|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Dec 20, 2012 7:55:53 GMT -5
I could trade away my whole team and build a playoff team from just the players in draft every year. The players are there to do it and I have usually sent a PM out to every new teams letting them know that I am here to help them and there are zero stupid questions. I will guide them and them turn a team into a contender. But yes I have on many occasions traded higher rated players to bad teams to only have them move then for same depth type players they once had. I don't understand this "depth players" argument. You always trade superstars for depth players on ManNHL. Always. |
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Dec 20, 2012 7:57:54 GMT -5
Could you see why I'm not sold on the idea on giving a member who rarely came on in the past 3 years Wayne Gretzky for depth in which I would just lose? If you HAVE Wayne Gretzky, you are the HAVES. You are not who this poll is directed at. If I had Crosby, Ovechkin, Nash, Gretzky, Lemieux, etc, I would have no interest in restarting either. But the majority of the league, from what I hear, are not the Haves. Only the staff are. Again, only what I hear. I am a neutral observer here. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Dec 20, 2012 7:59:39 GMT -5
I think pretty much every team has a few haves on there team. If they don't it is usually becuase they traded them for depth along the way
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:00:32 GMT -5
I think pretty much every team has a few haves on there team. If they don't it is usually becuase they traded them for depth along the way You did not answer my question regarding depth |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:04:18 GMT -5
I always trade for depth in Man because it usually workd for me there
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Dec 20, 2012 8:04:20 GMT -5
This is exactly what the members tell me comes up every time. And it sounds to me, the objective outsider, like the "Haves" telling the "Have-Nots" it's their fault their teams are weak. Yet the "Haves" started with teams like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, etc. Has anyone ever had a problem building THOSE teams into winners? Especially Pittsburgh, which is a sure-thing on any EA NHL game sim site. As I've said countless times, 2 Cups in 26 seasons is hardly anything to gawk about. By this logic the real-life NHL's all-time best teams are San Jose, Vancouver, Washington etc. for their regular season successes. I may just be a remarkably incompetent GM, but we'll leave that debate for another day. Again, just echoing the sentiments of those too afraid to speak out against the "Haves" in this league, as people have been banned from here for speaking out against them. Also curious as to who you're talking about here. 7897940977364658crosby was banned long ago for going around to other leagues announcing how awful our league was after we switched to no-cap (but has since returned and hasn't caused any stirs), and Kruze was banned for having a clit-fit during a draft after I picked someone for him who he asked for but decided long after the fact he no longer wanted said player. For all I know Kruze however has fallen off the face of the earth. I don't understand this "depth players" argument. You always trade superstars for depth players on ManNHL. Always. As for this, we're relating EA Sports and NHL 13 to your confidential simming game/method why? |
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:09:49 GMT -5
Yotes will start with say LW Legend Guy SNP 89. Since he's a good guy, he will look to help the guys you always hear complaining about not being able to get a top guy, and trade Legend Guy for say something like 84, 83, 82. Pretty good deal for the bottom feeder. Guess what they will do a week or so later? Trade Legend Guy to somebody for a worse return than the 84, 83, 82 he initially traded to get him. After that, 1 of 2 things happen with the guy who just traded Legend Guy. 1, he disappears for a long period, returns, starts complaining again, and more than likely, does the same thing. Or 2, he quits the league.
It's the same thing every time Former Ducks, which is why I think the 'haves' are all staff, because we've been here forever, and seen it happen so much. Another reason they probably aren't up for a restart because they feel like it's an easy out for those guys, which again, I know, sounds like a broken record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:10:44 GMT -5
As I've said countless times, 2 Cups in 26 seasons is hardly anything to gawk about. I may just be a remarkably incompetent GM, but we'll leave that debate for another day. Winning isn't everything. Maybe people want a shot at some of the superstars you locked up for those 26 seasons? Also curious as to who you're talking about here. 7897940977364658crosby was banned long ago for going around to other leagues announcing how awful our league was after we switched to no-cap (but has since returned and hasn't caused any stirs), and Kruze was banned for having a clit-fit during a draft after I picked someone for him who he asked for but decided long after the fact he no longer wanted said player. For all I know Kruze however has fallen off the face of the earth. If I were to reveal the names of the GMs I spoke with, it would kind of defeat the purpose of them asking me to act on their behalf now, wouldn't it? And banning people for disagreeing with you is not in any way democratic. This isn't Nazi-Germany. It's a bloody sim site. As for this, we're relating EA Sports and NHL 13 to your confidential simming game/method why? Because they are both fantasy hockey. You are implying now that in NHL 13, you cannot win on depth. Someone said earlier he DID win on depth...so...which is it? Is depth trading stupid, or does it get you a Cup? I don't think talking down about GMs who decide to trade for depth (since the Haves do not move any of the league's top players except to each other) is a respectable thing to do. Especially coming from the most Have-iest Have of the Haves. |
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:14:02 GMT -5
Yotes will start with say LW Legend Guy SNP 89. Since he's a good guy, he will look to help the guys you always hear complaining about not being able to get a top guy, and trade Legend Guy for say something like 84, 83, 82. Pretty good deal for the bottom feeder. Guess what they will do a week or so later? Trade Legend Guy to somebody for a worse return than the 84, 83, 82 he initially traded to get him. After that, 1 of 2 things happen with the guy who just traded Legend Guy. 1, he disappears for a long period, returns, starts complaining again, and more than likely, does the same thing. Or 2, he quits the league. It's the same thing every time Former Ducks, which is why I think the 'haves' are all staff, because we've been here forever, and seen it happen so much. Another reason they probably aren't up for a restart because they feel like it's an easy out for those guys, which again, I know, sounds like a broken record. The people I am speaking of are not former members. Many of them wanted a change in the previous suggestion thread that was ignored. Odds are now that so many staff have condemed the idea they will fear having their name in the "yes" vote box (since we ban for distension?) and will either not vote, or vote to keep it as is. But that;s their business I guess. I did what I can, in making the poll for them. My understanding is its the people's league here, so let's see what they want. If 25 teams want a shot at the 40 locked up super-legends held by the 5 mega-haves, now is their time to vote for a change. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:18:12 GMT -5
If we had empty teams all the time we might to forced into change. But that hasn't happened in 26 seasons yet. I have made other leagues to try and give people what they were asking for, but they are the same guys that walk away from that league stating they only have time for one league. Then they choose to stay here instead of there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wynne - Retired Flyers GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:28:03 GMT -5
Yotes will start with say LW Legend Guy SNP 89. Since he's a good guy, he will look to help the guys you always hear complaining about not being able to get a top guy, and trade Legend Guy for say something like 84, 83, 82. Pretty good deal for the bottom feeder. Guess what they will do a week or so later? Trade Legend Guy to somebody for a worse return than the 84, 83, 82 he initially traded to get him. After that, 1 of 2 things happen with the guy who just traded Legend Guy. 1, he disappears for a long period, returns, starts complaining again, and more than likely, does the same thing. Or 2, he quits the league. It's the same thing every time Former Ducks, which is why I think the 'haves' are all staff, because we've been here forever, and seen it happen so much. Another reason they probably aren't up for a restart because they feel like it's an easy out for those guys, which again, I know, sounds like a broken record. The people I am speaking of are not former members. Many of them wanted a change in the previous suggestion thread that was ignored. Odds are now that so many staff have condemed the idea they will fear having their name in the "yes" vote box (since we ban for distension?) and will either not vote, or vote to keep it as is. But that;s their business I guess. I did what I can, in making the poll for them. My understanding is its the people's league here, so let's see what they want. If 25 teams want a shot at the 40 locked up super-legends held by the 5 mega-haves, now is their time to vote for a change. K, so they are the guys that will complain, make a roster change ever like 2 weeks, not be seen for 3 weeks, return, and repeat? |
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:47:09 GMT -5
This is why I am posting all this and they are not. One post of one opinion, and I have no less than 4 STAFF members doing exactly what these GMs said they would do. They (the HAVES) swarm on the suggestion, like a flock of rabid birds, and toss out accusations. Blame the Have-Nots for having nothing...
My experience here sounds EXACTLY like what was described to me. 5-7 staff with good teams fighting loudly and aggressively to protect the teams they have locked up for 26 seasons now.
I have no further interest in being involved in this debate. The GMs I have spoke to have been here longer than "a few weeks" and I am pretty sure some of them have been here since this site launched. But not being an admin, there were unable to take Pittsburgh prior to this site's launch.
-------------------------------------
Anyways, all of this being said, this is not my fight. I have done my part. I have seen and felt exactly what these GMs have relayed to me, but since I am not a GM here, it doesn't mean anything at this time. I have nothing to lose.
If there are not at least 4 votes for "yes", then the gutless cowards who were too afraid to say anything publicly on this forum (and apparently rightfully so, since you admit to banning two guys just for disagreeing with staff) can quit or live with the site as-is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Dec 20, 2012 8:58:02 GMT -5
You really have a gift of blowing thing that are said way out of control. The two were booted for alot more than that. Most of staff on here want some kind of change as well. But a complete start over to get interest up and help out the guys that don't want to work to have a successfull team. not gonna happen. Weaker teams have won in EA Hockey. There hasn't been a dynasty in the league. I don't think we have ever even had back to back winners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Retired Ducks GM on Dec 20, 2012 9:03:51 GMT -5
You're missing the point. It's not about winning. It's about people having no hope in hell of ever EVER acquiring guys they want. When someone like Pens locks up Ovechkin and Crosby (the two most popular NHLers today), regardless of what legends are floating around, it takes a big punch out of the league. It's fantasy. Half the time, people just want to get guys they want/like.
And if staff want change too without a restart, why not do this:
Award each individual player a total of 7 Protects. Every Keeper draft they are kept, a protect is used. Then, you can still strategically keep who you want, but after 7 years, eventually you will have to move some guys.
Or even simpler, never allow a team to protect the same 8 players for 2 years in a row?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Dec 20, 2012 9:04:04 GMT -5
My experience here sounds EXACTLY like what was described to me. 5-7 staff with good teams fighting loudly and aggressively to protect the teams they have locked up for 26 seasons now. I can't speak for others obviously but the whole matter of having roughly the same roster for 26 consecutive seasons is a crock from my team's standpoint at least. I've had Zach Parise and Rick Nash for less than four months. I offered Ovechkin, Toews and Kane away in different trades during this past season and the subsequent off-season, and my offers were turned down. The only player whom I've never offered away or taken an offer on is Crosby. If there are not at least 4 votes for "yes", then the gutless cowards who were too afraid to say anything publicly on this forum (and apparently rightfully so, since you admit to banning two guys just for disagreeing with staff) can quit or live with the site as-is. Correction, no one was banned for "disagreeing" with staff. Keeping 78877878757565659657847crosby around while he was on every other league in existence at the time talking about how awful our league was and that others should bond against it wouldn't make very much sense at all, I think you'd agree. Since his return a little while ago he has been a model member as far as I'm concerned. As for Kruze, his aforementioned tantrum disrupted the peace and process of our draft and his presence was an unwelcome nuisance to all in attendance for it, to the point where nearly everyone there at the time asked me to ban him. Even though the argument in the thread you posted did get heated, nobody involved got banned as a result. Constructive criticism is always welcome. |
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*