Sign Guestbook Back to FHL
| Date | 2009-11-14 02:12 |
| Message | Fellow GMs - I would like to start a discussion about this ability for a team to go below the maximum number of active players. I am, of course, refering to the fact that the Terror currently only have 11 active forwards. I would like to make it clear that I am not raising this issue because I'm mad. If it is a rule (or lack of a rule) then it is a rule and I will not push for any changes this year. The problem, as I see it, is that the ability to (for example) go below 12 active forwards means that there is a way to essentially tank your team. I don't like the term tank here as it has a negative connotation and I don't believe that is what the Terror are doing. However, it is allowing a GM to essentially do poorly on purpose. One way to put this is... what is preventing the Dogg's from trading away all the players that don't fit into the long term picture of the team away for nothing? Then I could be running a minimal roster, 'do poorly', and then say the same thing the Terror said in "Taylor Hall here I come!" I have it on good word that at least two GMs share the same sentiments as I do. I would imagine that most GMs will feel the same way that I do in that if it isn't a rule right now then nothing can be done for this year, but I would propose that we institute the rule for next year. I will leave it at that for now and wait for your comments |
| Date | 2009-11-13 03:37 |
| Message | It would be more appropriate to drive to LA and burn down Kopitars house or drive to Washington and burn down Backstroms and Greens homes. Dan could be homeless and his players would still get the points. We need to target his actual players.  |
| Date | 2009-11-13 01:13 |
| Message | BTW, I'm loving how close the race between second and sixth spots is...not sure how I feel about Dan running away with the lead already. What can we do? You know, other than driving to Okotoks and burning his house down? (which I am referring to as "Plan B"  |
| Date | 2009-11-13 12:09 |
| Message | I see that Thomas DID get the 3 points for a shutout. Anyway, if nobody gets the one point for a S/O loss I suppose it's equal for all of us. |
| Date | 2009-11-13 10:10 |
| Message | Currently we don't have the ability to give goalies a point for a shoot-out loss - isn't an option on pick up hockey. When the standings are really tight we'll give it a look to give teams their proper spot. |
| Date | 2009-11-12 11:11 |
| Message | Rick Rypien's destruction of Brad May tonight has quickly moved him up my midseason rankings. I think I may be getting very close to solidifying a name for the back of my Canucks jersey. If Bieksa would get rid of the casual attitude and get to the beatdowns a bit quicker he may warrant some consideration as well. I love hockeyfights.com |
| Date | 2009-11-12 06:23 |
| Message | Should be 3 points for the shutout and 1 point for the shootout loss. |
| Date | 2009-11-12 05:28 |
| Message | I'm watching the Florida/Boston game in 0-0 o/t right now and wondering what happens when your goalie loses in a shoot out but does't let in a shot during the game? Shut out but no win? I guess I'll find out tommorow on the pick-up hockey stats...unless Boston wins I guess. |
| Date | 2009-11-12 08:31 |
| Message | HA! Awesome. The Cheechoo train is at max value. Crazy stat in the Wings game last night 7 detroit players scored their 3rd goal of the year in the game... |
| Date | 2009-11-12 07:13 |
| Message | I'll trade you Cheechoo for Zetterberg. Cheechoo is on fire with 1 goal in his last 1 game. |
Page 382 of 550 << First < 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 > Last >>