Sign Guestbook Back to FHL
| Date | 2011-12-11 10:39 |
| Message | Finally for your consideration: This pool feels to be getting a bit stale, all the teams have now recognized that to win you have to rebuild wholeheartedly, we are now in a position with 4 teams rebuilding, 2 teams partway through the rebuild and competing, and 2 teams competing.. this probably won't change much soon, and when it does change it will just cycle through which teams are doing what strategy... the strategies are pretty much straight forward and GM relationships come more and more into play... I propose that in 3 years we blow the pool up. I'm throwing 3 years out because it will give everyone adjustment time... it could be more or less time. I suggest we look at going to a structure of a protected keeper list. We decide on a number of keepers each season and the rest of our rosters goes back into the draft. I think this structure gives everyone a shot at being much more competitive each year (some teams currently don't stand a chance). It keeps the pool fresh and it should decrease the gap between the top and bottom GM's overall. I also think it boosts the fun factor and should increase interest. Anyways, just throwing the idea out there, hope noone's offended. |
| Date | 2011-12-11 10:28 |
| Message | Here's my opinions: 1. Any change to the pool that involves any GM's losing value or assets of any sort should require at least 1 full season of notice. Unless a unanimous vote is reached. 2. I'd prefer rule changes that encourage more trading activity and banter than less. Here's my votes: 1. I'm adamantly against adding a prospect round. 2. I'm in favour of getting rid of the 4th round, but would want a 2 year grandfathering in to favour those GM's who have stocked up on prospects and 4th round picks. (not myself). 3. I'm against removing one of the mid season picks. We already have teams with very different agendas which really limits trading options... the mid season drafts are the only 2 attention grabbing features through the regular season of this pool. |
| Date | 2011-12-10 10:32 |
| Message | Jeff, just change your name back to Goon already... it's in your blood. |
| Date | 2011-12-10 09:43 |
| Message | Why does this need to be such an urgent issue? The pool is great the way it is, sure it could maybe use a bit of a tweak, but to start adding up votes as if a decision is imperative to the direction of this pool is fool-hearty. If a GM wants to slowly build his team through the draft, using his 4 rounds of redraft picks and mid season picks to turn over his team, let him. Who cares. There is still plenty of trade action in this pool with our current set up. From my own experience every month my email is hopping with offers and trade talk with a variety of GM's. |
| Date | 2011-12-10 09:09 |
| Message | Goon - rrrright this proposal was quickly thrown out there?! Just trying to pull the wool over your eyes again. You caught me. Umm, we vote and comment before anything is implemented. Any back room chat you have for the commish is welcome Goon. (That goes for any GM who takes initiative). To summarize discussions so far: For the prospect pick: Goon, Wiebe (ish?), Terror Against: Duke For taking out the 4th round: Terror*, Duke For taking out the mid-season pick instead: Terror, Wiebe (ish?), Goon, Duke* |
| Date | 2011-12-10 08:27 |
| Message | i'd like to know what's happening in expansion before looking at the 4th rounders. if we're losing players, we'll want to keep the 4th rounders to top up our rosters? the last set up had us losing no players, so it could be a non-factor, but we should know the expansion set up first. in favour, just need to look at expansion and timing. i prefer fewer picks overall, which makes them more valuable, which forces people to trade to add picks rather than sit back and execute their plan simply by drafting. against the 2nd pp round, but could go with the flow if the a mid was dropped, despite my love for the current 2 midseason draft set up (spreads the draft love throughout the year). non-confrontationally yours, duke |
| Date | 2011-12-10 06:48 |
| Message | I also like the idea of eliminating a mid season round rather than the 4th round, due to the influx of prospects entering the pool. |
| Date | 2011-12-09 07:11 |
| Message | I'd for sure be more in favor of Cam's proposal then Rob's.Personaly i'd say just leave it as is. I have not picked up any extra fourth rounders but have several prospects so this rule change would hurt me much more then some of the other teams. |
| Date | 2011-12-09 06:50 |
| Message | Haha C-Dogg, so everyone loses a pick but you? Sounds fair to me.  And Goon, you need to be slapped after that last section of your comment. Feedback: how about everyone loses one pick in the draft(s)? Honestly, we are going to end up arguing about this when in reality, the pickings are getting very slim. How many people are just trading their picks for future picks because they don't even want or need them? I venture to guess that losing a late pick will not hurt teams. Another issue to consider is that with 2 prospect rounds, there will be many more prospects coming into the pool, ie. in the future, a 3 round draft with 2 rounds of graduated prospects coming in (if they all pan out) will leave basically only one round for actual drafting. I'd be more inclined to do away with the second midseason and keep 4 rounds. In favour of an extra prospect pick and one less round (either way). |
| Date | 2011-12-09 03:22 |
| Message | Correction CDogg. The Express have a 4th rounder going to Phil in the 2027/28 season, as part of a deal that was completed after last seasons draft...I agree with us getting rid of the 4th round eventually, but the timing of the transition should be carefully considered. Many teams have prospects waiting in the wings with 4th rounders arranged to bring them into the active roster. These 4th rounders are not only acquired through trade, but include current 4th rounders already in possession. I am also in favor of adding a 2nd round of prospect picks each year, which adds an element of scouting and prep that is always interesting. It allows a GM to take more of a risk on someone if they choose, which can be gratifying...I don't like how this proposal was quickly thrown out, in what looks like an attempt to catch people in a 'who cares' attitude following the recent expansion debacle, and push this through for next year. Also, nameless support through backroom chat seems suspicious as well. |
Page 221 of 550 << First < 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 > Last >>