Sign Guestbook Back to FHL
| Date | 2010-04-03 06:54 |
| Message | Not bringing stamkos up is way more tanking related than anything you've been whining about the CDoggs doing. That said, I have no problem with it. Duke's idea is good in theory, but breaks down when you have two competitive teams one has more depth than the others higher top end... the team with depth wins the race, but gets the lower pick... further hurting the team that didn't win the battle in the season. The money proposal is much better. I'm fine with $60 charge for 8th place, I just thought others might find it a bit steep. |
| Date | 2010-04-03 06:12 |
| Message | And Cdogg, I see your point of not wanting hot players on your active roster. Who wants that???  |
| Date | 2010-04-03 05:37 |
| Message | It's true that I'm not bringing up Stamkos but that is because I don't have the picks to do it. And logically, if I can leave him as a prospect for the full three years, why wouldn't I? That is fully within the rules and is not tanking at all. To subjectively say that Player A had XX points so you have to bring him up would just create problems. Duke, that idea is so brilliant I can't believe we haven't thought of it before. If it's too much work to do it every month, we could just do it at year end. Top 12/6/2 for every team. Prospects should be included because that would give the best representation of a teams total value and thus who deserves the best pick. It removes all elements of "tanking" without punishing rebuilding. As for money increasing motivation, having higher stakes is something I've been in favor of for a while. $60 may be a bit steep for some but I personally don't mind. I'd rather see a cost structure of $40 buyin for all, 200 to winner, 80 for 2nd, 40 for 3rd. With no threat of tanking, there is no need to punish teams who want to rebuild and rewarding 2nd and 3rd just seems more fair to me. |
| Date | 2010-04-03 02:05 |
| Message | I think what needs to happen is when GM's post their roster moves for the month, they have to provide a 200 word summary of their reasoning so that GM Terror can analyze it and raise objections if he is not satisfied. If anyone wants to raise an official objection as to why I didn't bring EJ up, then please do so and I will state my reasoning. I'll say what I DON'T do, and that is to look at my roster, sort it by last months stats to see who is 'hot' and put the bottom players on my farm |
| Date | 2010-04-03 01:25 |
| Message | i like goons idea of penalties for missing deadlines. i'm still digesting all the thoughts on wiebe's plan. in my humble opinion, the flaw is in the fact that draft order is determined by our actual position in the standings. actual position is not the same as the quality of our teams. the worst team should get the best picks. my suggestion is that draft order be determined by the top 12/6/2 on your team every month including prospects. this would be a better indicator of the quality of our teams and reward the lowest quality team with the best picks. pros: -it incorporates the value on the prospect roster which is a more accurate reflection of the quality of the bottom teams -takes the unlucky roster moves (injured on the first day of the month) out of the equation -removes all incentive to missing moves or neglecting roster cons: -a little bit more work to track, but keeping benches updated on pickuphockey and tracking it on the first of the month solves that i think this is less cumbersome than a speculative grievance voting process to occur in the first 2 days of each month. teams can still put their teams in a worse position to get better picks, but they have to trade those assets away, not just sluff them onto their bench for later use. including prospects is probably the biggest item for debate here? this could potentially be combined with wiebe's idea. |
| Date | 2010-04-03 12:56 |
| Message | I understand the concerns that are being raised. In my opinion the biggest concern would be someone quiting rather then paying. Having said that i think the people in this pool are all fairly committed and the chances of that happening are fairly remote. The positives of this system would far outweigh the negitives. I currently sit in the middle of the pack. There is nothing to motivate me or any of the people around me to try to finish higher. With my proposal i would be forced to pay attention all year, trying to finish as high as posible. Cam i know your not purposly tanking it this year. But what about next year? Rumour has it you have no plans to bring up Stamkos. If the new system was implemented, you could do that and no one would care. You could "forget" to make month end changes,and no one would care cause we would all be trying our best to move up that one more spot. I know $60 dollars is alot to spend on a pool,but it's still cheap entertainment. And don't forget if you win once that would cover 3 years at the very bottom.It would end up evening out. |
| Date | 2010-04-03 05:40 |
| Message | First of all to Dogg, my comments were definitely not directed at you and/or Cam... I just started the climb from the cellar and I'm well aware of the rebuild strategy that is a part of the pool. What I like about this proposal is that it seems that it will close the gap a bit between first and last place... the rebuilding teams won't sell out completely as Cam has mentioned, because the pressure to compete sooner is there... and the top teams in turn won't become so stacked. So the gap won't get as wide as it does currently (in theory). As for the teams quitting concern, I think the easiest way to safeguard from that is to have us all pay a year in advance... this way GM's have to give a years notice which gives us plenty of time to find a replacement... if they chose to quit without giving the notice, then we find a new GM to take over at 1 year with no cost. With my suggestion of the money going to the playoff pool, in theory the 8th place team could win some back... Last year Dan only edged me by a point in the playoff pool despite my team finishing in 8th place... things like PP picks being active during playoffs etc could open this up and potentially increase interest? |
| Date | 2010-04-03 05:29 |
| Message | (cont) That said, any system that promotes tanking is not a system that I would vote for. It's just not something that belongs in a pool like this. Do your best. I don't think it’s wrong to expect teams to ice their best roster. Look over the stats for 5 min at month end and don't just say "no change" without looking. That’s my biggest problem. Look at this month for example, why is Eric Johnson on the farm, why is Hejduk or Tim Thomas? The answer is that people didn’t spend any time looking at who is hot and who is not. Collin said as much in his last comment. If people want to do that then fine, but then punish them by moving them back in the draft order. Is there a way to fix the problem of no motivation? I don’t know but it is easy to see the correlation between time spent on research and winning. That’s why I don’t understand why people are cool with being in the pool but spending no time on it. You aren’t just going to luck into a winning team. |
| Date | 2010-04-03 05:25 |
| Message | For starters, Wiebe, you hear me screaming that phrase because I literally use it all around town. This idea has a lot of merit in that it attempts to motivate people to stay interested and do their best. There are two separate problems that need to be addressed here: tanking and lack of interest. CDogg is right in that we are not seriously trying to finish last. Finishing last has not entered into any of my decisions otherwise Luongo and Markov would have been traded for whatever I could get; a fact which has been presented to me numerous times. Every move I have made is with an eye on winning this pool as quick as possible. The main problem I see with this system is that it partially eliminates a legitimate rebuilding strategy that is used in all sports. Now that option is much more unattractive. Let's look at Rob’s team because he's staring some hard decisions in the face and may want to rebuild in a year or two. Now that strategy may not be an option for him. Maybe he just decides to quit rather than pay $40-60 a year for 2-5 years before he's competitive again. If someone wants to rebuild, why should they be punished? |
| Date | 2010-04-03 03:29 |
| Message | (continued from last post...) That being said, I also think that this is a good proposal. It would definitely prevent a team from ending up in the basement too often. It provides good incentive for a GM to want to rise to the top. As Phil said, the positives outweigh the negatives. Costwise I don't think the cost should get over $40. But I guess the cost isn't really too big of a deal as ideally with a scheme like this the cost per GM should somewhat even out over time (like playing poker w/ your buddies if everyone wins somewhat equally). Let's keep the discussion going. Sounds like a good idea to stimulate some movement from all GMs and preventing stagnation. But to me, this proposal has nothing to do with tanking, because I don't think the FHL has a problem with that. I think it has a problem with participation/excitement. Speaking for myself, its not that I don't enjoy this pool because I do immensely, its more that I simply don't spend the time and be proactive enough on it. P.S. I LOVE Goon's comment of "those of us on top." |
Page 330 of 550 << First < 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 > Last >>