Sign Guestbook Back to FHL Report abuse
| Date | 2009-06-24 08:59 |
| Message | Not bad ideas. Another option, we protect x number of players and the rest go into the free agent pool and can selected during the draft. Only one player per team can be lost a year. Forgive me if this idea is no good, I just finished a crushing accounting exam so my head is running on fumes but I guess the time is now to be creative. Other thoughts, I like keeping the draft at three rounds but adding another midseason pick and dividing the season into thirds. And if we want to keep the value of prospect picks, we can add a rule so prospects can't be taken in the regular draft (just a thought, Phil). |
| Date | 2009-06-24 08:21 |
| Message | the changes still don't address one of rob's concerns, which was that there are no incentives for the middle of the pack teams. this is a tough one, i have yet to see a real good solution for this in any keeper pool. nevertheless.. i'll try.. (please shoot this down, it screws my team over) at the end of each year, we each protect x number of players, and the team that finished below us picks a free agent from our teams. 1st would pick from 8th (time to wiggle out of 8th place Philly  )..this creates major incentive to finish anywhere from 2nd to 5th/6th, and the bad teams still get the bonus of high picks.. it makes it a lot harder to stay at the top for a long time. |
| Date | 2009-06-24 08:14 |
| Message | the proposal of moving from 4 picks to 7 per year seems a bit drastic in my opinion. each team has between 12 and 20 assets of value. with active rosters only being 20 deep, even the worst team is only 3 years away from bulking up their asset pool with good drafting in their prospect, first rounder and midseason picks. rebuilding takes time (it took me 5 years to build). no matter how many picks we have, the teams that spend 20 hours mulling over each pick will still be better than those who try to pick existing FHL players. (couldn't resist) i spent the better part of an august camping trip one year trying to decide between Ryan Miller and Ryan Whitney. but that's just me, and i don't get out much... one thing i really like about this pool is that there is so much riding on every pick. watering down the significance of each pick is a small downside for me. have you guys seen the free agent pool? how many 4th rounders are really going to improve your team? phil's idea of stashing a player is interesting, but only becomes a dilemma when picks are just a tiny bit scarce. i like the plan of replacing the existing midseason with an end of November draft and an end of January draft, but i'm stingy and prefer to stick with a three round redraft. |
| Date | 2009-06-24 07:38 |
| Message | I thought it was the offseason. This is more reading than I did all last semester in school. |
| Date | 2009-06-24 07:25 |
| Message | My initial thoughts * I like the idea of having two mid-season drafts at the thirds rather than three at the quarters. I think we should make incremental changes and not a whole bunch as too many could make it more difficult to see what works vs what doesn't * As a rebuilding GM I am in favour of additional picks via an additional round. This will obviously decrease the rebuilding time. I have been rebuilding for over two years with at least another two on the horizon before I aim to be competing. That is just too long for a pool of this type. One additional round plus the additional mid-season round suggested above would be more than enough (again, don't want to be making too many changes at once) * I would prefer to keep the value of a prospect pick high. It adds a great dynamic to the pool and I wouldn't want to see them devalued. So the one round prospect draft should remain as is. The additional round suggested above allows for more options for activating prospects when you are rebuilding * A crazy idea to decrease the gap between first and last is to perhaps decrease the number of active players allowed to perhaps 10f, 5d, 2g (with a 24 player limit at the start of the season rather than 27). This would add more depth to league. Doing this would nullify the need for additional drafting rounds of course. Just an idea. Opposite of what The Count (Bettman) would do  |
| Date | 2009-06-24 04:51 |
| Message | After taking a few days to consider the recent proposal I have these thoughts. 1.I agree with Phil in that no matter what rule changes are made some GM's will continue to have less interest than others. Rule changes should be made for the betterment of the FHL, not with the goal of baiting certain GM's into being more active. 2.Trade activity will decline. With 7 picks at our disposal a GM can turn over over half of his roster in 2 years by simply drafting. A GM can isolate himself from the outside world, and quietly make his picks without any trade activity required to turn over his roster. If the idea is to increase interest in trade activity I think this proposal is wrong. 3. The value of risky or aging players increases. There would be ample opportunity to get rid of an older player who doesn't turn out. 4.More and more prospects would be eaten up by draft picks reducing the value of prospect picks. 5.Adjusting the timing of the midseason around the world juniors is of no value. Only 1 GM has traditionally based his selections on that tourny and a rule adjustment simply for that is not warranted. 6.If increasing the number of picks available is the consensus, then I would rather see the redraft remain at 3 rounds, and 1 pick be added sometimg during the season, possibly at the 1/3 point, with the other pick being at the 2/3 point of the season. |
| Date | 2009-06-24 02:34 |
| Message | So... in light of all that rambling... here's what I suggest looking at: Add the 3 rounds of picks. Add one round to the redraft, bringing it to 4 rounds. Add one round to the midseason draft. Add the 3/4 single round draft. Move the midseason draft earlier to the Christmas break. Two reasons for the date change: 1. A little earlier in the season should mean that point spreads will be a little closer and the value increases. 2. Having the midseason draft before the WJHC evens the playing field on drafting prospects. Now here's the biggie. Allow GM's to chose during the midseason draft whether the player drafted (if eligible) will go to their active roster OR their prospect bench. By giving the option to put the player to the Prospect bench you are substantially changing the value of the picks. The top end teams have a serious decision on how they draft, if they draft a prospect the other competing teams gain substantial ground on them. If they draft an active player the bottom teams gain substantial ground long term on them. For the bottom teams, because they have the higher picks they get the better prospects and gain ground on the top teams either way. Having a deeper prospect bench helps speed up the rebuild process. |
| Date | 2009-06-24 02:01 |
| Message | read the comments below first.... As it stands right now, the value of a 2nd round pick for the Dukes is basically 0, if we were to add 4 rounds he would just trade them or pass. I like the idea of adding the drafts at the quarter marks to spread out the fun... but I'm not sure if it changes much... the first quarter draft doesn't do much because interest is generally high going into the season. The 3/4 draft is really just a preview of the summer draft and might actually suck a little when it comes to planning out strategies for the summer if all the sudden the depth of players available in the summer gets stolen from... that said if you draft well in this pool you'll be fine... Which brings me to a potential problem with the extra picks... if we're looking to close the gap between top and bottom teams I'm not sure adding more rounds is the way to go. If GM A has an advantage over GM B in his fantasy hockey knowledge, the more draft rounds you have the greater the gap becomes... not vice versa... so with this logic applied, really the worse teams should fall further off the map. (this is negated somewhat by the earlier idea that the depth in drafts helps rebuilding teams speed up the process). So... there's more than enough of my feedback. Coming up next: My proposal... |
| Date | 2009-06-24 01:48 |
| Message | Well I was waiting to hear some other thoughts cause I'm always the first in on these things. I like the idea of adding picks to speed up the rebuilding process, and close the gap between GM's. I'm not sure it will create more interest in the pool necessarily because in my fantasy hockey experience, interested and active GM's are active regardless of the rules, number of picks etc... sure there are periods in the year that are less active/interesting but on the whole it's not usually the rules that create the interest. Now that said here's my comments on the proposal specifically... Adding more picks will allow the bottom feeder rebuilding teams to take more risks and pick more younger players early which should in effect speed up the rebuild process if used effectively. Adding picks will decrease the value of prospect picks because the pool of eligible players will decrease substantially. Players that get passed on in the previous year but still have roy eligibility will get scooped in spring and in turn weaken the talent available in the much more valuable position of prospect status. It doesn't create tough decisions for the top GM's, if they don't want to use the pick they don't have to so it's not like there's any gap closing from that end. I don't think the value of the extra picks makes regular draft picks value drop, instead for the GM's who don't need them their value is 0 and the original pick values remain unchanged. to be continued... |
| Date | 2009-06-23 04:54 |
| Message | One question - would this be a permanant change or only for this upcoming season? |
Page 415 of 549 << First < 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 > Last >>