|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 2, 2014 14:21:11 GMT -5
The reason we are around still is because people are use to a certain system and don't enough time to manage a team. I would be trading away all my 90+ players under this system as they don't make that much of a difference anyway and 10 players rated 89 would be much better than 4 90+ players
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 14:31:03 GMT -5
The reason we are around still is because people are use to a certain system and don't enough time to manage a team. I would be trading away all my 90+ players under this system as they don't make that much of a difference anyway and 10 players rated 89 would be much better than 4 90+ players And that strategy would be available to you. But cranker would not give up all his 90s to do it, so he would be free to build his team differently. None of us know for sure what will or will not work on NHL 14, so I think giving people the option to have different strategies is a good thing. Right now, there is only 1 strategy. It does not work for everyone, and as I said, a change-up could get new blood in here, among 10 other immediate and future benefits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 14:35:21 GMT -5
It's been more then Canes asking for a change in the keeper system for quite a while. It goes back to when Quinn was the admin here.
People may be used to it, but doesn't mean they want it.
You just proved the point of this suggestion as well. YOU would get rid of your 90's players, OTHERS would take those, some wouldn't move their 90's. Think Cranker or anyone would give up Gretzky? No. So they would build their team around that player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins GM on Jan 2, 2014 14:45:56 GMT -5
I would be trading Crosby, Bossy, Weinhandl. There is no point to keeping players that 90-91-92 when a 89 player can be just as good. I don't think this would fly as I have already had people say they would quit if this is the way we are going. I'm not willing to lose long time members to add a few new members that would quit after 2 weeks. So I don't see this happening as the way it is proposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 14:51:32 GMT -5
I would be trading Crosby, Bossy, Weinhandl. And many GMs would be happy to accept those players from you. It would be a great way to get new activity into the league, and replace the useless GMs who threaten to quit if anything changes. People keep wanting more activity but refuse to change anything. You can't have it both ways. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 14:56:07 GMT -5
If we went this way? Why are are they not posting that in here? Why not explain why they do not like it.
People (several long time members) have been wanting a shake up for seasons and seasons.
This league is dry, they only way to have enjoyment is to get players 8 players you like, and then watch them perform every season year in and year out with different draft players and hope you win a cup.
Maybe the reason people leave after 2 weeks is because it's too hard to build a team. This league is generated for the people who have great teams already. It's not impossible, but you need to dedicate yourself to the site and be on almost every day trying to improve the team. People simply don't have the time to do that.
I'm not trying to bash this league, it's the best ever. However, even Wayne Gretzky could have been a better hockey player.
Sure, there are going to be teams with the same 6-8 players, there is no way in a "keeper draft" format to prevent people from locking up players and never moving them.
This however at least opens up the trade talk more, because there are more avenues to building a good team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 14:58:35 GMT -5
Heck, I recall that a while ago, everyone was wanting a big change to the keeper leagues, but then Quinn came in, said he would quit if anything changed, and so everyone sorta backed down.
Also, want to know why people are wanting to quit, because it hurts their team. People need to learn to be objective, look at suggestions without having their roster open in another tab.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Admin Account on Jan 2, 2014 15:14:09 GMT -5
Once again, this system needs to be modified. I am for it, I don't understand how you are even remotely trying to claim I'm against change, the way you have it is too much. The fact that you completely ignored my input makes me think this is more then just change. This is you trying to get punish some top teams for having good players. That's the vibe I'm starting to get, especially since you aren't open to any sort of change in your system whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Devils GM on Jan 2, 2014 15:17:39 GMT -5
Instead of making it a base at 90, where you lose keeper slots if you hold 90+ and gain if you have a 89 or lower, why not make the overall groups worth an X amount of keeper slots?
95+ = 3 slots
91-94 = 2 slots
87-90 = 1 slot
Something like that? Or give it a point system where each overall is worth something and each keeper slot is worth something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 15:19:13 GMT -5
This whole "you are just punishing good teams" argument again?
You realize Cranker that this would hurt both me and Canes right? We just see this would be better for the league, and that's what the whole goal is, to make this site better so people don't come in and leave after a week because they are bored.
This has nothing to do with hurting anyone, or helping anyone, it's simply trying to improve the league. I know it's strange, but not everything needs to have an agenda attached to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 15:19:37 GMT -5
the way you have it is too much. The fact that you completely ignored my input Your proposed modifications completely changed the suggestion. It once again takes out the strategy component and just gives people with 4 90s another way to keep their teams in tact without any loss. The system I proposed, as I said, gives VERY SPECIFIC value to every individual player over 90 you acquire or think about acquiring. Your changes do not do that, they just say, "you can have max. this, max that" without the same strategy dynamic that makes the core suggestion interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 15:21:00 GMT -5
Instead of making it a base at 90, where you lose keeper slots if you hold 90+ and gain if you have a 89 or lower, why not make the overall groups worth an X amount of keeper slots? 95+ = 3 slots 91-94 = 2 slots 87-90 = 1 slot Something like that? Or give it a point system where each overall is worth something and each keeper slot is worth something. See, now this is still keeping in line with my suggestion, so this I can work with. Are you saying you lose 3 spots of the default 8 if you have a 95+? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 15:22:04 GMT -5
Instead of making it a base at 90, where you lose keeper slots if you hold 90+ and gain if you have a 89 or lower, why not make the overall groups worth an X amount of keeper slots? 95+ = 3 slots 91-94 = 2 slots 87-90 = 1 slot Something like that? Or give it a point system where each overall is worth something and each keeper slot is worth something. What do you mean? Like a 95+ would use up 3 of your keeper slots etc? So 95, 91, 91 would be 7 slots correct? If so, I like that as well |
|
|
|
Post by New Jersey Devils GM on Jan 2, 2014 15:29:26 GMT -5
Going off the suggest, yeah. 95+ would take up 3 of the default slots. I think adding an addition keeper might help though. Not sure how many 95+, or 94, etc. we have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jan 2, 2014 15:31:37 GMT -5
Going off the suggest, yeah. 95+ would take up 3 of the default slots. I think adding an addition keeper might help though. Not sure how many 95+, or 94, etc. we have. Yes, I would like numbers on that too. I would guess we only have 2-3 players over 95 (Orr, Gretzky, and maybe Lemieux?) Guys like Howe and Sakic are only 92ish. |
|
