Keeper Debate Thread (Warning - Debate)

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Option1 11 Default keepers. Different value per player protected, based on rating (example: 88-89: 1 slot, 90: 2 slots, 91-94: 3 slots, 95+: 4 slots).
Option 2 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)
and I an sure we can come up with a 3rd option for voting purposes

[Justin]

Can we get a repost of numbers on how many of what we have of each of the high numbers league-wide? At least the big numbers, like how many 92s, 93s, 94s, 95s, 96s? Cause that should be a large factor in determining their protect value.

[Justin]

Also, I think 16 protects is an absurd number, pretty much any way you slice that.

[Justin]

This is a debate thread. There will be debating, arguing, differences of opinion, etc. Please keep discussion on topic, and avoid personal attacks. Especially attacks against cor99, who is simply too easy a target. Thank you.

The following option was the most popular on the Keeper Modification poll:

Option 3: 11 Default keepers. Different value per player protected, based on rating (example: 88-89: 1 slot, 90: 2 slots, 91-94: 3 slots, 95+: 4 slots).

So now we are looking to discuss options to fine-tune it.

[The Admin Account]

So I like option 2.

[Justin]

I thought we had an issue with people having a team of 10 89s. But we are okay with a team having 16 87s? Ummm.....

[Calgary Flames GM]

Let's just keep it the same because now we are making it to complicated and people won't want 90s because they want to keep their slots.

[The Admin Account]

I personally said 87s should be rated 2, Jm thinks they won't be able to compete against others top lines.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

under the other 2 systems they are free LOL

[Mike - Former Wild GM]

I would go with the 87 as well, was thinking this:

15 Slots
86 and lower = 1 slot
87-89 = 2 slots
90-92 = 3 slots
93-94 = 4 slots
95 and up = 5 slots

My team, for example, would look something like this:

C Ron Francis PLY 91 *Legend* = 3 points
C Dave Keon TWF 89 *Legend* = 2 points
C Milt Schmidt PLY 89 *Legend* = 2 points

So my top line would cost me 7 points. I now have 8 points left to spend.

RW Brent Burns PWF 87 = 2 points
D Niklas Kronwall TWD 89 = 2 points
D Alexander Edler TWD 85 = 1 point
RW Nathan Horton PWF 86 = 1 point
C Nazem Kadri PLY 85 = 1 point
C Ryan O'Reilly TWF 84 = 1 point

That would be all of my points used to keep a total of 7 forwards and 2 defenceman, or 9 players in total. If we made goaltenders a part of it, Ed Belfour G 89 would cost me 2 points and I would have to choose to lose either Burns, Kronwall OR 2 of Edler, Hornton, Kadri and O'Reilly.

Now, to prevent people would just stock-piling guys who are now 84 to 86, we could do a system something like the following:

20 Slots:
83 and lower = 1 slot
84-86 = 2 slots
87-89 = 3 slots
90-92 = 4 slots
93 and up = 5 slots

Looking at my same player comparables, my team would be the following:

C Ron Francis PLY 91 *Legend* = 4 points
C Dave Keon TWF 89 *Legend* = 3 points
C Milt Schmidt PLY 89 *Legend* = 3 points

Top 3 would cost me 10 points. Now, if I wanted to, I can protect 10 players who are rated 83, OR spend more points to keep better players.

RW Brent Burns PWF 87 = 3 points
D Niklas Kronwall TWD 89 = 3 points
D Alexander Edler TWD 85 = 2 points
RW Nathan Horton PWF 86 = 2 points
C Nazem Kadri PLY 85 = 2 points
C Ryan O'Reilly TWF 84 = 2 points

Those six players would cost me 14 points, so two would have to go into the draft. I would still prefer that goaltenders be auto-protected.

With my second option here, the keeper slots can be upped, but I think that if you made guys 93 and over be worth 5 points, and you have 20 points to spend, you can either try and play around with it and build a team with some depth or a mix of talent and lower end guys you just REALLY like and don't want to lose, or go for broke with 4 top tier players (not even enough for a full line).

Obviously, making decisions like that be up to the GM places are more involved process for members on the site to enjoy and strategically build their clubs.

Thoughts?

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

Jan 8, 2014 3:01:26 GMT -5 Justin said:

Can we get a repost of numbers on how many of what we have of each of the high numbers league-wide? At least the big numbers, like how many 92s, 93s, 94s, 95s, 96s? Cause that should be a large factor in determining their protect value.

6 - 95+
2- 94's
1- 93
14- 92's
14- 91's
18- 90's

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

If we break things down too far this will become way to complicated, But here goes the debate for a week again

15 Slots
86 and lower = 1 slot
87-89 = 2 slots
90-92 = 3 slots
93-94 = 4 slots
95 and up = 5 slots

this would be fine though, if we really need 87's as 2

[The Admin Account]

Jan 8, 2014 11:55:30 GMT -5 Pittsburgh Penguins GM said:

If we break things down too far this will become way to complicated, But here goes the debate for a week again

15 Slots
86 and lower = 1 slot
87-89 = 2 slots
90-92 = 3 slots
93-94 = 4 slots
95 and up = 5 slots

this would be fine though, if we really need 87's as 2

I feel 16 slots is more doable but make 87s worth 2.

That way a team can have 8 89s as an option.


Also if there are only 3 93=94s, i feel they should just have the same value as 95+, since there are so few, but that doesn't matter that much.

[The Admin Account]

Jan 8, 2014 11:45:26 GMT -5 Mike - Former Wild GM said:

I would go with the 87 as well, was thinking this:

15 Slots
86 and lower = 1 slot
87-89 = 2 slots
90-92 = 3 slots
93-94 = 4 slots
95 and up = 5 slots

My team, for example, would look something like this:

C Ron Francis PLY 91 *Legend* = 3 points
C Dave Keon TWF 89 *Legend* = 2 points
C Milt Schmidt PLY 89 *Legend* = 2 points

So my top line would cost me 7 points. I now have 8 points left to spend.

RW Brent Burns PWF 87 = 2 points
D Niklas Kronwall TWD 89 = 2 points
D Alexander Edler TWD 85 = 1 point
RW Nathan Horton PWF 86 = 1 point
C Nazem Kadri PLY 85 = 1 point
C Ryan O'Reilly TWF 84 = 1 point

That would be all of my points used to keep a total of 7 forwards and 2 defenceman, or 9 players in total. If we made goaltenders a part of it, Ed Belfour G 89 would cost me 2 points and I would have to choose to lose either Burns, Kronwall OR 2 of Edler, Hornton, Kadri and O'Reilly.

Now, to prevent people would just stock-piling guys who are now 84 to 86, we could do a system something like the following:

20 Slots:
83 and lower = 1 slot
84-86 = 2 slots
87-89 = 3 slots
90-92 = 4 slots
93 and up = 5 slots

Looking at my same player comparables, my team would be the following:

C Ron Francis PLY 91 *Legend* = 4 points
C Dave Keon TWF 89 *Legend* = 3 points
C Milt Schmidt PLY 89 *Legend* = 3 points

Top 3 would cost me 10 points. Now, if I wanted to, I can protect 10 players who are rated 83, OR spend more points to keep better players.

RW Brent Burns PWF 87 = 3 points
D Niklas Kronwall TWD 89 = 3 points
D Alexander Edler TWD 85 = 2 points
RW Nathan Horton PWF 86 = 2 points
C Nazem Kadri PLY 85 = 2 points
C Ryan O'Reilly TWF 84 = 2 points

Those six players would cost me 14 points, so two would have to go into the draft. I would still prefer that goaltenders be auto-protected.

With my second option here, the keeper slots can be upped, but I think that if you made guys 93 and over be worth 5 points, and you have 20 points to spend, you can either try and play around with it and build a team with some depth or a mix of talent and lower end guys you just REALLY like and don't want to lose, or go for broke with 4 top tier players (not even enough for a full line).

Obviously, making decisions like that be up to the GM places are more involved process for members on the site to enjoy and strategically build their clubs.

Thoughts?

I think we need to look at it this way, what projected lines would look like.

[Pittsburgh Penguins GM]

I'm not worried about projected lines. I am only worried about teams having more than 8 88-89 players and teams being able to afford more than 3 90+ player with severly handicapping themselves. That is all I am worried about right now