|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:05:03 GMT -5
I like the idea of the suggestion, but not as it's presented, we aren't going with the exact system you proposed, so I wouldn't bother wasting any more time trying to sell it. A similar concept is intriguing though. If you change it the way you want to, you are removing the strategy component and just throwing a bunch of rules at people for no reason, solving no problems. You guys want ideas on how to breathe fresh life into this league, this is one way to do it. Adding restrictions is not. No, my modification literally fixes it, you seem to be stuck on not allowing any constructive criticism. "My way or the high-way" |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 4:11:13 GMT -5
What "problem" are you solving? I did not say there was a problem, I said I was crafting a strategy structure that created a brand new way of developing a team. Your "fix" just imposes rules on what you can hold onto. Rules that fit absolutely perfectly with your team of 4 90+ players, while keeping your favourite under 90 players as well.
I am looking at the greater good, here. I don't mind losing out on if it helps the league. Making people think, plan, and develop longer term strategies is a HUGE way to get new life here, rather than to stay stuck on the old, tired ways of 2008. I was under the impression when the former folks stepped down, this one would be open to more creative suggestions to help the league. I am not really seeing that here, as the "problem" you are solving is allowing teams with only under-90 players to not have the depth they need to compete with a 1-2 punch of Gretzky, Ohman, Lafleur / Roberts, Sundin, Mogilny.
Your modification is like if I suggested we bring Ben Smith in, and you said, sure, then brought in Joe Jones. It's not even kind of the same change anymore - just THAT something changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:15:03 GMT -5
W hat "problem" are you solving? I did not say there was a problem, I said I was crafting a strategy structure that created a brand new way of developing a team. Your "fix" just imposes rules on what you can hold onto. Rules that fit absolutely perfectly with your team of 4 90+ players, while keeping your favourite under 90 players as well. I am looking at the greater good, here. I don't mind losing out on players if it helps the league. Making people think, plan, and develop longer term strategies is a HUGE way to get new life here, rather than to stay stuck on the old, tired ways of 2008. I was under the impression when the former line stepped down, this one would be open to more creative suggestions to help the league. I am not really seeing that here, as the "problem" you are solving is allowing teams with only under-90 players to not have the depth they need to compete with a 1-2 punch of Gretzky, Ohman, Lafleur / Roberts, Sundin, Mogilny. I like the idea of the suggestion, but not as it's presented, we aren't going with the exact system you proposed, so I wouldn't bother wasting any more time trying to sell it. A similar concept is intriguing though. If you change it the way you want to, you are removing the strategy component and just throwing a bunch of rules at people for no reason, solving no problems. You guys want ideas on how to breathe fresh life into this league, this is one way to do it. Adding restrictions is not. Lol @ bold. Yes you crafted a structure, doesn't mean you perfected it. The 10 89s is a flaw when you can only have 4 90s then the next five players on both sides are even. Once again, as I clearly illustrated, the lineups I posted with my modifications make much more sense in comparison to yours. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:16:24 GMT -5
Your modification is like if I suggested we bring Ben Smith in, and you said, sure, then brought in Joe Jones. It's not even kind of the same change anymore - just THAT something changed. If you feel that way, then your suggestion is a no, and I'm suggesting something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 4:19:05 GMT -5
I disagree.
And you told me endlessly on another site how you traded SOOO MUCH for Gretzky. Is Gretzky worth 2 89s? 3 89s? So...why shouldn't a competing team be able to have 3 89s to compete with your Gretzky? Why is that unfair? And why are you so afraid of that level of depth?
Another question. When was the last time a team without a 90+ player last won the Cup here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 4:20:23 GMT -5
If you feel that way, then your suggestion is a no, and I'm suggesting something else. This is not a democratic answer, it is a dictatorial one, which is what I was told I would not have to deal with when you took over. You are one of only 2 people who have weighed in on this, and the other didn't care one way or another. Yet, you say "no", as though that is the be-all, end-all. And we wonder why activity is down...? I will say nothing further in this thread beyond fielding basic questions or clarifications from other members. I have said my piece, made my intentions to help clear, and have no need to continue arguing with people who are not interested in change without hearing what other people might have to say about it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:22:39 GMT -5
We like to argue we like we like to argue! If we don't get exactly our way, we like we like to argue!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:23:47 GMT -5
If you feel that way, then your suggestion is a no, and I'm suggesting something else. This is not a democratic answer, it is a dictatorial one, which is what I was told I would not have to deal with when you took over. You are one of only 2 people who have weighed in on this, and the other didn't care one way or another. Yet, you say "no", as though that is the be-all, end-all. And we wonder why activity is down...? I will say nothing further in this thread beyond fielding basic questions or clarifications from other members. I have said my piece, made my intentions to help clear, and have no need to continue arguing with people who are not interested in change without hearing what other people might have to say about it. Ummmmm... what on the bold exactly there buddy old pal? |
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 4:39:05 GMT -5
I disagree. And you told me endlessly on another site how you traded SOOO MUCH for Gretzky. Is Gretzky worth 2 89s? 3 89s? So...why shouldn't a competing team be able to have 3 89s to compete with your Gretzky? Why is that unfair? And why are you so afraid of that level of depth? Another question. When was the last time a team without a 90+ player last won the Cup here? Would like to address this part as well. I believe that wasn't endless and again over there, you twist words to get what you want, or you throw fits. Acquiring a top player in a trade is different when building a team. You pay a lot to get that one piece, then you start building up the next pieces. Not you get the one piece then say fuck the foundation, I'm good now. You clearly didn't understand what I was saying whatsoever if you are even trying to compare that. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 5:05:23 GMT -5
For simplicity sake for everyone, click here to see to the actual suggestion being discussed on this page. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike - Former Wild GM on Jan 2, 2014 6:32:59 GMT -5
I feel like this entire thread should have been a conversation between Canes and Isles before this was even posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 11:15:24 GMT -5
I feel he just isn't being open-minded to his own suggestion, which is very ironic then excusing/implying that I do not care once again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 11:54:29 GMT -5
I actually REALLY like this suggestion, and think this would improve the sit instantly.
My thoughts were that it instantly gives people more ways to build there team, you can have 4 elite players, you can have 10 well balanced players, and anything in between.
Right now, this league is get 8 players you like, then every season you get new middle/bottom of the lineup players from the draft.
I find the league to be VERY dry, and limited. There is only so much you can do.
If I have 10 89 players (which I doubt would happen at all) and it doesn't work, I'm not just swapping players, I can COMPLETELY change the way I build my team, but getting 1 or 2 elite players for my 89's.
Again, let's not just be scared of change here, I think we really need to give this a serious look.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 12:07:54 GMT -5
Let's clearly stop acting like I'm scared of change. As I've said, I like the suggestion, but it has major flaws, shown with the lines up posted.
Cor, a team will get 10 89s eventually, the exact same way everyone else got 8 88s+.
Also a mention to Canes with my 'restrictions.' I'm curious why you used this word, when any system would have restrictions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 13:04:29 GMT -5
Let's clearly stop acting like I'm scared of change. As I've said, I like the suggestion, but it has major flaws, shown with the lines up posted. Cor, a team will get 10 89s eventually, the exact same way everyone else got 8 88s+. Also a mention to Canes with my 'restrictions.' I'm curious why you used this word, when any system would have restrictions. Wasn't talking about you specifically. Just in general. |
|
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*
Jan 21, 2019 4:09:57 GMT -5
*