Keeper Modification

[Mike - Former Wild GM]

There will obviously be concerns with whichever formula is used, but the nice part is that teams will have options no matter which formula we use. So as much as you might find something to be odd, someone else might see that as completely acceptable. Because if we're still doing the "you lose the next five highest rated players" someone might say "well shit, i can keep my 4 90+ rated players and still have guys rated 85 on my team."

OR

Drop the draft picks down to three selections, so you can keep some really amazing top talent, and you'd only lose your next best three.

But anyways, there will always be a concern with any idea that is used, just as there are concerns about the current formula. But this will allow the league to show where their heads at with wanting to progress from it, so I would probably stop bashing all of the ideas and just let this play out so that you can collect the data and progress, otherwise you're just tainting your own experiment.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

I like 2. It allows me 4 players 90+ and one 88-89 Or 3 players 90+ and 3 88-89. I can live with that. The other ones really handcuff me with 3 90+ players. with option 1 I would only have 4 keeper players. Option two allows me 6 keepers and Option 3 allows me only 4 keepers also. So I am going with Option 2 foresure. With that I will already have to give up 2 88 players to the draft. It will all balance out over time though. No worries. May take a season or two but everybody will figure what works for them. It will be fun

[The Admin Account]

Jan 5, 2014 14:04:05 GMT -5 Pittsburgh Penguins GM said:

I like 2. It allows me 4 players 90+ and one 88-89 Or 3 players 90+ and 3 88-89. I can live with that. The other ones really handcuff me with 3 90+ players. with option 1 I would only have 4 keeper players. Option two allows me 6 keepers and Option 3 allows me only 4 keepers also. So I am going with Option 2 foresure. With that I will already have to give up 2 88 players to the draft. It will all balance out over time though. No worries. May take a season or two but everybody will figure what works for them. It will be fun

I'm fine with that, i think it just needs to be modified to not allow 10 89s vs 4 91s and 1 89 or 9 90s lol

We can still figure out a system that allows only that, but limits those loop holes

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Option 2 should have read 90+ not 91+ but that is fixed

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

I like it with 9slots . There has to be a price on higher rated players and line had to be drawn someplace. The extra one point for having only players under 90 I don't think will make that much of a difference. Though. I like all of then exactly like they are. I don't want a two week debate on fixing it and then having another poll on this again for the adjustments. We need to make a move and go with it.

[Justin]

Jan 5, 2014 15:44:51 GMT -5 Pittsburgh Penguins GM said:

Option 2 should have read 90+ not 91+ but that is fixed

That was what was in Mike's original suggestion, but it can be 90+ if that is a deal breaker. The basis for that suggestion stays true to our aims here, regardless.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

well the whole discussions have been based on what to do about the 90+ players. So I just went with that

[Mike - Former Wild GM]

if everyone agrees that even 89 rated players are impactful, then go from that number and onward. 88 and lower is just extremely high complimentary players in that regard, so yeah tinkering will still come but it's nice that something is being decided upon if the league wants to move forward with a change.

another thing to consider is that if it's a failed experiement, it can always return to what it currently is.

[The Admin Account]

Jan 5, 2014 20:00:14 GMT -5 Mike - Former Wild GM said:

if everyone agrees that even 89 rated players are impactful, then go from that number and onward. 88 and lower is just extremely high complimentary players in that regard, so yeah tinkering will still come but it's nice that something is being decided upon if the league wants to move forward with a change.

another thing to consider is that if it's a failed experiement, it can always return to what it currently is.

It's not about that number, even 4 89s and 10 88s is unfair lol. We aren't looking to gain minuses with a certain rating, that just loses value in that rating, instead they should have a 'salary' as in they cost 3 slots or whatever, but only allowing 11 slots just makes it the same thing as the other two options.

[Colorado Avalanche GM]

I think 88 and up is best. 87 and below are complimentary imo.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Option 3 was suppose to be more like this

16 Default keepers. Different value per player protected, based on rating (example: 85-87 1 slot 88-89 2 slot, 90-92 3 slots, 93-94: 4 slots, 95+: 5 slots)

This was the original idea behind it.

[Justin]

Option 3 was Devil's idea, with Colorado's numbers. No keeper amount was posted, so I posted a literal middle ground between my number (8) and cranker's number (15) giving us 11. I included every single suggestion from the thread that had the specific support of another member.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

That was the one me and cranker were working on. We were just trying to find a fair way to do it

[New York Rangers GM]

Again with this crap?! lol I thought we voted on changing the keeper format last season and we all voted to not change it. Why are we voting again to try and change it? Isn't this a waste of time? Sorry, I just don't see the point in this.

[Justin]

Jan 5, 2014 21:05:20 GMT -5 Pittsburgh Penguins GM said:

That was the one me and cranker were working on. We were just trying to find a fair way to do it

*Sigh* publicly, you weren't working on anything. You hated them all, except Mike's. I feel like we are back-peddling now on a whim, when this subject is very close to being resolved, and I am concerned a lot of my current trade talks are going to be for shit because of random changes in a poll that is very close to completed.

Right now, the poll is crystal clear. The terms are crystal clear. Adding changes in the poll thread is confusing and can muddy the results of the poll. If more was being decided, the discussion should not have been closed prematurely.