| Date | 2009-03-15 10:19 |
| Message | my only problem with further expansion is that it creates more middle of the pack spots in the standings.. i don't think we NEED expansion at all, the current group is active and involved.. depth is relative, goon's right shut yer yap if shallow D is an issue for you... i have the market cornered already on 20 pt d men already, so you could say i'm well prepared.. at the very least, we've got some options in the event cam goes off the deep end this summer.. made any sense of the playoff feedback yet, brown? |
| Date | 2009-03-14 09:13 |
| Message | 2 of the best goals I've seen all year scored by Hank sedin last night. The Canucks look really good. Vancouver v Jersey finals? |
| Date | 2009-03-13 07:04 |
| Message | there's not much depth available on d.. |
| Date | 2009-03-13 03:46 |
| Message | The people I have talked to may be open to coming in without any type of dispersal draft, as was Phil when he signed on. The argument of a lack of depth available, especially on d is something I dont want to hear, and is simply not true. Every year there are easily 3-4 defencemen who step up and another 3-4 excellent prospects available on d. The GM's that can sift through the player lists and identify the talent will be able to land 6-7 solid NHL defencemen that can contribute to a contending NHL franchise. There's several number 1 goalies still available and we all know there are always forwards available. Expansion isn't as scary as some may think. |
| Date | 2009-03-13 03:04 |
| Message | I don't know if the FHL can withstand more expansion through dispersal drafts. This would of course evaporate all the hard work I have done in the past couple of years in my building phase. If we were to decide on more expansion I would want to start all over (note that I do not want to do that) |
| Date | 2009-03-13 01:14 |
| Message | I have 2 guys who have voiced that they would love the opportunity to be a part of the FHL. I am fully open to more expansion, as it increases the trading options available, and bringing in new enthusiasm always helps. |
| Date | 2009-03-13 12:43 |
| Message | I vote for: No reversible trades. They're either permanent or non-existent. I'm happy with our traditional format of dropping/raising players - i stand by my orignal point that this is one of the few opportunities last-place GM's to get some hardware -- if just happed to have several mediocre guys on a stanlel cup team, we can actually do well. Several non-championship teams have picked up the FHL playoff trophy in the past. I like an incentive to for the playoff pool -- 5 buck or the winner doesn't have to pay the 20 bucks to the FHL champ that year. As already has been noted, an extra redraft pick rewards them -- this is the opposite of how the FHL works, where the better you do, the lower you pick. |
| Date | 2009-03-13 07:49 |
| Message | As for the playoff debate 1. Shortened roster - I am ok with this 2. No drops - Also ok with this 3. No money - I don't mind putting in $5 because hey... it is only $5 Other items: 1. Trades - I vote against this. I would just complicate matters. 2. Supplemental draft - I'm not sure exactly what this means. If it means choosing players temporarily that are free agents, then I would vote no as those picks are usually slim. Only the first few picks are usually good and that will throw everything out of wack 3. Phillies new idea of the bonus points for filling out the play off bracket - Depends what 'bonus points' means. I don't like Dukes suggestion of a getting another draft pick as this could possibly allow the 'rich to get richer' so to speak |
| Date | 2009-03-13 07:33 |
| Message | My vote is also B then (of course) A I also thought of the Phillies point where someone else has the draft pick of the GM in question and that person would end up getting punished. Or even if the GM doesn't have any picks at all (this has almost happened a few times in the league). This obviously cannot happen so I imagine that it would have to be something like they just slide down to last pick from whichever pick was used in a trade. i.e. if the person finished fourth but traded their pick to the person who finished seventh. Rather than getting the 2nd overall pick they would slide to the bottom. Something like this but we can't cover all the fringe cases with this rule so I imagine that we'll have to settle the rest with votes |
| Date | 2009-03-12 07:58 |
| Message | My vote for the tanking rule: I agree with Duke and Goon; this year b, from now on a. Good pt by Philly though. |