| Date | 2011-11-18 12:00 |
| Message | p.s. I hadn't read Cam's reply when I posted, my vote is not a product of him being the benefactor, it is on the principle that any expansion is going to hurt and help all teams differently so having the year for teams to prepare is important in my opinion. If we were voting to have the new GM pull players off of our teams at the midseason draft in a scenario that benefitted the Blazers and hurt the Terror I would still be voting no on the same principle. that is all. glgl in the draft however it happens. |
| Date | 2011-11-18 11:55 |
| Message | I agree with a number of Blazers points. My team is pretty much unaffected by the current expansion proposal but in fairness to all GM's, and the new GM this structure isn't the way expansion should happen. There are plenty of ways to make expansion happen, but let's please do it properly. |
| Date | 2011-11-18 11:49 |
| Message | Wow, Blazer...you make it seem as though this is a big ploy on my part. Expansion was broached by Wiebe at the draft were it seemed like there was plenty of interest and where YOU asked me to make an expansion proposal. So thats what I did, taking into account most peoples (not just mine) desire to not lose part of their team. I'm sorry to Phil and whoever else for the rushed timeline but I'm super busy at the moment and this seemed like the simplest and easiest way to go about expanding. My personal feeling on expansion is neither for or against but just a desire to bury the topic once and for all. Blazer - in regard to your concerns...upcoming draft pick value hurts me more than you. Are you interested in Pominville or Lehtonen or would those players help me more? And who says that you will automatically go from 1st pick to 2nd next year. Your team is record-breakingly bad right now so I can see last place in your future for awhile (sry to take a shot at you but I don't like having my integrity questioned). You also question the new GM not having a shot at the title. Really? AN expansion team? Should he right now? It seems that Blazer is a little more concerned with my chances at winning this pool in the future than expansion. To be honest that probably is fair as I pulled this same stunt on him years ago when I was still a little immature. |
| Date | 2011-11-18 10:00 |
| Message | Yes - I know that the Goons and the Farmhands would love to have their buddy Lindout in the mix of this pool (he's my buddy too, and would bring a lot of expertise and fun to the pool), but come on guys, at this price? A typical expansion includes current rosters to be exposed. This format doesn't have that. The only thing that makes this appealing is the fact that there happens to be some old FHL cast offs who happen to be doing well coming out of the gate right now. Do you seriously think the likes of Pominville and Lupul will remain in the top 15 NHL scoring by the end of the season? Yes, they should find their way back onto FHL clubs, but they are by no means in the superstar category which is what is needed to take a shot at the title. The new GM could have a hack at getting 5th place, but challenging for a shot at the title? Not for a very long time with this format. With Peters assets covered he has a shot at taking this title over for a very, very, very, long time and could blow away the current FHL dynasty streak of 5 years! We all have much less to lose than Peters if rosters are exposed. Sure, let's do expansion, but not with this format. Do I have a better idea? Not right now, but this is too quick and its not worth it just for the sake of getting Scotty in the pool. Change your vote to no. |
| Date | 2011-11-18 09:38 |
| Message | Kudos to GM Peters for his well thought out expansion format - creative. It would give a GM some access to significant assets that aren't currently on FHL rosters, there-by not harming current assets on any FHL club. It only hurts up-coming drafts. Big time. Let's be honest and up front about 2 things right now. 1. Because the asset that is most impacted by this proposal is draft pick values my club is most impacted by this. Because the overall draft is watered down a number one pick loses value. Not only that, but it sucks to be re-building at the exact time there is another new- franchise. Not only do I lose the value of the picks, my club will be bumped in the order next season from 1st pick to 2nd pick. 2. GM Peters has the least to lose. Draft picks are of absolutely no value to him. His roster is laden with young guns he's waiting to develop. This style of expansion draft does not expose one piece of his roster. This is very problematic. I vote no. |
| Date | 2011-11-17 10:58 |
| Message | I vote yes. I'd be happy to give the new GM more options (first midseason picks, or extra picks at the end) but overall, my vote is yes regardless. |
| Date | 2011-11-17 07:47 |
| Message | I vote in favor of the proposal.The only change i would make is to give him more then two picks at the end of the mid season. Possibly could give him two more picks. Even if he couldnt take prospects with these last two picks but guys already in the NHL.The pickings are pretty slim on the drop list when it comes to d-men and Goalies. |
| Date | 2011-11-16 08:14 |
| Message | 6 pointer for price.. not sure i remember a goalie getting a shutout and an assist for some time... |
| Date | 2011-11-16 06:38 |
| Message | I vote no. I agree with Rob, and I don't like the immediate impact on value (even though it doesn't affect me specifically). I would prefer that any value changes be given at least a year notice. Less than a month is less than appealing. Also, we were given a week to voice concerns or comments... but that week is also the voting week. etc. |
| Date | 2011-11-16 03:22 |
| Message | I vote in favor of the entire expansion proposal. The new GM picks last, I don't loose any players in an expansion draft, and we gain another trading partner. Call Lindhout and invite him to the dance. |