| Date | 2010-04-05 12:06 |
| Message | Haven't been too involved in this conversation - not because of lack of interest though - more about the current season of life - 3 sermons in 4 days, company over from AB and a large paper due tomorrow. I didn't really get a sense of Dan's proposal. Phil's observations are accurate and I believe offer a valuable objective perspective. |
| Date | 2010-04-05 01:53 |
| Message | part2 So, my issue with Duke's proposal, is valid, and more than a small casualty. It's a good proposal, but the cutoff line needs some serious thought and discussion. Response to Goon, I fully agree, hockey pools are a strategy game, as long as a GM is playing within the rules and decides that a long term rebuild is the best plan for his team to have a chance to win then he is not doing anything wrong. That said, I think we should try and make some rule changes that encourage all GM's to compete for the highest position possible. This is crucial to avoid the major problem of disparity in the league. If all teams are fighting for points now while also building for the future, there won't be any teams dominating like the Dukes at the moment, and the 8th place team would be able to turnaround within a 2 year period. Personally I find the pool a bit discouragingin that I battled for every scrap of long term value and built over 3 years what I feel is a strong team, but I still have a ton of ground to make up on Dan after all that work. Cam, you've been great, a little whiny re: Cdoggs but I don't care about that, clearly interested, active and trying hard. I want to see that from everyone. This pool is great, some great personalities, some great hockey knowledge. etc etc. And all this discussion is fun too... long though |
| Date | 2010-04-05 01:43 |
| Message | I think a large part of Wiebe's proposal that's being overlooked is that if paired with some other rules (will discuss later) it has the potential to close the gap between 1st and 8th which will make rebuilds in this pool less extreme. The problem as it stands is, Dan came in to a pool that Rob was dominating, he set out on a long term building plan and created a monster. I followed a similar strategy (but have since blown it up) and I think we all know now the value of a committed long term rebuild, but everyone is doing it at once. With only 8 teams, we can't afford to have this many teams rebuilding for so long. All the assets value have become distorted based on age and competing teams. If Cam tries to shop a 28 year old Markov, his only buyer is Dan. No other team has an interest in the asset of that age, who is clearly a fantasy asset. A common pool strategy to counter this, is to reset the pool every 5 years so that the building phase or cycle of the pool has a limited life and then everything resets and starts with a draft. I don't like this system personally but I can definitely see the value in it. Another problem is that with the disparity in interest and hockey knowledge comes an edge in each pick. On average Duke's picks are going to be better then Chowtowns (or any GM) because he just doesn't care as much. The lack of prep etc translates into a worse pick on average... cont. |
| Date | 2010-04-05 01:18 |
| Message | The other point I forgot to comment on earlier that I liked from Dan, is we need to come to realize that this pool has its busy and slow times of year. I think it is unrealistic to expect every GM to be peddle to the medal 12 months of the year. Certain times of the season naturally have less motivation for some GM's than other times. I think we have to live with some down time, instead of always looking to make changes whenever there seems to be no action. |
| Date | 2010-04-05 01:10 |
| Message | I really like Dan's last post. After my phone conversation with Cam, and reading the rest of the posts, my thoughts are we should leave this pool alone and not change anything. If Cdogg doesn't care enough about the pool or lacks the interest to get his roster in on time why should I care? We should not be trying to dictate how other GM's run their teams. If Cam has a plan to get as many picks as possible, and finish as low as possible for a few years because it is his opinion that this will be the best route for him to take to a future title, then he has every right to that plan. If keeping Stamkos on the prospect list is best for the future of his team, then keep him down there. I think every GM should work within the rules that are currently laid out, make any move you deem appropriate within the rules, and do whatever you want to help yourself sleep at night. |
| Date | 2010-04-04 10:18 |
| Message | my idea has no intention of motivating GM's. it does properly allocate the most valuable picks. it's basically the perfect world GM that puts his best players in every month, eliminating the impact a GM's moves have on his finish. phil's argument, if valid, is a small casualty compared to the benefits of properly incorporating the value of prospects and eliminating the need for GM's to "make the right move" every month. we need to move away from questioning GM's moves. we need to create rules that allow GM's to run their team however they want, but is deemed fair by the majority. cam would be a retard if he brought up stamkos. a rebuilding team shouldn't have to pretend that he's shooting for 6th place. i kept malkin down an extra year. if i was cam and had a pick for stamkos, i'd trade it for a future pick. it is a tanking type move, and it does have more impact than colin's non-moves, but there's no way cam should feel compelled to bring him up.. i'm in first place and haven't followed since the olympics.. the way this pool has such huge gaps, it's pretty hard to follow closely all the time... i'm not sure the best way to make people follow it closer... some kind of a bonus that would extend into the playoff pool would be good... by chance, does anyone want to get together monday night to have a round table? i'm in town. cam, wiebe? derksen's on baby watch and does phil really exist? |
| Date | 2010-04-04 08:50 |
| Message | After discussions with Goon, it's become apparent to me that some of my comments and actions on here have been misconstrued. Most of the statements that I post are mainly done with an eye towards entertainment. I apologize if people have been offended. I've also been informed that several teams view my actions concerning Stamkos as tanking. This issue has come as a shock to me as I am merely following the rules set in place concerning prospects. I am truly sorry about this but at this point I don't really have any recourse (unless someone wants to donate a pick to me). If this type of plan is considered tanking, then the rules should maybe be modified. Again, apologies to all... |
| Date | 2010-04-04 06:58 |
| Message | I hate to sound like every idea but mine is a bad one,but i do see some problems with both Dukes and Goons idea's. With Goons idea at month end evryone has to analize everyone else's move's and then cry foul within two day's? Why should other people be telling me how to run my team?If i want to leave in Legwand and have Hejduk on the farm why should i have to justify that to everyone. People should be able to run thier own teams as they see fit.The second part of goons proposal of lowering draft picks for being late at the end of the month would be difficult to manage, especially when you throw in trade's.Goon himself prefers my plan. Dukes idea would be better,and easier to manage but as Phil pointed out wouldn't always work 100%,and dosn't solve all the problems. My idea really isn't at all radical.I'm not talking huge sums of money. I truly believe that if you ignore where your own team is in the pool and just think about what is best long term you would support this. |
| Date | 2010-04-04 06:32 |
| Message | Heres another issue that I have (sorry about the whining Phil)...these ideas are designed to boost motivation and interest, right? The thing is, from my perspective, I don't need any extra motivation. I am highly motivated and interested whether the price is $0 or $100. So now I am paying a higher fee to try and motivate someone else? The true result of this plan (IMO) will be that it will cost more to rebuild and mediocrity may increase. Moves like keeping Lunogo or Getzlaf on the bench the whole year will become the norm. Is that what we want? Will it force people to spend significantly more time on month end decisions and pay attention all year long? It's not that I hate the ideas, it's just that I don't know if they will have the desired outcome. With something like this, motivation is generally internal. If someone doesn't have a strong desire to win, will an extra $10-40 really fire them up? Maybe we need to accept that during the dogdays of the season, interest will just naturally wane in some people. Thats not a horrible thing as long as it doesn't effect the final standings. My vote would be to use Dukes or Goons idea to remove or significantly lower the subjectivity of "tanking", increase the price to $40 across the board and reward 3 places which I feel is more fair more than punishing the lower spots. All interesting and good ideas to hear though... |
| Date | 2010-04-03 08:20 |
| Message | Duke's idea is a good one in that it would eliminate all the month end worry over what people are doing with thier rosters. It does nothing however to motivate and keep people interested, where as my plan would accomplish both. |