|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jan 13, 2017 20:36:52 GMT -5
From this point I am resigning as an Admin for the league. I have noticed there are a number of teams in the league this year who are not setting their line-ups daily and I have tried to bring this to the rest of the Admins in the league with little conversation and no progress on the matter.
not setting your line-up to be the optimal roster to accumulate points (IE sitting active players on your bench or in your minors) is tanking. It's bullshit and it's insulting to anyone who spends the time to make trades to improve their team or who spends the time making sure their best possible line-up is active.
This league seems to be slowly dying due to no movement to make improvements from the top down. I hope that isn't the case. Trying to compete in a league where not everyone is playing by the same understanding of the rules doesn't interest me, so I may consider leaving entirely in the upcoming weeks.
Good luck, Jason
|
|
|
Post by Colorado on Jan 13, 2017 21:50:49 GMT -5
Personally, I would much prefer contraction of teams without proper management. It would be much better to have less teams with great management then lose well managed teams.
Rich
|
|
|
Post by johnnybower (Det GM) on Jan 13, 2017 22:06:14 GMT -5
I agree with Rich. Contraction would not be a horrible thing and I have a number of friends who are in contracted leagues that seem to thrive. Trying to find 30 GM's with similar dedication, especially in a league that requires constant attention, is hard.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by JetsGM on Jan 13, 2017 22:20:32 GMT -5
i'd be against contracting, 30 teams is a lot more challenging and strategic. as far as the present situation if there are many teams not setting their lineups then I think we should do an activity check, if people respond who aren't setting their lineups then we should consider penalties depending on severity.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado on Jan 13, 2017 22:34:19 GMT -5
You might as well have 40 teams if your looking at it like that. I just want a good actively managed competitive league. Do not want to lose good managers to save non active managed teams.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybower (Det GM) on Jan 13, 2017 22:39:49 GMT -5
I too would prefer 30 teams to a contracted league, but if we penalize inactive GM's some will just leave and we will be short anyways.
Downside to contraction is you really can't expand again without some sort of draft. I think once you contract, you're there for the long haul.
Regardless of # of teams, I just want GM's as dedicated to the rules as me...and the rest of the good guys!
|
|
|
Post by ursanator on Jan 14, 2017 1:05:22 GMT -5
One of the problems is with 30 teams with 22 and 25 minors that makes 1320 players making for slim picking . Since I have taken over Phoenix/Arizona I have been in bottom third because of lousy picks made by previous owner. Last year I traded my 1st round pick in January to get some immediate help. I traded it to Pittsburgh because I was high enough in standings that I knew pick would not be in top 4. I got back in return A. Anisimov who has got me 31 points in 41 games this season so far while Pittsburgh took with the pick which was #7 Clayton Keller who should be good in future but does me no good now. With the roster size and having to have minimum number for positions I have to leave injuried players or put minor players in slot to make roster valid. I suggest that for future that 2 forward slots are cut and put those slots to bench . This way everyone still has same number of players but gives owners of lower teams a chance to compete .
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jan 14, 2017 4:15:02 GMT -5
This league could use a smaller bench IMO. in turn makes more nhlers available so teams can make more trades
|
|
|
Post by magicstew on Jan 14, 2017 9:50:48 GMT -5
I agree with Penguin - we should look at doing a reduction in the prospect roster - down to like 12. This will put a lot of free agents back in the pool and you still have enough spots to carry a guy for a few years till he develops.
Right now it is too easy to stream a young guy from your minors to your NHL roster, till they get up to the 110 game limit. Maybe we reduce this to like 60 games and 30 for a goalie. This would put free agents in the pool.
There is nothing in the free agent pool to help teams get better or short term relief if you have injuries.
I would also propose to have a regular season playoff with the top 16 teams ( 8 per conference) the last 3 or 4 weeks to determine league champion and the bottom 16 play off as well. This way the top teams will play each other at the end. This way you shouldnt have to worry about someone playing a team that isnt setting their roster. We have an unbalanced schedule now so the winner isn't necessarily the best team, they may just be in a weaker conference or play some inactive teams at the end.
We can also declare a Presidents trophy as well for the regular season the same way as we always do.
We can look at implementing changes for next season.
Also I would like to thank Jason for all the work he has done, this is a well run league. There will always be challenges with inactive managers, but like Ursanator said it is hard to find players whe you are trying to rebuild and nothing in the F/A pool, so guys lose interest.
Actually I like Ursanators idea of reducing forwards by 2 active slots. I would just eliminate them and also just change to Forward positions and not worry about C, LW, RW. We have enough categories that mgr will have to keep a well rounded team to get points in positions.
I like the 30 teams, as there is some strategies and some guys have built some good teams the last few years, while others havent.
Just a few thought off the top of my head.
Thanks Andy
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jan 14, 2017 11:46:23 GMT -5
I disagree with the reducing minors to 12 but I think we should reduce the number of games for minor eligibility so that they can't be stored in minors even when becoming NHLers (Ie I can keep Matthews in minors even next season). Being able to stockpile prospects is the best way to rebuild. for every 5-10 decent prospects you might get 1 that pans out.
|
|
|
Post by johnnybower (Det GM) on Jan 14, 2017 18:00:51 GMT -5
I would be all for reducing the number of games a player can be considered a prospect as well, but I'm not sure it addresses the problem of inactive GM's. It doesn't matter how bad your roster is, the league rules require you to set daily lineups to try and be as competitive as possible.
|
|
|
Post by PHI GM on Jan 15, 2017 13:09:54 GMT -5
I think reducing the game total for prospect status to something like 60 or even 82 for skaters and a proportionate amount to goalies would bump up a player or two per team. This, in conjunction with reducing the active and reserve roster size at the main roster level should help to create parity in the league and keep more owners interested.
It has been suggested that we cut a forward spot or two to create a deeper FA pool. As it stands we are not in the correct ratio of F to D as it is in the NHL after the roster changes of a couple years ago. We are D heavy. To cut a F spot without cutting a D spot would make it even more D heavy. We could cut a F spot and a D spot and create one F/D spot and remove one reserve spot. This would result in 2 roster spots being removed.
If everyone had to cut two guys and promote anyone with at least 60 games played (and then subsequently cut someone to make room), the FA pool would be much deeper. The smaller roster size would also make it easier for a team to turn it around.
Also, any further roster size decrease discussions should also be done considering a reduction in the salary cap we use.
|
|
|
Post by zaphod (NYI) on Jan 16, 2017 20:46:39 GMT -5
I wasn't intending to start a civil war. I don't think the league needs sweeping changes but the Admins need help. Need more volunteers to help steer the league to keep it going.
The only change I was going to suggest would be to end the daily line changes aspect, maybe move to a weekly line changes set up or to revert from the H2H back to the roto league set up. with roto it only hurts the team who is not activating their players directly.
if we get enough volunteers willing to help police teams who are not dressing their most active team possible then we don't need to change anything. but there are so many teams tanking this year it kills the integrity of the league.
We need someone to volunteer to be an active Commissioner or an active group of Admins who are going to be proactive with keeping all 30 GMs committed to an active and competitive league.
|
|
|
Post by Penguin on Jan 17, 2017 2:56:08 GMT -5
I think reducing minor games played limit to 60 or 82 like flyers said and maybe taking out 1 bench spot creates a dynamic where teams will have to target the GMs who are struggling to dress full lineups to get something for their players the can't fit in their lineup. Won't cause a huge impact but I agree that I will keep these teams in play throughout the season.
There's no reason guys like Matthews should be able to keep their minor eligibility through this season + 1/3 into next season. This league already allows you to keep players who are in minors in real life to be added to minors so really makes no sense imo to make NHLers with over 80 games to be in minors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 15:21:19 GMT -5
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts:
I like the idea of dropping the minors max games to 60 or so.
I like the idea of dropping a F and D and creating a F/D position. I would even be in favour of dropping two forwards and one D and creating the F/D position.
I like keeping the minors at 25 players.
I like the idea of weekly changes.
I joined this league because it was 30 teams and it is a challenge from the normal 16-24 team leagues that I am in. If contractions happens, I would probably leave.
I am rebuilding and am looking forward to the challenge of becoming a contender again. I realize it takes a while in this type of format.
|
|