day and I don't think that's practical. Let me use myself as an example; I work offshore and when I'm on a vessel I work a 12 hour shift 7 days a week. Depending on what's happening at the time I may or may not have internet accesss so if the timing of free agency for a guy like Jagr happened to fall on a time when I was in the middle of a busy 12 hour shift I'd have no possible chance of signing him. This doesn't feel like a solution to me and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't be available online at all times. If I understand this correctly then I'm not if favour of it. Waiver priority is simple and doesn't require anyone to be online at any specific time .
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Jul 4, 2011 18:11:27 GMT -5
Allow contract drops up to the start of the season. We treat them like regular waivers. For general FA(including Jagr)- set a date for FA to start on a weekend around 2pm pst. Send a league wide email 2weeks in advance announcing the time/date. First come first serve. I completely agree with the Jets GM. This is exactly what I have been advocating all along, Yas.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 4, 2011 18:17:11 GMT -5
Why are you singling me out Sami?
Last I checked this was a league issue isn't it? What do I individually have to do with it. Even if it is "your" idea, Thrashers has posted it in a way that it makes sense to me and I actually feel like it is a suggestion not an affront for not doing things the league's or your way.
NOTE: I always have the league and the spirit of the league at heart if you any of you believe otherwise than I will step down and you can Commish if that is what the league wants. I just try to facilitate things.
|
|
|
Post by Sami (CGY) on Jul 4, 2011 18:54:22 GMT -5
Why are you singling me out Sami? Last I checked this was a league issue isn't it? What do I individually have to do with it. Even if it is "your" idea, Thrashers has posted it in a way that it makes sense to me and I actually feel like it is a suggestion not an affront for not doing things the league's or your way. NOTE: I always have the league and the spirit of the league at heart if you any of you believe otherwise than I will step down and you can Commish if that is what the league wants. I just try to facilitate things. Whoa, no need to get defensive, Yas. I know that you're operating in the league's best interest. I was "singling you out" because you and Kris were the ones spearheading the rule change idea. What Jesse recommended is almost exactly what we currently have in place. The only difference (and it's pretty small) is that Jesse would have us drop a player before claiming a FA, as opposed to after. I guess that I was just surprised that after a week of debating why the rule needs to change, you had such a sudden change of heart. I didn't mean to rub you the wrong way (though I obviously did) and for that I am sorry! And for the record, I don't really care which way this gets decided. I have an opinion on the matter, which I have made known, but it's really not going to affect me much no matter what gets decided. I'm certainly not going to be risking a roster spot on Jagr.
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 4, 2011 19:02:29 GMT -5
Not a problem Sami. It isn't exactly what we have in place during the year because also we're setting dates for when a certain player will be up for claims but yes it is similar, which I like. I also am proposing this
1) We have multiple players available on a given week of similar value to either a future/prospect team or a team trying to win now
2) Only one successful claim per week per team so teams will have to choose.
What do y'all think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2011 21:33:48 GMT -5
Not a problem Sami. It isn't exactly what we have in place during the year because also we're setting dates for when a certain player will be up for claims but yes it is similar, which I like. I also am proposing this 1) We have multiple players available on a given week of similar value to either a future/prospect team or a team trying to win now 2) Only one successful claim per week per team so teams will have to choose. What do y'all think? As much as I dislike the free-for-all approach, I'd prefer it to this process, which has the potential to drag out and thus disadvantage those managers with unpredictable internet time even more. I've simplified my position. Let's follow waiver priority. Rotating is my preference (where once a team makes a claim, they move back to #30) but I'll live with static (worst team always has first shot, then second worst and so on)
|
|
|
Post by PineRider (SJ) on Jul 6, 2011 12:54:03 GMT -5
I like what gguthe and mogilny said in the previous two posts, but would like to add:
1) one FA pickup per month, so people have to choose wisely; also less of an admin burden
2) free agent players a "blind" meaning no one knows who is bidding on whom; people do their own homework and part of the strategy is timing
3) waiver priority rules still apply, including the priority by week
This gives all GM's a week to make a claim for the same player, so it balances out the always-online people with the occasionally-online.
It gives weaker teams a chance to strengthen their team, but they also need to be on the ball. Because of the blind claim, bottom teams can't lurk and wait for good teams to make a claim and then pounce on the good idea.
Limiting the FA pickups to one a month (or even one every two months) makes it less willy-nilly with the two week rental players.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by uofmehockey on Jul 6, 2011 13:15:15 GMT -5
Yeah I see what you're saying Pinerider and I like your thoughts on it. I am just a bit unclear on how we do this "blind" claiming if we go that direction. I think the FA period at this point won't be opening up until the end of the July at the earliest with how this is going. I need to see if this new idea from myself, mogilny, Thrashers, Sami has the support of the league and then we can work on the specifics. The new idea that I want to if it has enough support is the general principal that we set a schedule of a few different types of players that could suit different teams being available each week. We could sort out if we want it blind and how many claims they get per week, two weeks, month or whatever it is.
|
|