Sign Guestbook Back to FHL
| Date | 2014-08-25 09:28 |
| Message | i am confused by the proposal. i think i understand the problem its trying to solve, but i would just allow prospects that are protected to stay as prospects and allow teams to enter the re-draft with less than 12 players and give them the appropriate number of extra picks at the end of the draft. |
| Date | 2014-08-25 09:27 |
| Message | So to clarify the proposal: we each get to maintain the rights to one prospect, and if a GM wants to protect additional prospects they have to use one of their 12, and these prospects would be automatically activated? So all GMs, including the Reapers, come out of the protection draft with 13 players, one being a prospect. |
| Date | 2014-08-25 04:17 |
| Message | Thanks, Rob. |
| Date | 2014-08-25 03:21 |
| Message | GM Derksen - Monohan would no longer be eligible to be drafted as a prospect (i.e. all prospects in the prospect draft must be calder eligible, including former Philly propects). He must be drafted in the main draft. |
| Date | 2014-08-25 03:18 |
| Message | Amendment to expansion draft Proposal - allow each team to keep 1 prospect pick (with same rules applying to that prospect in the future, namely they need to be picked up in the draft to be activated to a roster). -this proposal would be equal for each team as each team (including the expansion club) has at least 1 viable prospect. -there is another implication to this proposal - prospects that become one of the "12" protection players would now become officially activated to that franchise roster. Please post your take on this proposal asap, as rosters must be submitted by this Thu. |
| Date | 2014-08-25 02:17 |
| Message | protect 12 including prospects would be my vote |
| Date | 2014-08-25 12:08 |
| Message | Rob, thanks for addressing some of the issues. Still unclear in the case of Monohan, as he has spent 1 year as a prospect, in your words "he is fair game", does that suggest if he is drafted in the 1 round prospect draft he would have 3 more years available as a prospect? Or would you suggest he would have 2 years of remaining prospect eligibility, due his serving 1 yr already? |
| Date | 2014-08-24 11:47 |
| Message | Question: Does it make sense to do a snake draft instead of a regular linear one for this 'retro' draft? I'm just thinking that 17 rounds of linear will weigh much more in favour of those picking first. Probably doesn't matter much past the 4th round. I haven't done any deep mock drafts so I'm not sure how it will look. |
| Date | 2014-08-24 11:44 |
| Message | I confess I missed this anomaly. It does seem unfair to allow some teams to 'protect' 12+1 while others 'protect' 12+4. I would vote for 12 straight up but I'd like to hear the thoughts of everyone. The jets own web-site has Buff at F so I guess its  for me.P.S. Still also need a ruling on the 4 picks of Phillies that the Dukes have. |
| Date | 2014-08-24 11:09 |
| Message | Originally, I was for protecting 12 assets including prospects. Then the proposal was made for 12 + prospects which I voted for due to time constraints. I would prefer 12 straight but it's not a huge issue for me. It does benefit some teams over others. |
Page 110 of 550 << First < 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 > Last >>