Sign Guestbook Back to FHL
| Date | 2010-04-03 03:16 |
| Message | Ok, I have a number of things to say. First and foremost. I have not, nor ever will, tank my team. I don't appreciate this talk as if Cam and I are tanking (or a 'race for last place'  . As we have just discussed, I have every intent of icing my best roster every month and the (unfortunately) two times it happened it was by accident and it was corrected in the case when it was possible. I'll leave it at thatWiebe's proposal would definitely prevent people from trying to get last. In that sense it would prevent people from tanking, but as I just stated I don't think anybody is tanking. The obvious side effect is that it puts teams that need rebuilding into a difficult spot. I don't see why a team should be punished for being in the process of rebuilding. I guess what will happen is that it will just alter how teams rebuild. Long rebuilds (like mine has turned out to be) would not happen. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I didn't ever think a rebuild would take this long. But I guess that is it, this rule would prevent rebuilds like mine where a GM slowly rebuilds through draft picks. We would be forced to take a different approach. Again, not necessarily a bad thing. Speaking from experience, this rebuilding through the draft has been agonizingly slow. Also, this rule could very well prevent a trade like the Phillies/Terror trade early this year as the Terror may not want to go to the basement because it will 'cost him'. (to be continued) |
| Date | 2010-04-03 01:51 |
| Message | I am very interested in this possibility. I hate the fact that teams aren't trying to finish as high as possible and the dynamics are such that it's either feast or famine for many teams. They want to have a chance to finish first or if that's out of the question they'd rather get a better draft position. This dynamic is not present in the NHL. If monetary funds are the only way we can establish this kind of "finishing as high as you can in the standings" dynamic then I am in favor. There are only one or two counter arguments I can see against this proposal. 1)Certain GMs may have a personal financial position that motivates them. i.e. A GM that has a very well paying job wouldn't care to pay the extra (therefore giving them no motivation to finish higher anyway). And on the flip side a GM that is a student and doesn't have much wiggle room in their entertainment funds might find this rule quite restrictive and thus not enable them to enter into a proper re-building phase. (which is a current dynamic in the NHL - it's just that it's only the bottom 10%-20% in the NHL that is doing this, as opposed to the the 70-80% of the FHL folks that are tempted to be re-builders because of our current structure.) |
| Date | 2010-04-02 07:43 |
| Message | I've proposed similar systems in my other pool, but it's a bit of a different format. I think the positives may outweigh the negatives and the suggestion might be a good one. I think the money and system could be refined though. without too much thought I'd propose something like this: We all pay $20 at the beginning of the season. At the end of the season the bottom three teams pay the additional penalties of 6.)$10 7.)$20 8.)$40 ... Then this additional money either goes to our fun playoff pool making it a little more competitive (obviously we'd need to really refine the rules). or the money goes into the payout pool for the top teams. I'd probably give 4th place their money back now, and divide the last $50 between the top 3 teams somehow. This way, 1st through 4th would be making a profit or playing for free. 5th isn't being charged extra for the "Wiebe Tanking Levy" because they are not benefitting enough from their position. and it also drops 8th places cost to $40 from $60. |
| Date | 2010-04-02 05:09 |
| Message | Ran out of room on my last post. To summarize things up, i urge you all to thoughtfully consider this proposal. Don't just judge it based on where you are in the standings but on what would be best for the pool. The biggest plus i see to this system is that it would keep all GM's interested all season. The way it is now,the winner could be determined by Nov and poeple start looking towards the future and not caring about the current season. I look forward to hearing your thoughts Wiebe |
| Date | 2010-04-02 05:07 |
| Message | At first glance I see this suggestion by Jeremy as a very good solution to the issue of tanking. If you choose not to pay attention and not get your roster in, great, more money for those of us on top of the action and trying to win. If you want to sacrifice a few dollars over the years to finish last, that's fine to, since the money will be going towards those GM's actually trying to win. I think if you are trying to finish in the bottom 2 you should be punished. This move would be good for the overall good of the pool. |
| Date | 2010-04-02 04:52 |
| Message | I realize that i am the new guy here and the proper thing to do would be to remain silent and go with the flow. However after observing for a couple of months i have come to some conclusions. What kind of a pool is it where people are competing to finish as low as posible rather then as high? This seems wrong to me and i think i may have a solution.Instead of everyone paying $20 at the start of the season you would pay based on where you finished. For example 1st-prize money,2nd-prize 7th-pay$50,8th-pay$60. With a system like this if gm's want to tank it,go ahead. 7 and 8 can put in all there worst players and duke it out for last place.With a system like this the end of month deadline becomes a non issue. If you are late ,no changes.You only hurt yourself. Being late could move you down in the standings and cost you 10 or 20 bucks. With this syatem, not only would everyone be trying to finish higher rather then lower, but it would also keep people more interested all season. Now i can already hear Cam screaming"but i have a plan,why should i be punished for having a plan?". This system would not take effect till after next year. So at the start of next season we all pay our $20. Then before the next season we pay based on standings.That gives you time Cam to alter your plan or be prepared to pay up.You would not be forced to change your plan but it would cost you a bit. |
| Date | 2010-04-02 12:23 |
| Message | No changes for me.Sorry for being late. Please don't yell at me anymore Jeff. |
| Date | 2010-04-02 12:36 |
| Message | Ok - I have thoroughly confused myself here but I think I figured it out. My post below is wrong for the November roster moves. I made an announcement of Cheechoo and Mueller down for Benn and Brule, but then traded Drury so I actually left Mueller active. So my spreadsheet has the correct rosters and I think pickuphockey is correct, but what is wrong is that I had my own farm team wrong on my sheet. I thought Backlund and Benn was my farm team. So you can call me careless (or stupid) and slap my wrist but no purposeful tanking done on my part thanks. If it isn't too late I'll post my farm team now. I apologize for not posting it yesterday. I've had a very stressful week at work and it simply slipped my mind (especially brutal since I made a mental note at lunch to do it after I posted). I am perfectly fine with calling someone out for not making appropriate changes. April farm moves Stewart in for Berglund |
| Date | 2010-04-01 11:52 |
| Message | Sure, I'm fine with punishment I have to apologize for net getting my changes in in time but I could NOT access Pick Up Hockey yesterday. Did anyone else have that problem? Do i have the password wrong? I don't check nearly as often these days as I used to (for obvious reasons) but I do still want to keep my rosters up to date. |
| Date | 2010-04-01 08:44 |
| Message | I agree that Blazee's fist needs to become a little more iron, and then a little clarity on some rules would make this already great pool even better. |
Page 331 of 550 << First < 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 > Last >>